Exploring the GMO narrative through labeling: strategies, products, and politics

References

• Foxall GR, Goldsmith RE. Consumer Psychology for Marketing. London, England: Thomsan; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke W, Ward RW. Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: an application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Qual Prefer. 2006;17(6):453–467. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ares G, Giménez A, Bruzzone F, Vidal L, Antúnez L, Maiche A. Consumer visual processing of food labels: results from an eye‐tracking study. J Sens Stud. 2013;28(2):138–153. doi:10.1111/joss.12031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham DJ, Orquin JL, Visschers VH. Eye tracking and nutrition label use: a review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement. Food Policy. 2012;37(4):378–382. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerzyk E, Nestorowicz R, Rogala A, Pilarczyk B, Disterheft A. Consumers’ ecological attitudes and visual perception of marking used on the food packaging Eurasian business perspectives. Springer; 2020. p. 227–37.
   Google Scholar
• Roe BE, Teisl MF. The economics of labeling: an overview of issues for health and environmental disclosure. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 1998;27(2):140–50. doi:10.1017/S1068280500006468.
   Google Scholar
• Perez J. The product labeling controversy. Food Drug Cosmet Law J. 1981;36:381–92.
   Google Scholar
• French WA, Barksdale HC. Food labeling regulations: efforts toward full disclosure. J Mark. 1974;38(3):14–19. doi:10.1177/002224297403800304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davison J, Ammann K. New GMO regulations for old: determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology. GM Crops & Food. 2017;8(1):13–34. doi:10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stofer KA, Schiebel TM. US adults with agricultural experience report more genetic engineering familiarity than those without. J Agric Educ. 2017;58(4):160–74. doi:10.5032/jae.2017.04160.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall P. 2011. The cost and time involved in the discovery, development and authorisation of a new plant biotechnology derived trait. Crop Life International, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• AgBioInvestor. Time and cost to develop a new GM trait. A Study on Behalf of Crop Life International: Cost and Time Required for the Discovery, Development and Authorisation of a New Plant Biotechnology-Derived Genetic Trait, 1–45. 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Macilwain C. US academy study finds GM foods are safe. Nature. 2000; 404(6779), 693–693.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, E., & Medicine. Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Norero D. GMO 25-year safety endorsement: 280 science institutions, more than 3,000 studies. Genetic Literacy Project; 2017. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/01/21/gmo-20-year-safety-endorsement-280-science-institutions-more-3000-studies/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Dorius SF, Lawrence-Dill CJ. Sowing the seeds of skepticism: Russian state news and anti-GMO sentiment. GM Crops & Food. 2018;9(2):53–58. doi:10.1080/21645698.2018.1454192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paarlberg R. A dubious success: the NGO campaign against GMOs. GM Crops & Food. 2014;5(3):223–228. doi:10.4161/21645698.2014.952204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ryan CD. Agriculture, science and public perceptions on biotechnology. In G. Prairie. Ed. Saskatoon, Canada: Genome Prairie; 2014a. p. 61.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan CD. Biotechnology communications, mythmaking and the media handbook on agriculture, biotechnology and development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014b.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan CD, McHughen A. Tomatoes, potatoes and flax: exploring the cost of lost innovations handbook on agriculture, biotechnology and development. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan CD, Schaul AJ, Butner R, Swarthout JT. Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Eur Manag J. 2020;38(1):7–18. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2019.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan CD, Smyth SJ. Economic implications of low-level presence in a zero-tolerance European import market: the case of Canadian triffid flax. AgBioForum. 2012;15(1): 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. Counterproductive consequences of ‘anti-GMO’activism. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2018;18:61–74. doi:10.3354/esep00185.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland C, Sim C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. Canadian consumer insights on agriculture: addressing the knowledge-gap. J Agric Food Inf. 2020;21(1–2):50–72. doi:10.1080/10496505.2020.1724114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk C, Rainie L, Page D. Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2015. p. 29.
   Google Scholar
• PRC. Broad agreement in U.S. – even among partisans – on which news outlets are part of the ‘mainstream media’. FactTank News Numbers. 2020 [accessed 2021 May 1]. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/07/broad-agreement-in-u-s-even-among-partisans-on-which-news-outlets-are-part-of-the-mainstream-media/.
   Google Scholar
• Lynas M. GMO pigs study–more junk science. Marklynas org. 2013;12.
   Google Scholar
• FDA. Questions and answers on FDA’s deactivation of an import alert for genetically engineered Salmon; 2019[accessed 2021 June 16]. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/animals-intentional-genomic-alterations/questions-and-answers-fdas-deactivation-import-alert-genetically-engineered-salmon.
   Google Scholar
• Clancy KA, Clancy B. Growing monstrous organisms: the construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media. Crit Stud Media Comm. 2016;33(3):279–292. doi:10.1080/15295036.2016.1193670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GRACE EF. GMO risk assessment and communication of evidence (GRACE). 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Coumoul X, Servien R, Juricek L, Kaddouch-Amar Y, Lippi Y, Berthelot L, Salles B. The GMO90+ project: absence of evidence for biologically meaningful effects of genetically modified maize-based diets on wistar rats after 6-months feeding comparative trial. Toxi Sci; 2019 168(2), 315–338.
   Google Scholar
• Aerni P. The use and abuse of the term ‘GMO’in the ‘common weal rhetoric’against the application of modern biotechnology in agriculture. Ethical Tens New Technol: The Case Agricul Biotechnol. 2018;6:39.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob M, Hellström T. Policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE–CJD crisis. J Hazard Mater. 2000;78(1–3):303–317. doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00228-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses V. Whatever happened to ‘bans’ on GM produce in British supermarkets?. The Conversation; 2015. https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-bans-on-gm-produce-in-british-supermarkets-51153.
