Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have met with enormous public opposition

over the past two decades. Many people believe that GMOs are bad for their health
even poisonous and that they damage the environment. This is in spite of
overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that GMOs are safe to eat, and that
they bring environmental benefits by making agriculture more sustainable. Why is
there such a discrepancy between what the science tells us about GMOs, and what
people think? To be sure, some concerns, such as herbicide resistance in weeds and
the involvement of multinationals, are not without basis, but they are not specific to
GMOs. Hence, another question we need to answer is why these arguments become
more salient in the context of GMOs.

I recently published a paper, with a group of Belgian biotechnologists and

philosophers from Ghent University, arguing that negative representations of GMOs
are widespread and compelling because they are intuitively appealing. By tapping
into intuitions and emotions that mostly work under the radar of conscious
awareness, but are constituent of any normally functioning human mind, such
representations become easy to think. They capture our attention, they are easily
processed and remembered and thus stand a greater chance of being transmitted
and becoming popular, even if they are untrue. Thus, many people oppose GMOs, in
part, because it just makes sense that they would pose a threat.

In the paper, we identify several intuitions that may affect peoples perception of
GMOs. Psychological essentialism, for instance, makes us think of DNA as an
organisms essence - an unobservable and immutable core that causes the
organisms behaviour and development and determines its identity. As such, when a
gene is transferred between two distantly related species, people are likely to
believe that this process will cause characteristics typical of the source organism to
emerge in the recipient. For example, in an opinion survey in the United States,
more than half of respondents said that a tomato modified with fish DNA would
taste like fish (of course, it would not).

Essentialism clearly plays a role in public attitudes towards GMOs. People are
typically more opposed to GM applications that involve the transfer of DNA between
two different species (transgenic) than within the same species (cisgenic). AntiGMO organizations, such as NGOs, exploit these intuitions by publishing images of
tomatoes with fish tails or by telling the public that companies modify corn with
scorpion DNA to make crispier cereals.

Intuitions about purposes and intentions also have an impact on peoples thinking
about GMOs. They render us vulnerable to the idea that purely natural phenomena
exist or happen for a purpose that is intended by some agent. These assumptions
are part and parcel of religious beliefs, but in secular environments they lead people
to regard nature as a beneficial process or entity that secures our wellbeing and
that humans shouldnt meddle with. In the context of opposition to GMOs, genetic
modification is deemed unnatural and biotechnologists are accused of playing
God. The popular term Frankenfood captures what is at stake: by going against
the will of nature in an act of hubris, we are bound to bring enormous disaster upon
ourselves.

SEE ALSO:
Energy & Sustainability: Bigger Cities Aren't Always Greener, Data Show | Evolution:
Bird Cries Wolf to Deceive Predator 40 Times Its Size | Health: Pharma Watch:
Raising Awareness or Drumming Up Sales? | Space: Sun Accused of Stealing
Planetary Objects from Another Star | Technology: Introducing the First Vehicle
Powered by Evaporation | More Science: Baby Chicks' Mental Number Line Looks
Like Ours
Disgust also affects peoples attitudes towards GMOs. The emotion probably
evolved, at least in part, as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, preventing the body
from consuming or touching harmful substances. We feel repelled by things that
possibly contain or indicate the presence of pathogens such as bodily fluids, rotten
meat, and maggots. This would explain why disgust operates on a hair trigger: it is
better to forego an edible meal under the misguided assumption that it is
contaminated, than to consume sickening, or even lethal, food that is erroneously
thought to be safe. Hence, disgust can be elicited by completely innocuous food.

GMOs probably trigger disgust because people view genetic modification as a

contamination. The effect is enforced when the introduced DNA comes from a
species that is generally deemed disgusting, such as rats or cockroaches. However,
DNA is DNA, whatever its source. The impact of disgust explains why people feel
more averse towards GM food than other GM applications, such as GM medicine.
Once disgust is elicited, the argument that GMOs cause cancer or sterility, or that
they will contaminate the environment, becomes very convincing and is often used.
Disgust also affects moral judgments, leading people to condemn everyone who is
involved with the development and commercialization of GM products. Because
people have no conscious access to the emotional source of their judgments, they
consequently look for arguments to rationalize them.

Our cognitive analysis is not intended to debunk every anti-GMO claim a priori. A
particular GM application may have unwanted effects, which can also be the case
with a product of organic or conventional farming. The risks and benefits should be
assessed on a case-to-case basis, regardless of the process. The current
applications have been proven to be safe. One may take issue with the involvement
of multinationals or be concerned about herbicide resistance, but these issues have
to do with how GM technology is sometimes applied and certainly do not warrant
resistance to the technology and to GMOs in general. The emotional and intuitive
basis of anti-GMO sentiments however prevents people from making these
distinctions.

The impact of intuitions and emotions on peoples understanding of, and attitudes
towards, GMOs has important implications for science education and
communication. Because the mind is prone to distorting or rejecting scientific
information in favour of more intuitive beliefs, simply transmitting the facts will not
necessarily persuade people of the safety, or benefits, of GMOs, especially if people
have been subjected to emotive, anti-GMO propaganda.

In the long run, education starting from a young age and specifically targeted at
tackling common misconceptions might immunize the population against
unsubstantiated anti-GMO messages. Other concerns can be addressed and
discussed in the wider context of agricultural practices and the place of science and
technology in society. However, for now, the best way to turn the tide and generate
a more positive public response to GMOs is to play into peoples intuitions as well.
For instance, emphasizing the benefits of current and future GM applications
improved soil structures because herbicide resistant crops require less or no tilling,
higher income for farmers in developing countries, reduced vitamin A deficiency,
virus and drought resistance, to name a few might constitute the most effective
approach to changing peoples minds. Given the benefits and promises of GM
technology, such a change is much needed.

ABOUT THE