Pham 1

Silvio Pham
Ali M. Meghdadi
Writing 39C/ Section 33337
2 March 2015
Changing the Perception of Genetically Modified Foods: Boring to Breathtaking
Betterment of a system means to inspire a paradigm shift by changing the current, flawed
approach to a new, more efficient approach that is simple, enactable, and measurable to mitigate
the original flaws and improve the output of the system. An example of betterment in practice is
changing the language used to communicate genetically modified (GM) foods to improve their
current perception among consumers. GM foods, introduced in the 1990s, have been beneficial
to society by revolutionizing agriculture to provide high quantity and high quality foods at
affordable prices to American consumers. Genetic modification allows commercial crops
advantageous traits that make them safe to consume and easier to grow, boosting their yield,
increasing their year-round availability, and decreasing their cost. Although genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) are proven to be beneficial and safe for consumption, many consumers still
oppose their research, development, and use because of perceived fears of potential harm to
human health. Through campaigns of disinformation, opponents of GM foods strive to promote
organic foods over genetically modified foods. In the process, they have wrongly casted a
negative light on GM foods, leading to the decline of such quality, safe, and affordable foods. If
these campaigns and ongoing fear of GM foods continue, they will continue to decline until
completely replaced by organic foods, foods that are twice as expensive and lower quality due to
the lack of engineered benefits. The negative perception of GM foods is undermining their role
in addressing the nations food needs.

Pham 2
To reverse the decline of GM foods, it is necessary to change the publics perception of
GM foods from a negative and rejecting view to a positive and accepting view. The publics
perception of genetic modification, which is dependent on how GM foods are communicated to
consumers, directly correlates to how consumers choose to support and purchase GM foods
(Heiman and Zilberman 171). The easiest way to pull consumers away from such foods is by
ordinarily classifying them under the blanket term GMO or genetically modified organisms.
The language is alarming to consumers as it sounds frightening and unfamiliar. This way of
negatively framing GMOs using a narrow approach is responsible for deterring consumers from
purchasing GM foods as it groups them all under this label and denounces them all together. The
solution to improving the perception of GMOs is found in changing their presentation by using
simplified vocabulary that represents their benefits (Hillary Clinton at BIO Convention 2014).
For example, particular foods called vitamin-enriched rice or rotting-resistant tomatoes
would be more positively received than if they were called GMO. This comprehensible and
advantage-focused approach rebrands GM foods, highlighting their beneficial traits in
understandable language to appear more appealing to consumers. The product remains the same,
but the wording used to convey the product is refined to elicit a more positive response from
consumers. Rebranding is the strongest solution to bettering the perception of GMOs as it
involves a simple and enactable change in communication that directly raises consumers
support.
The common misconception is GM foods pose potential health risks; therefore, they are
inferior to organic foods. This false belief has been disproved by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in their comparison of GMOs
to organic alternatives. The FDA takes the position that genetically engineered crops are not

Pham 3
fundamentally different from [organic plants] (Phillips 686). The WHO states, No effects on
human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods (Modern food
biotechnology 24). The scientific consensus is GM foods are just as healthy and safe to
consume as they are not drastically different from organic foods. When concerning health risks,
organic foods are not better than GM foods, and to this day there have been no documented cases
of health consequences from the consumption of GM foods. GMOs have the rewards of their
beneficial traits without the risks of human harm. However, scientific evidence has not been
enough to appease supporters of organic food who continue to the push forward propaganda that
GM foods are unhealthier in order to justify their price premium and remove GM foods from the
marketplace. Their disinformation-focused campaign against GMOs is a way to promote the
market share of organic foods.

Price Comparison Between Regular (Non-organic or GMO) and Organic Foods

Figure 1. Martin, Andrew and Kim Severson. Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles. The New
York Times. The New York Times Company. 18 Apr. 2008. Web.

Pham 4
As organic foods rise in popularity, GM foods decline, leaving less variety and more
expensive choices. According to Figure 1, which compares the prices of regular (non-organic or
GM) foods to organic foods, organic alternatives are 20 percent to over 100 percent more
expensive than their non-organic competitors. For the average family, a 100% price premium
adds up to an additional $6500 a year in grocery costs (Brown and Sperow 21). The largest price
difference depicted in Figure 1 is between the varieties of one half gallon of milk; regular milk,
on average, is priced around $2.00, but the most expensive organic milk is priced at nearly $5.00,
which equates to $10 for a full gallon. The financial toll of an all-organic diet is unaffordable to
the ordinary consumer. The price premium for such organic foods that are no better than GM
foods is steep and unreasonable, yet shoppers are still interested under the assumption organic
foods are safer for consumption. The effectiveness of such campaigns reveals how the general
public is uninformed or disinformed in the case of GM [foods], and efforts at dissuasion from
GM foods is causing escalating economic costs (Twardowski 1-3). Although organic foods are
not better, they have been marketed as better and have been successful in persuading consumers.
The demand for organic food persists, leading to perpetually increasing prices. The demand for
GMOs is halted, leading to decreased availability. If this trend continues, organic foods will
replace GMOs in the marketplace, limiting consumers to narrow, expensive, and unaffordable
options.
The trend began in the 1990s with the introduction of one of the first commercialized
GMOs, rBGH milk, milk from cows treated with the artificial growth hormone rBGH to increase
production of milk. rBGH milk was feared by consumers because its direct benefits were not
easily realized. Opponents of the milk said, it has been so easy to make the argument against
[rBGH] It doesn't improve the taste, the quality or the nutritional value of milk (Phillips

