Boosting Understanding and Identification of Scientific Consensus Can Help to Correct False Beliefs

Some people hold beliefs that are opposed to overwhelming scientific evidence. Such misperceptions can be harmful to both personal and societal well-being. Communicating scientific consensus has been found to be effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here, we show that a strategy that boosts people’s understanding of and ability to identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with more than 1,500 U.S. adults who held false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they read a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their beliefs. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food, this two-step communication strategy was more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest that the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change.

Boosting understanding and identification of scientific consensus can help to correct false beliefs

Some people hold beliefs that are opposed to overwhelming scientific evidence. Such misperceptions can be harmful to both personal and societal well-being. Communicating scientific consensus has been found effective in eliciting scientifically accurate beliefs, but it is unclear whether it is also effective in correcting false beliefs. Here we show that a boosting strategy that empowers people to understand and identify scientific consensus can help to correct misperceptions. In three experiments with over 1,500 US adults holding false beliefs, participants first learned the value of scientific consensus and how to identify it. Subsequently, they were exposed to a news article with information about a scientific consensus opposing their belief. We found strong evidence that in the domain of genetically engineered food this two-step communication strategy is more successful in correcting misperceptions than merely communicating scientific consensus. The data suggest the current approach may not work for misperceptions about climate change.

Sustainable Halal? The Intersection of Halal, Organic and Genetically Engineered Food in Turkey

Despite standardization initiatives among states, businesses and non-profit agencies, the understanding and practice of halal requirements vary. This fragmentation of halal certification is particularly significant in terms of genetically engineered food. Studies in both global North and South show that women consumers are more concerned about food choices. This paper examines the convergence of halal and organic through genetically engineered food with recourse to women consumers’ definitions of ‘wholesome food’ in Turkey. Using data from a total 13 focus groups carried in the cities of Ankara and Konya in the summer of 2015, and in the cities of Ankara and Balikesir in the summer of 2019, the paper examines the concerns of women consumers about food in a Muslim majority country fully integrated into globalized markets. It also questions how women consumers negotiate their food choices particularly in relation to genetically engineered food, halal and organic food. The paper argues that both secular and devout Muslim women consumers as mothers have growing concerns in feeding their family with clean and healthy food. However, halal certified food does not address their expectations about ‘wholesome food’. The discussions about the convergence of halal, organic and genetically engineered food highlight the tensions in the alternative food movement about what clean and good food look like.

Biotechnology in food

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to measure Canadian attitudes towards genetic engineering in food, for both plant-based and livestock, assess trust towards food safety and overall regulatory system in Canada. Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study is derived from an inductive, quantitative analysis of primary data obtained from an online survey of adults, aged 18 and over, living in Canada for at least 12 months. An online survey was widely distributed in both French and English. Data were collected from 1,049 respondents. The sample was randomized using regional and demographic benchmarks for an accurate representation of the Canadian population. The completion rate of the survey was 94 per cent. Based on the sampling design, the margin of error is 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20. Findings Consumers misunderstand the nature of genetic engineering or do not appreciate its prevalence in agrifood or both. In total, 44 per cent of Canadians are confused about health effects of genetically engineered foods and ingredients. In total, 40 per cent believe that there is not significant testing on genetically engineered food to protect consumers. In total, 52 per cent are uncertain on their consumption of genetically engineered food, despite its prominence in the agrifood marketplace. Scientific literacy of respondents on genetic engineering is low. While Canadians are divided on purchasing genetically engineered animal-based products, 55 per cent indicated price is the most important factor when purchasing food. Research limitations/implications More research is required to better appreciate the sociological and economic dimensions of incorporating GM foods into our lives. Most importantly, longitudinal risks ought to be better understood for both plant- and animal-based GM foods and ingredients. Additional research is needed to quantify the benefits and risks of GM crops livestock, so business practices and policies approach market expectations. Significantly, improving consumers’ scientific literacy on GM foods will reduce confusion and allow for more informed purchasing decisions. Indeed, a proactive research agenda on biotechnologies can accommodate well-informed discussions with public agencies, food businesses and consumers. Originality/value This exploratory study is one of the first to compare consumers’ perceptions of genetic engineering related to animal and plant-based species in Canada since the addition of genetically modified salmon to the marketplace.

An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food

Genetically engineered food has had its DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by intentional human intervention. We provide an overview of the importance and regulation of genetically engineered food and lay attitudes toward it. We first discuss the pronaturalness context in the United States and Europe that preceded the appearance of genetically engineered food. We then review the definition, prevalence, and regulation of this type of food. Genetically engineered food is widespread in some countries, but there is great controversy worldwide among individuals, governments, and other institutions about the advisability of growing and consuming it. In general, life scientists have a much more positive view of genetically engineered food than laypeople. We examine the bases of lay opposition to genetically engineered food and the evidence for how attitudes change. Laypeople tend to see genetically engineered food as dangerous and offering few benefits. We suggest that much of the lay opposition is morally based. One possibility is that, in some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness. We also suggest that for many people these perceptions of naturalness and attitudes toward genetically engineered food follow the sympathetic magical law of contagion, in which even minimal contact between a natural food and an unnatural entity, either a scientist or a piece of foreign DNA, pollutes or contaminates the natural entity and renders it unacceptable or even immoral to consume.