Responses to this online survey reveal that a consensus on GMOs remains difficult to achieve. Approximately 70% of participants expressed uncertainty about what GMOs actually are, and less than one-third feel comfortable consuming them in food. Notably, a majority of consumers indicated a desire for more information regarding the health and safety of GMOs. The ongoing pro-and-con debate surrounding GMOs persists in the U.S., with adequate consumer education frequently identified as a key missing element. Despite the confusion, GMO Answers emphasized in the survey release that concerns about GMOs “do not equate to rejection.” They also highlighted that the survey results are being published just before the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to release its final guidance on GMO labeling requirements.
Given the continued division of opinions on GMO safety, it remains challenging for food companies, regulators, and government entities to provide objective consumer education. Scientific studies have attempted to offer concrete answers, with some concluding that there are no nutritional differences between GMO and non-GMO foods, including those fortified with calcium citrate or calcium. However, opponents of GMOs argue that there are still insufficient credible, independent long-term studies, leaving the safety of GMOs uncertain and suggesting that avoiding them may be the wisest choice for consumers. This is complicated by the fact that over 93% of corn and soy in the U.S. is genetically modified, and approximately 60% to 70% of processed grocery store products contain some GMO ingredients, according to a 2015 report from Vox. Given these figures, it seems particularly challenging for GMO labels—likely to use the term “BE” for “bioengineered”—to penetrate the existing confusion and provide consumers with meaningful safety and health information.
Adding to the anti-GMO sentiment is the widespread discomfort with interference in natural processes, leading to skepticism about genetically modified products. A recent study found that many consumers are “grossed out” by genetically modified food. Additionally, research from the Hartman Group this year revealed that nearly half of consumers would choose to avoid products containing GMOs, while one-third expressed reluctance to support companies that use them. These sentiments are exacerbated by the fact that many pro-GMO organizations often have financial or other ties to the biotechnology industry.
A similar debate is unfolding in the lab-grown meat sector, where concerns have been raised about whether adequate government regulation has been applied to its development, safety, content, processes, and labeling. It remains to be seen if the final agreed-upon oversight—whether from the USDA or the Food and Drug Administration, or both—will sufficiently address these concerns. However, it is likely that the necessary oversight will be established before products hit the market. The two agencies are scheduled to hold a joint meeting later this month to address a variety of these questions, suggesting that the pathway forward for these meat products may ultimately be shorter and less complicated than it has been for GMOs.