Pham 5
677). The intention of rBGH was to allow cows to produce greater quantities of milk, not to
improve the aesthetic and taste of the milk. Even though rBGH milk was more plentiful and
consequently cheaper, consumers became fearful of what hidden side effects the genetic changes
may cause because they did not notice significant and apparent changes distinct from organic
milk. Their reasoning was if the change is not obvious and seen, it must be hidden and uncertain.
This mindset lead to propaganda that aimed to dissuade consumers from GM foods by scaring
consumers: People are talking about the impact [rBGH] might have on themselves, on their
small children These feelings seem to go very deep (673). Although the rBGH milk was
proven to be safe, genetic modification did not affect it with dramatic, visible results, so
opponents worked to unfairly criticize it.
The opposition to rBGH has set the precedent for misinformation and propaganda of
GMOs today. The resistance to GM foods is present in the debate of requiring GMOs to be
labelled. Opponents of GMOs have initiated the labelling movement, viewing GMOs as a
fundamentally failed technology and aiming to eliminate the technology from agriculture in
this country (McLure 719, 723). To influence consumers, they fuel their claims with
propaganda downplaying the benefits of GMOs and accusing GMOs of dangers to human health.
They distinguish two groups to consumers organic and inorganic foods and assert inorganic
options are unneeded. GMOs are grouped together under one label and all are criticized at the
same time. This way of framing GM foods scares consumers by wrongly depicting GM foods as
harmful, and it is causing their decline.
Consumers naturally do not respond well to the term GMO because it is sounds
unfamiliar and alarming, so the use of the term GMO itself is a way of negatively framing
genetically modified foods. Hillary Clinton, in a speech at a Biotechnology Industry

Pham 6
Organization convention, asserted that to consumers, the term GMO is too obscure and its use
serves to frighten consumers away from the concept and products: Genetically modified sounds
Frankensteinish drought resistant sounds really like something you want (Hillary Clinton
at BIO Convention 2014). The trouble with the perception of GMOs is in how they are
communicated. Currently the communication is too convoluted for the average consumer to
understand, so consumers generally avoid GMOs with an unwarranted fear. Using GMO is a
way of negatively framing GM foods as it elicits a response bias of rejection by consumers. The
term categorizes all GM foods under one label and does not easily define what GM foods are and
how they are beneficial. It is a negative branding that particularly repels consumers without a
strong scientific background, which is most consumers (Jin and Han 95). Instead of framing a
crop under the blanket term GMO, Clinton urges for a simplification of the vocabulary used to
make GMOs seem more understandable and familiar to the average consumer by referring to
crops by their name and engineered function such as vitamin-enriched rice. With a simplified
and reduced approach toward GM foods, consumers are more likely to be receptive as Clintons
proposed headlining defines the crop as well as its advantages. In this way, GMOs are casted in a
positive light and they excite a positive response bias from consumers.
The less that consumers know about GMOs, the more framing is effective because it
constructs and imposes a one-sided perspective on what GMOs are. A study of the presentation
of GM foods to college students found the way foods are framed to consumers strongly
influences what types of food they decide to buy: The empirical results show that message
framing has an influence on college students purchasing intentions. Students showed distinct
responses in purchasing intention according to headlines Individuals with less knowledge have
a larger variation in how message framing impacts intent to purchase (100). According to this

Pham 7
study, the title GMO is especially effective at deterring consumers from GM foods. First,
because consumers pay the most attention to the headline of a message, the title GMO itself
disinterests potential buyers. Second, the negative framing by GMO is more effective because
most consumers are not knowledgeable enough about the process of genetic engineering. The
solution to bettering the perception of such foods is in rebranding their name to a more attractive
headline.
Rebranding of GM foods involves replacing the current headline of GMO with new
headlines specific to individual products to showcase their simplicity and advantages. In the case
of GM foods, rebranding is simply a case of changing the [product] name to assign new
meanings and disengage with the old [reputation] (Mixing the old and new 6). According to
guides on corporate rebranding, changing the name of a corporation or product is an easily
executable task if the goals of rebranding are established and its consequences are assessed. The
goals of rebranding are made clear by Clinton better perception of GM foods through simpler
vocabulary and emphasized benefits so rebranding is a fully possible solution. A study that
examined what type of marketing persuaded consumers to buy GM tomatoes found that
consumers, when presented with positive information, view [trans]genic products more
positively compared to [organic] counterparts (Colson, Rousu, and Huffman 22). An example
of an altered name, rotting-resistant tomatoes, is a more appealing headline than GMO, and
the newly rebranded tomatoes would likely have more supporters as its name meets the criteria
of being easy to understand and flaunting its benefits. Rebranding keeps the same exact product,
but changes its name to renew its identity and improve its reputation. The outcome of
rebranding, a simple and enactable name change with predetermined goals, is a positive framing
that better engages consumers.

