GMO debate shows big opinion gap between scientists, public over safety

A major restaurant chain eliminating foods containing genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) was sure to be controversial.

Chipotle Mexican Grillcontinues to get pilloried in mainstream and social media, accused of shrugging off the views of mostscientists who say thatfoods that contain GMOsare generally safe to eat.

• Genetically modified foods: aprimer

ButChiplotle'smovealso got support, notably in some business publications.

The Colorado-headquartered chain, which has over 1,800 locations, including some in Canada and other countries, has been something of a Wall Street darling.

Now the chain, which has "food with integrity" as its motto, says itwill no longer serve dishes made from GMO foods.(The policy doesn't apply to drinks, due to the sweetener in soft drinks which ismade fromGMO-corn.)In 2013,Chipotlebecame the first restaurant chain to disclose to itscustomers which menu items containedGMOs.

The popular investorwebsiteMotley Fool, after taking note of the media attacks onChipotle, following their GMO-freeannouncement on April 27, advised, "regardless of what side you're on, as an investor, you have to likeChipotleMexican Grill's decision to goGMO-freefor one very good reason: it's a smart business decision."

Business news iconBloombergcharacterized it as an unprecedented move "that may give it a marketing edge over fast-food rivals."

Part of a trend

Kelly Weikel, the director of consumer insights at market research firm Technomic, says this move is part of a trend by U.S. restaurant chains trying to appeal to consumers with perceived healthier ingredients. But she says Chipotle is the chain best-known for doing so, despite selling food that Weikel calls"not really very healthy," considering its abundance ofsalt, calories and fat.

So Weikel sees this latest move as, in part, staying ahead of the competition. "They have niche ownership of that healthy-food area so they really want to keep it and they're defending it by including the GMO" policy.

She says to expect more healthy-food initiatives in the foodservice sector. And transparency will be an increasingly important part of that trend.

Technomic's latest Canadian Healthy Eating Consumer Trend Report says foods described as "GMO-free may help appeal to consumers and drive incremental purchases." Sixty-twoper cent of Canadians say they are more likely to purchase a food described as GMO-free, with 24 per cent willing to pay more.

Scientists, public out of sync

To address what they perceive as the public's misperception of science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science in collaboration withPew Research conducted two surveys in the U.S., one of AAAS scientists and one of the general public.

One question askedwhether they "think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods." Of the scientists polled, 88 per cent chose "generally safe," but only 37 per cent of the public said the same thing.

The safety of eating GM-foods had the largest gap of any issue.

Cary Funk, who headed up the study team for Pew Research, points to the results of another question as suggesting a reason the GMO question had the largest gap in the two polls.

When the public was asked whether "scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified crops," only 28 per cent of those polled said scientists do have a clear understanding. What was striking for Funk was "how uniform opinion is among sub-groups," reflecting broad-ranging skepticism.

Now, when it comes to GMOs, it's worth remembering not to take everything at face value. The AAAS hadcome out in support of GMO foods. For example, during a referendum in California in 2012, on labelling GMO-foods,the AAAS issued a controversial statement that concluded, "Legally mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers."

And remember that Motley Fool endorsement of Chipotle's GMO move? The Motley Fool owns shares in the company.

Safety of eating GMOs not the key issue

For many GMO critics, the safety of eating GMOs is not at the top of their concerns.

In fact, Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) in Washington, says an emphasis on the food-safety issue has harmed the debate on GMOs. He argues "the overall framework of understanding the value or risk to society of genetic engineering goes way beyond the food safety risk."

The CFS is one of the leading anti-GMO organizations in the U.S.

If his concerns sustainable agriculture,biodiversity,the need for better regulation, labelling of GMOs, public domain technology versus patented were met, he's "OK with engineered traits, and some of them could be useful."

But, he adds, "other neglected agricultural methods like breeding and ecological farming are cheaper and more effective than genetic engineering."

Gurian-Shermanalso says that he thinks the public is justified intelling pollstersthat scientists don't really have a clear understanding of GMOs, given the uncertainties that accompany it, likeany new technology.

