GMO labeling and consumer scientific knowledge

[Sargerasraider]

An interesting new study was released looking at popular opinion regarding GMO labeling while also looking at other potential markers of scientific knowledge and results are unfortunately both striking and not surprising:

http://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/news/gmo-knowledge-gap/

While consumers are aware of genetically modified crops and food, their knowledge level is limited and often at odds with the facts, according to a newly published study by a University of Florida researcher.

Last year, Brandon McFadden, an assistant professor of food and resource economics at the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural *Sciences, published a study that showed scientific facts scarcely change consumers’ impressions of genetically modified food and other organisms.

Consumer polls are often cited in policy debates about genetically modified food labeling. This is especially true when discussing whether food that is genetically modified should carry mandatory labels, McFadden said. In conducting their current study, McFadden and his colleague, Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University, wanted to know what data supported consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified food and gain a better understanding of preferences for a mandatory label.

So he conducted the survey to better understand what consumers know about biotechnology, breeding techniques and label preferences for GM foods.

Researchers used an online survey of 1,004 participants that asked questions to measure consumers’ knowledge of genetically modified food and organisms. Some of those questions tried to determine objective knowledge of genetically modified organisms, while others aimed to find out consumers’ beliefs about genetically modified foods and crops.

The results led McFadden to conclude that consumers do not know as much about the facts of genetically modified food and crops as *they think they do.

Of those sampled, 84 percent supported a mandatory label for food containing genetically modified ingredients. However, 80 percent also supported a mandatory label for food containing DNA, which would result in labeling almost all food.

“Our research indicates that the term ‘GM’ may imply to consumers that genetic modification alters the genetic structure of an organism, while other breeding techniques do not,” McFadden said.

As participants answered questions designed to measure their knowledge of scientific data on genetic modification, respondents seemed to change their statements about the safety of genetically modified foods, McFadden said.

80% of people also want a label for "DNA" in their food. Sigh.

Pubmed link for the study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199295

[vindicatorx]

What did you expect we in the US have been back peddling in our general science knowledge for a while now. Then again it doesn't help you have prominent people spreading bullshit and people are stupid enough to believe them. That is why we have the anti vaxers, evolution deniers, and general people who believe in magical men in the sky. The media purposely also spreads bullshit to scare the average mouth breather because it sells better as well.

[Aoyi]

The anti-GMO crowd is very similar to the anti-vaccine crowd. Once people have made up their minds that something is bad, its very difficult to convince them otherwise even when you present them with the facts/scientific data showing that both are safe. My wife works in the food industry (I previously did as well) and we've both heard from companies that distribute GM foods that its difficult to get consumers excited about those products even thouh they are no worse for you than the organic counterparts. I've sampled a lot of their products and they were quite good. Last October, I had a chance to sample a GM apple that was created in a way to delay browning which extends the shelf-life of the apple. Advances like that are great considering just how much food gets wasted every day.

[Sargerasraider]

What did you expect we in the US have been back peddling in our general science knowledge for a while now. Then again it doesn't help you have prominent people spreading bullshit and people are stupid enough to believe them. That is why we have the anti vaxers, evolution deniers, and general people who believe in magical men in the sky. The media purposely also spreads bullshit to scare the average mouth breather because it sells better as well.

I'm pretty sure that things are just as bad (if not worse) in Europe considering the fact that labeling laws already do exist (and the anecdotal examples of certain people on this forum.)

[May90]

I've never really cared about all these labels, I've always just bought fruits/vegetables which looked good. Don't quite understand the GMO scare happening these days, but whatever floats people's boats...

[Matchles]

80% of people also want a label for "DNA" in their food. Sigh.

Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man.



Bonus comic.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3324

[zhero]

everything altered from its natural form should have labeling saying so.

[WintersLegion]

everything altered from its natural form should have labeling saying so.

So every single food that we eat than.

[Sargerasraider]

Maybe out there somewhere is a person who hunts deer with only their hands and teeth and eats them alive.


We'll need to put stickers on the rest of the deer though.

I'm a fan of cupcake trees myself.

[kail]

Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow man.

God I miss that show!

While I do enjoy their food, I blame companies like Chipotle that try to sell themselves as GMO-free and further feed the unreasonable fear. I still recall meeting a parent from my younger brother's class that proudly states she feeds her son chemical free, organic food. Kid was drinking orange juice...

[Zoldam]

I personally think GMOs wouldn't be an issue if the big companies playing the game were not so damn shady about it. Playing god has always had unforeseen side-effects and I think that's what scares people. I think labeling is a good thing to do. It puts the paranoid at ease and also opens up new markets for "GMO Free" products.

As for the vaccine comment, as far as I was aware it was the preservative that was toxic (mercury derp) not the vaccine itself (Which is an amazing medical breakthrough), which has been taken out from my understanding. I honestly don't know in the end since I don't keep up with it.

Remember folks, asking questions is good, and these sort of things should be scrutinized due to their impact on our health, but making your mind up and ignoring any evidence to the contrary is foolish.

[Deleted]

1k People is not a good sample size, for an indicative study of any sorts.

[Powerogue]

80% of people also want a label for "DNA" in their food. Sigh.

That must be for the ultra-vegans that live off sunlight and water. Nature's energy.

(I've heard they actually exist, and don't live very long...)

What did you expect we in the US have been back peddling in our general science knowledge for a while now. Then again it doesn't help you have prominent people spreading bullshit and people are stupid enough to believe them. That is why we have the anti vaxers, evolution deniers, and general people who believe in magical men in the sky. The media purposely also spreads bullshit to scare the average mouth breather because it sells better as well.

We should really just call fraud what it is instead of giving it comfortable names like "alternative medicine." I think that'd be a good step forward.