   Google Scholar
• Roederer C, Nugent R, Wilson P. Economic impacts of genetically modified crops on the agri-food sector: a synthesis. Working document, Directorate-General for Agriculture; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Moloney K. Rethinking public relations: pR propaganda and democracy. Oxfordshire, Oxford: Routledge; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson G. Towards a theory of rent-seeking in activist public relations. Publ Relat Inquiry. 2016;5(3):213–231. doi:10.1177/2046147X16644005.
   Google Scholar
• Lee R. GM resistant Europe and the WTO panel dispute on biotech products. Ethics, Law Society. 2005;1.
   Google Scholar
• Fedoroff NV. Analysis of pusztai study on GM potatoes and their effect on rats. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Sears M, Stanley-Horn D. Impact of bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms . Canada:University entension Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Brown P. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: background, evolution, and current concerns. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(1):6. doi:10.3201/eid0701.010102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marris C. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep. 2001;2(7):545–548. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centner TJ, Lathrop KW. Legislative and legal restrictions on labeling information regarding the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin. J Dairy Sci. 1997;80(1):215–219. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)75930-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller A. Time for government to get mooo-ving: facing up the to RBST labeling problem. Hamline L Rev. 1994;18:503.
   Google Scholar
• Runge CF, Jackson LA, Horak FB, Zajac FE. Ankle and hip postural strategies defined by joint torques. Gait Posture. 1999;10(2):161–70. doi:10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00032-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greising D. Crying over unnatural milk. Bus Week. 1993;22:48.
   Google Scholar
• Elmer-Dewitt P, Horowitz J. Udder insanity! Time. 1993;141:52–53.
   Google Scholar
• Worthington R. Battle brewing over milk. Chicago Tribune; 1993. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1993-12-06-9312240001-story.html.
   Google Scholar
• Charlier C, Rainelli M. Hormones, risk management, precaution and protectionism: an analysis of the dispute on hormone-treated beef between the European Union and the United States. Eur J Law Econ. 2002;14(2):83–97. doi:10.1023/A:1016527107739.
   Google Scholar
• E COM. Communication from the European commission on the precautionary principle (COM 2000, 1, 02-02-2000). Brussels: EC; 2000. Available on the World Wide Web. http://europa.u.int/comm/off/com/healthconsumer/precautionen.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Sticky Labels. Econom. 1999 May 1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eggers B, Mackenzie R. The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. J Int Econ Law. 2000;3(3):525–43. doi:10.1093/jiel/3.3.525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roff RJ. No alternative? The politics and history of non-GMO certification. Agric Human Values. 2009;26(4):351. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9166-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter CA, Gruère GP, Cohen SN, Carter CA. Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods: does it really provide consumer choice? J Virol. 2003;77(17):9173–82. doi:10.1128/jvi.77.17.9173-9182.2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark LF, Ryan CD, Kerr WA. Direct democracy, state governments, and the re-energized GMO debate: implications of California’s proposition 37. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Gunlock J. Activists demand higher costs for food. Innov. 2014. https://www.iwf.org/2014/01/03/activists-demand-higher-costs-for-food/.
   Google Scholar
• Watson E. GMO inside calls on starbucks to source organic milks from cows not fed GMO feed. 2014. Retrieved from Food Navigator USA website. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2014/03/05/GMO-Inside-targets-Starbucks-after-claiming-Cheerios-victory?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright#.
   Google Scholar
• Project N-G. Verification FAQs; 2020[accessed 2022 June 27]. https://www.nongmoproject.org/product-verification/verification-faqs/
   Google Scholar
• Funk C. About half of US adults are wary of health effects of genetically modified foods, but many also see advantages. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy B, Thigpen CL. Many publics around world doubt safety of genetically modified foods. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth SJ, McHughen A, Entine J, Kershen D, Ramage C, Parrott W. Removing politics from innovations that improve food security. Transgenic Res. 2021;30(5):601–612. doi:10.1007/s11248-021-00261-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castells M. Network theory| a network theory of power. Int J Commun. 2011;5:15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles D. Powerful food lobby group loses members amid industry culture clash. 2018. Retrieved from NHPR website. https://www.nhpr.org/post/powerful-food-lobby-group-loses-members-amid-industry-culture-clash#stream/0.
   Google Scholar
• Caswell JA. Should use of genetically modified organisms be labeled? 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Sterk R. USDA announces GMO labeling standard. 2019. Retrieved from Sugar Producer website. https://www.sugarproducer.com/2019/01/usda-announces-gmo-labeling-standard.
   Google Scholar
• Bovay J, Alston JM. GMO food labels in the United States: economic implications of the new law. Food Policy. 2018;78:14–25. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.02.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeGiovanni M. The future of GMO labeling: how a new federal labeling scheme will alter public discourse. Wash sUL Rev. 2017;95:705.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall A. FDA says it will finalize voluntary GMO labeling ‘soon’. 2014. https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/3796-fda-says-it-will-finalize-voluntary-gmo-labeling-soon.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden BR. The unknowns and possible implications of mandatory labeling. Trends Biotechnol. 2017;35(1):1–3. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.09.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragland RE, Mansfield JL, Savaiano DA. A Universal Label for GMOs. Nutr Today. 2018;53(1):43. doi:10.1097/NT.0000000000000257.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodinsky J, Lusk JL. Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Sci Adv. 2018;4(6):eaaq1413. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaq1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady MC. Enforcing an unenforceable law: the national bioengineered food disclosure standard. Emory LJ. 2018;67:771.
   Google Scholar
• Burros M. Environmental politics is making the kitchen hotter. NY Times (Print). 1992;30:C1.
   Google Scholar