Critical consumers do often buy genetically modified food

Oct 15, 2013
Critical consumers do often buy genetically modified food

Many people disapprove of genetically modified food. You would therefore expect them to avoid these products in supermarkets. Dutch researchers at TU Delft have revealed that by no means all European consumers put that theory into practice.

Actual buying behaviour

Over the past decade, countless polls have been held to research whether consumers would buy (GM) products. The compulsory labelling of GM products enabled researchersfrom the Biotechnology and Society research group to monitor the actual buying behaviour of consumers. This research was conducted in the following European countries: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Bought after all

Only 30 percent of the consumers questioned said that they avoided buying GM products, but 1 in 4 of them had nevertheless bought a GM product. Of all the consumers who had bought products with a GM label, nearly half thought they had not, twenty percent thought they had, and thirty percent didn't know. This indicates that some consumers do not read the label (although nearly 80% said they knew that GM products must be labelled), or that they don't really care whether or not they buy GM products.

Issue?

The research shows that what people say about GM food does not provide a reliable enough basis for policy making because, in practice, often behave very differently. It also suggests that avoiding GM food is perhaps not such an issue after all.

The researchers have published their findings in an article in GM Food & Crops.

Explore further: Ideology prevents wheat growers from converting to more profitable methods, new study shows

More information: www.landesbioscience.com/journ… rops/2013GMC0015.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EU recommends testing of US wheat after GM find

May 31, 2013

The European Union is urging its 27 member states to test certain wheat shipments from the United States after unauthorized genetically modified grains were found on a U.S. farm, officials said Friday.

Monsanto drops bid to grow new GM foods in EU

Jul 18, 2013

US agro-chemicals giant Monsanto said Thursday it will drop all requests to be allowed to grow new genetically modified foods in the European Union, which has for years held up approval.

EU tightens control of Chinese rice over GM fears

Nov 15, 2011

The European Union has tightened controls on imports of Chinese rice products after a growing number of shipments were contaminated by unauthorised genetically-modified rice, the EU said Tuesday.

EU to check US wheat for GM contamination

May 30, 2013

The European Commission said Thursday it has asked EU member states to check imports of wheat from the United States which may be tainted with a genetically modified strain made by US agrochemicals giant ...

Poland bans cultivation of GM maize, potatoes

Jan 02, 2013

Poland on Wednesday imposed new bans on the cultivation of certain genetically modified strains of maize and potatoes, a day after an EU required green light for GM crops took effect.

Recommended for you

A vegetarian carnivorous plant

Dec 19, 2014

Carnivorous plants catch and digest tiny animals in order and derive benefits for their nutrition. Interestingly the trend towards vegetarianism seems to overcome carnivorous plants as well. The aquatic carnivorous bladderwort, ...

User comments : 27

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Agomemnon
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2013
The conclusion to this article is ridiculous.
All patented products must be labeled (international law). Why treat GMO food any different?
There are facts missing from this. One...the consumer has the ability to distinguish if they want GMO food or not.
All I want is the same thing...to be ABLE to make the decision.
Besides, with NO TESTING FOR SAFETY how can one say that GMO foods are safe and always will be? They can't.
This article is just one of many for the sake of denying me and my family to right to know what food we are eating.
Doug_Huffman
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
... GM food is perhaps not such an issue after all.
The light dawns - like pulling a string in a dark closet - 40 Watts worth. GMO is an issue only to starvelings eschewing technology as a steady diet. Luddites all.

The non-existence of an attribute - non-safety - cannot be logically proven, requiring examination of the entire universe of discourse.

All agricultural products are genetically modified, some traditionally slowly and some technologically rapidly. What is slow and what is fast is the Paradox Sorites of the Heap.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2013
Doug, that's fine if you think they are all dandy.
I have the right to know if they are GMO or not don't you agree? Basic labeling is all I'm asking for.
BTW hybridization is not even in the same ballpark as anyone that looked at it would know.
Also, if GMO is the same as hybridization or other naturally grown food than would you support a complete BANNING on Patent Rights for these?
I would hope so. Its the only logical conclusion.

Doug_Huffman
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
No there is no "right" to be provided some particular information, like a right to education. You want to know, you seek and learn. Believe nothing read or heard without verifying it oneself unless it Weltanschauung congruent.

And radiation/contamination is no different. See radiation hormesis for the depths of the controversy.
tadchem
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2013
Speaking as someone who routinely lies to pollsters, just to mess up their data/preconceptions/etc., I can tell you from experience that what people say to a pollster is often more reflective of what they believe the pollster expects to hear rather than what they really think/feel/believe.
Mr_Science
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
I think some people here have missed the whole point to the article. The whole point of the article is showing labeled GM foods are still being bought by the people saying they do not want GM foods. Therefore, it's not such a big deal after all. This research shows people are hypocrites.