[zorkuus]

That must be for the ultra-vegans that live off sunlight and water. Nature's energy.

(I've heard they actually exist, and don't live very long...)

They do live, because they're mostly lying. That's why you can't get them to undergo medical tests to put their superpowers to test.

[Deleted]

The anti-GMO crowd is very similar to the anti-vaccine crowd.

Anti-GMO crowd has lots of (prominent) scientists (at least in Europe) who demand further long term independent studies. Anti-vaccine doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the similarity.

[Deleted]

I don't know why people constantly repeat things like this, but they're invariably incorrect.

Because you even out the statistical anomalities by higher numbers, assuming you do not skew the data somehow.

I should modify my statement to "Apart from a study that would only require 1000 people", but that feels pointless, the point still comes across.

Especially in this case, the 1k number is really a flunked one. Is the consumer base of GMO, 1000 people? Hell no. Hell of a lot of more people, eat food. And that is what GMO is, it's mainly food.

So, lest you wish to take your little "un-biased" group of 1k, in the scheme of against the MILLIONS that eat food, you'll find that it's downright retarded to even attempt to justify the 1k number in comparison.

Your data would be so skewed by the small differentials, based on the difference between the 1k and the Millions.

Fact is, when it's 1k against millions, you'd get away with having shit in the group that accounts for being representative on the scale of 1/1000 people statistics. (Or less, this is assuming at least 1 million ; And i do think that, overall, at least 1 million people eat GMO or eat food.)

Which, for your information, is a really, really, really bad start point to go from. Especially if you are gonna project that number onto millions.

I mean, by sheer probabilities and differentials in education and what not, you are bound to be f'cking wrong.

More so, the study is clearly skewed, if it tries to make stuff like "80% of people Don't want DNA in their food" sound like a scientific representation of a Consumerbase.

80% of the Consumer base, when it comes to DNA, is not obviously f'cking retarded. Most likely, it's an dishonest skew on the fact that people talk in approximations. Cause i figure, most people would mean "DNA i don't recognize" kind of talk, not actually distinguishing just plain DNA from that which they are refering to.

[zorkuus]

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

[apples]

Because you even out the statistical anomalities by higher numbers, assuming you do not skew the data somehow.

I should modify my statement to "Apart from a study that would only require 1000 people", but that feels pointless, the point still comes across.

Especially in this case, the 1k number is really a flunked one. Is the consumer base of GMO, 1000 people? Hell no. Hell of a lot of more people, eat food. And that is what GMO is, it's mainly food.

So, lest you wish to take your little "un-biased" group of 1k, in the scheme of against the MILLIONS that eat food, you'll find that it's downright retarded to even attempt to justify the 1k number in comparison.

Your data would be so skewed by the small differentials, based on the difference between the 1k and the Millions.

Fact is, when it's 1k against millions, you'd get away with having shit in the group that accounts for being representative on the scale of 1/1000 people statistics. (Or less, this is assuming at least 1 million ; And i do think that, overall, at least 1 million people eat GMO or eat food.)

Which, for your information, is a really, really, really bad start point to go from. Especially if you are gonna project that number onto millions.

I mean, by sheer probabilities and differentials in education and what not, you are bound to be f'cking wrong.

More so, the study is clearly skewed, if it tries to make stuff like "80% of people Don't want DNA in their food" sound like a scientific representation of a Consumerbase.

80% of the Consumer base, when it comes to DNA, is not obviously f'cking retarded. Most likely, it's an dishonest skew on the fact that people talk in approximations. Cause i figure, most people would mean "DNA i don't recognize" kind of talk, not actually distinguishing just plain DNA from that which they are refering to.

thats a lot of text to be so very wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_test

stats 201

[Forogil]

So, lest you wish to take your little "un-biased" group of 1k, in the scheme of against the MILLIONS that eat food, you'll find that it's downright retarded to even attempt to justify the 1k number in comparison.

Your data would be so skewed by the small differentials, based on the difference between the 1k and the Millions.

The facts are that the sample size needed for a study is independent of the population - as long as the population is a few times larger than the sample size (and the sample is random - otherwise the study is biased regardless of the sample size).

That is basic statistics, and anyone with a basic science understanding should know that - as well as know what DNA is. That people should know it doesn't mean that they do.

80% of the Consumer base, when it comes to DNA, is not obviously f'cking retarded. Most likely, it's an dishonest skew on the fact that people talk in approximations.

The simple explanation is that most people are clueless, and even some that had heard about DNA just quickly answered without thinking - same as they would not go near a beach with dihydrogen monoxide with sodium chloride.

[Deleted]

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

"How many people are there in the group your sample represents? This may be the number of people in a city you are studying, the number of people who buy new cars, etc. Often you may not know the exact population size. This is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000. For this reason, The Survey System ignores the population size when it is "large" or unknown. Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an association). "

When it pulls stuff like this, with a complete devoid consideration of what question was asked during what circumstance and what not, my faith in their calculations is 0.

- - - Updated - - -

thats a lot of text to be so very wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_test

stats 201

The facts are that the sample size needed for a study is independent of the population - as long as the population is a few times larger than the sample size (and the sample is random - otherwise the study is biased regardless of the sample size).

That is basic statistics, and anyone with a basic science understanding should know that - as well as know what DNA is. That people should know it doesn't mean that they do.


The simple explanation is that most people are clueless, and even some that had heard about DNA just quickly answered without thinking - same as they would not go near a beach with dihydrogen monoxide with sodium chloride.

Right, and the knowledge of people and the presumptions in this given case, is not based on random things.

It's about education, what time you asked them, under what circumstance etc.

What group of age you are asking.

A lot of factors. That this statistic does not account for.

And you'd understand that, if you could read. But i see that the Iliterate "Take Everything Literaly" crowd is out in force.