Compare his list to the three reasonsChipotle gives foritsGMO-free policy: the long term implications of GMOs are still under study; "the cultivation of GMOs can damage the environment;" and evidence of both harm to beneficial insect populations and the creation of herbicide-resistant superweeds.

One non-browning apple could spoil the bunch

And for fruit growers' groups who have come out against the non-browning apple, one of the latest geneticallymodified foods to win approval, their concern is not over safety but whether one non-browning apple could spoil the bunch.

They fear that with a public concerned about GMOs, a GM-apple could lead some people to avoid any applethat isn't labelled GMO-free.

Growers in Quebec and B.C. sponsored a 2012 poll that found 69 per cent of Canadians opposed to approval of the non-browning GM-apple.

• Arctic apple developed in B.C. approved for sale in Canada
• AUDIO: Food Fight: Canada's newly approved GM apple

Sylvain Charlebois, a professor at theUniversity ofGuelph'sFood Institute(but currently at the University of Innsbruck in Austria), says the non-browningapple presents an opportunity for the food industry.

Unlike most of the GMOs, the apple has a trait that consumers can see and understand and appreciate, he says. Soon, the prepared salads with applethey buy at the supermarket may not need special treatment to prevent browning, and the pre-sliced apples they get from fast food restaurants won't always have an edible film coating.

And he notes that unlike the "monster" companies usually behind GMOs, the apple is the work of a small, formerly Canadian, now American-owned, firm. He says thisperiod before the launch provides an opportunity for the company and the industry to make their case and "explain what the benefits of GMOs are, at home."

Charlebois points to several factors that may account for the divergent views of the public and scientists on GMOs: a poor PR strategy by the industry, inaccurate information from anti-GMO groups, and a lack of transparency in the approval process.

One step that could help overcome the transparency and education issues in North America, he argues, would be the labelling of foods containing GMOs.

A U.S. poll in December found two-thirds of Americans want mandatory labelling of foods containing GMOs, with just seven per cent opposed to the labelling. GMO labels are not mandatory in Canada orin the U.S.

Last week, theAssociatedPress reported that the U.S. government has in the works, a voluntary program (which producerswillpay for)thatcertifiesand labelsfoods that do notcontain GMOs.

Monsanto tries to changeits ways

Charlebois and a co-author have a study in the works on Monsanto, the biggest company in the GMO field. Monsanto is supporting their research.

Monsantois the number one target for the anti-GMO movement. On May 23, they will "once again, unite to March Against Monsanto." Events in 40 communities in Canada are listed.

Charlebois wants to "understand why Monsanto became the most hated company in the world," something Monsanto admits.

On the PR front, Monsanto concedes itmiscalculated. Charlebois says it was due to blind enthusiasm. He says that instead of educating the public, they annoyed a lot of consumers.

"Now they have to manage fears instead of managing facts."Charlebois says that when they interviewed employees at Monsanto's St. Louis headquarters, some were actually crying when they spoke about what their family members said about Monsanto.

Charlebois says Monsanto has now moved in another direction, becoming more transparent, trying to understand and engage consumers. Their CEO, Hugh Grant, told Charlebois that now anyone at Monsanto is allowed to talk to the media.

Charlebois hopesthose changes will lead to less divergent views on GMOs between the public and scientists.

The Pew/AAAS poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the AAAS. The survey of the general public was conducted by landline and cellular telephone August 15-25, 2014 with a representative sample of 2,002 U.S. adults. It has a +/-3.1 percentage pointmargin of error. The survey of scientists was conducted online from Sept. 11 to Oct. 13, 2014 and is based on a representative sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of AAAS, with a +/- margin of error of 1.7 percentage points.

The Canadian poll on the GM-apple was conducted by Leger Research for the Fdration des producteurs de pommes du Qubec and the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. 1,501 Canadian adults were surveyed online from June 26-29, 2012.

The poll on labellingwas conducted online Dec. 4-8, 2014 by Associated Press-GfK with 1,010 adults in the U.S. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

The companies say their samples for the public opinion polls were random and representative.

PHOTOS|Global march against Monsanto, 2015