@Agomemnon – The article states, "although nearly 80% said they knew that GM products must be labeled" I guess you are one of the 20% that didn't know? Maybe you should read the articles before making uninformed comments.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2013
... The fact, that the people are paying for goods despite they don't like spending money doesn't mean, they're a hypocrites

No, but the fact they are buying products they say they don't want to buy makes them hypocrites.

hypocrite
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
http://www.merria...ypocrite
With your approach we could say for example, that the FDA is unnecessary, if the people will not be such a hypocrites and if they would avoid the toxic materials in food and cures by itself...;-)


I don't see how you got that from my statement. I never said anything about my approach. You have no basis for your conclusion. The only thing I have stated are these people are hypocrites for buying what they say they don't want. That is a fact as I have just shown.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
Often times people buy what they can afford, processed GMO foods are typically more affordable. This doesn't make them hypocrites.
Mr_Science
1.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2013
You see - you don't like what I'm writing here - but you're still reading it. What a hypocrite you actually are!


Incorrect again, what I like to read and what I say I will not read are completely different things. However, if I had stated I would not read what you wrote then I would be a hypocrite as you claim. You seem to not understand what the word hypocrite. I provided the definition for you. I assumed that would clear it up. It would seem my assumption was incorrect, my apologies.

Someone claiming they do not want to buy GM products and then buying GM products is a hypocrite. Although, someone saying they don't like GM products and then buying them is not. You don't have to like something to buy it. You still must want it to buy it.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2013
Often times people buy what they can afford, processed GMO foods are typically more affordable. This doesn't make them hypocrites.


If they cannot afford to boycott then how could they afford food at all if/when GM products go away? The fact of the matter is they must want GM products in some way or they would not buy them. This makes them hypocrites by the very definition of the word.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
Often times people buy what they can afford, processed GMO foods are typically more affordable. This doesn't make them hypocrites.


If they cannot afford to boycott then how could they afford food at all if/when GM products go away? The fact of the matter is they must want GM products in some way or they would not buy them. This makes them hypocrites by the very definition of the word.

The large scale farming that uses mainly GMO would still produce low cost food using non-GMO. If your choice was boycott with hungry children or buy what your resources will accommodate to feed your family, the choice seems obvious.
I must say I envy the Europeans and their ability to make such choices, here in the fascist states of america we live under the oppression of Monsanto and it's governmental division, the FDA. Our only way to be sure to avoid GMO is to buy certified organic, and even that is questionable.
http://farmwars.info/?p=4897
Mr_Science
1.4 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2013
The large scale farming that uses mainly GMO would still produce low cost food using non-GMO. If your choice was boycott with hungry children or buy what your resources will accommodate to feed your family, the choice seems obvious.

That is incorrect. They would be able to grow non GM food just not as much. The crops are genetically modified to use less water, pesticides, grow closer together, and produce more food per plant. Your normal everyday crops have been selected for the same things but are not as far along as the GM. Therefore, farmers would be using more water, pesticides, and have less crops per field. Ultimately farmers would be producing less food. Farms are not using GM crops because they are forced to. They are using GM crops because they produce more with less cost maximizing their profit margins.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2013
I must say I envy the Europeans and their ability to make such choices, here in the fascist states of america we live under the oppression of Monsanto and it's governmental division, the FDA. Our only way to be sure to avoid GMO is to buy certified organic, and even that is questionable.

I will agree with the fact the USA needs to have proper labeling. Everyone should be aware of what they are buying.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
Therefore, farmers would be using more water, pesticides, and have less crops per field. Ultimately farmers would be producing less food. Farms are not using GM crops because they are forced to. They are using GM crops because they produce more with less cost maximizing their profit margins.

That analysis is short sighted and dangerous and ignores the long term effects of such unsustainable farming practices on the land, flora, fauna, and insects. And the long term effects to the food supply and people.
http://www.global...ns/14570

http://www.nation...ts-13723
Mr_Science
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2013
That analysis is short sighted and dangerous and ignores the long term effects of such unsustainable farming practices on the land, flora, fauna, and insects. And the long term effects to the food supply and people.

My comment had nothing to do with any of the above. It was only a direct response to your statement about high yield fields. My comment was absolutely factual. There is nothing dangerous about stating a fact. The action of the farms may be dangerous but not the statement itself.

The over simplified reality is there is an upside and a downside to either GM or non GM. However, misunderstanding and misrepresentations of the science behind GM crops and non GM craps has caused a dangerous uneasiness between both sides of the debate. I do not intend to pick a side however I will correct any misunderstandings and misrepresentations I come across on either side.
Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2013
I think some people here have missed the whole point to the article. The whole point of the article is showing labeled GM foods are still being bought by the people saying they do not want GM foods. Therefore, it's not such a big deal after all. This research shows people are hypocrites.

@Agomemnon – The article states, "although nearly 80% said they knew that GM products must be labeled" I guess you are one of the 20% that didn't know? Maybe you should read the articles before making uninformed comments.

I'm in the United States. There is no mandatory labeling of GMO's here. The article is propoganda against the labeling proposals in the United States. According to US law all patented and patent pending must be labeled.....except for patented food because they are special and the biotechs run the FDA and EPA.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2013
"All I want is the same thing...to be ABLE to make the decision." - Agomem

It's not in the Corporate interest of the producers of GMO crops that you have that freedom of choice.

Know your place. You are the cattle, and they are the farmers.

Cattle have no right to know what is in their feed. They should be content to glean the grass absolutely free in the barbed wire limits of the field they have been assigned.

Free Range Cattle are free thinkers who know that the invisible hand of the marketplace makes their farm maximally efficient according to the farmer's definition, and in their battle with the other cows for domination of their field, they know that success comes through brutal competition.

It is a free market religion they hold right up to the door of the slaughter house.

Mr_Science
1 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2013
Some GMO crops use less pesticides (the more pesticides are contained in their residui)

Have you heard of pest resistant crops? http://www.gmo-co...ops.html
but they don't grow closer together or use less water. How did got into it (link)?

I have read it in many places but a quick google search came up with http://www.washin...-enough/ Maybe you should try it some time. You obviously have not been around farms. Since the increase used of GM crops farms have been able to have the plants closer together due to less need to remove weeds and fight against pest.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2013
For example the GMO soya mentioned above actually uses a larger amount of Roundup herbicide, which would otherwise destroy it. Many GMO were developed for just to enable higher dosage of herbicides and pesticides.
Correct, some plants have never done well with pesticides and have continued to plagued by pest. However, there are many that have been modified to no longer need pesticides or a lesser amount.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2013
The link you provided, excluding the obvious propaganda slant, is a good example of the down side of GM crops. However, does not have anything to do with statement you quoted. You may want to think about what you want to say before you type it and look like an uneducated propaganda machine.
Mr_Science
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2013
In time you will have your answers. Believe it or not many of these studies have and are currently happening. However, you must pay close attention or you may over look them. Many information rescores will not show information against their position.

The main problem I see farming in general is lack of diversity. Without the genetic diversity crops can fail due to a single genetic flaw or weakness. Traditional crops are still from a single gene pool. Growing a more diverse crop is also helpful with soil nutrient stabilization, pest resistance, and even taste. Many times when multiple types of the same crop is grown in the same field they will cross pollinate producing flavors and colors currently unrealized and underutilized. An argument can be made for more diverse cattle as well.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2013
"All I want is the same thing...to be ABLE to make the decision." - Agomem

It's not in the Corporate interest of the producers of GMO crops that you have that freedom of choice.

Know your place. You are the cattle, and they are the farmers.

wow. That's almost word for word what the Obamacare Guide told me.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2013
No we shouldn't. It comes down to the fact that all of your concerns have either already been verified false or the research is still continuing. However, there has been no credible scientific evidence for GM crops causing autoimmune diseases, the dwindling bee population, or any other major problems. The science so far shows they are just as safe as your normal cultivated crops.

Simply put, it's your own fears and lack of knowledge, paying attention to propaganda that is not fully informing you, and your own knee jerk reaction to the term Genetic Modification. Technically, your normal cultivated crops, flowers, cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, dogs, cats, and most other pets all have been genetically modified. Although, most of the time you hear the terms used for these as selective breeding or selective cultivation.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2013
Thank you for proving to me I was correct. Every single one the links you provided are biased, some of them rather blatantly. You might want to take a look at the following link for a place to start to do some real research and not the biased site you have linked to. http://en.wikiped...oversies

We started this discussion with you taking offence to my use of the work hypocrite. I was not referring to you at that point but now I have evidence you are a hypocrite as well. You want GM crops stopped but you have said yourself you buy them. It doesn't take much research at all to find what companies use them and which ones do not. No matter where you live this information is available. No excuses.

I grow weary of having a propaganda fueled discussion. Once you have some real understating of the science we may speak of this again. Until then, enjoy your biased news and information.
Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2013
It's not exactly the joyful experience, I've to admit - as the mainstream science balances on the verge of governmentally supported parasitism.

agreed.
Liquid
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2013
I am critical of GMO and avoid them (they are also bad for the honeybees and disrupts their behavior so the issue is not ALL about us).

If GMO's must exist to feed the masses, I just hope the option to buy non-GMO continues.
Mr_Science
1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2013
As long as people buy it there will be the option. I congratulate you on taking a stand for what you believe and not being a hypocrite like the people in the article. The simple fact is, if no one buys them they will no longer sell them. Unlike what some people would have you believe, boycotting does work. A company's goal is to make money, if there is no money to be made there is no reason to do it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.