Pham 8
Rebranding has been effective at improving the image of other areas in the food and
agricultural industry. One successful example that parallels GM foods is seen in Canola oil,
currently one of the most popular cooking oils due to its versatility and clean nutrition value.
This oil was originally named Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil, but its manufacturers rebranded
its identity by giving it a more relatable name, Canola oil, to win the support of consumers
(Goodgold 38). The vernacular of the original name was unintelligible to the ordinary consumer,
and the sound of the word rapeseed can be connected to negative connotations. It was
predicted that the product would not sell well with the name Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil, so
its manufacturer gave it a new identity with the made-up name Canola oil, which is short for
Canadian low-acid oil. As a result of this smart branding, Canola oil is now a staple in American
kitchens as the third most popular cooking oil in the world. Figure 2 measures the rise in
consumption of Canola oil after its name change illustrated by the sudden increase of the blue
trendline. Rebranding transformed the perception and success of this product.

Graph Depicting the Rise in Consumption of Canola Oil

Figure 2. Longterm Trends in Per Capita Consumption of Edible Oils. Low-Carb for You:
Discussing the science behind the low-carb lifestyle. 2010. Web.

Pham 9
Aside from measuring rate of consumption to judge the effect of rebranding, polls can
also be conducted. Two separate polls about the support of GMOs prove that a change in
wording can have significant impacts on perception. The first poll, published by Thomson
Reuters, asked consumers about their food choices, What is your opinion regarding the safety of
genetically modified organisms? 64% of respondents marked they were unsure of the safety of
GMOs (National Survey of Healthcare Consumers). This majority of respondents is unsure
due to the wording genetically modified organisms which is unintelligible to the ordinary
consumer. The second poll, published by the Independent, asked consumers, Do you think the
government should encourage experiments on GM crops so that farmers can reduce the
pesticides they use? 64% of respondents marked they agreed with the idea the government
should encourage GMOs (Ludlow, Smyth, and Falck-Zepeda 70). Because this question brought
the focus to the benefit of pesticide reduction using easy-to-understand vocabulary, perception of
GM foods was positive. The measured results of these two polls verify Clintons claim that a
comprehensible and impact-focused approach is the best method to increase support for GM
foods.
Since the genetic engineering was introduced to agriculture, crops have been easier to
grow and consumers have been blessed with quality foods at cheap prices year-round. However,
the negative framing by the term GMO is continuing to decrease the availability of such
beneficial foods, replacing them with expensive organic counterparts. Their struggling reputation
can only be bettered through a form of rebranding changing their label of GMO to reduced
titles that reflect their simplicity and benefits. The change is simple and enactable as it only
involves a change in communication of the product, and its success can be measured through rate
of consumption and through opinion polls. If each genetically modified food is rebranded so

Pham 10
consumers can understand the benefits, the perception of genetically modified foods will
improve, their advantages will be made known, and they will be abundant in the marketplace.

Pham 11

Bibliography
Alyokhin, Andrei. Colorado Potato Beetle Management on Potatoes: Current Challenges and
Future Prospects. Spec. issue of Fruit, Vegetable, and Cereal Science and
Biotechnology 3.1 (2009): 10-19. Web.
Amin, Latifah, et al. Public Perception of the Ethical Aspects of Golden Rice in Malaysia. The
International Journal of Science in Society 2.3 (2011): 15-31. Web.
Avise, John. The Hope, Hype, and Reality of Genetic Engineering: Remarkable Stories from
Agriculture, Industry, Medicine, and the Environment. New York: Oxford University
Press. 2004. Web.
Betz, Fred, Bruce Hammond, and Roy Fuchs. Safety and Advantages of Bacillus thuringiensisProtected Plants to Control Insect Pests. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 32.2
(2000): 156-173. Web.
Brown, Cheryl and Mark Sperow. Examining the Cost of an All-Organic Diet. Journal of
Food Distribution Research 36.1 (2005): 20-26. Web.
Clinton, Hillary. Hillary Clinton at BIO Convention 2014. BIO. San Diego, CA. Jul. 2014.
Youtube video.
Colson, Greg, Matthew Rousu, and Wallace Huffman. Consumers Willingness to Pay for New
Genetically Modified Food Products. American Agricultural Economics Association
Annual Meeting. Orlando: American Agricultural Economics Association, 2008. Web.
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge, Seth Wechsler, and Michael Livingston. Adoption of Genetically
Engineered Crops by U.S. Farmers Has Increased Steadily for Over 15 Years. Amber
Waves. USDA-ERS, 2014. Web.
Goodgold, Liz. Red Fire Branding. Silicon Valley: Happy About, 2010. Web.

Pham 12
Gotsi, Manto, Constantine Andriopoulos. Understanding the pitfalls in the corporate rebranding
process. Corporate Communications 12.4 (2007): 341-355. Web.
Heiman, Amir and David Zilberman. The Effects of Framing on Consumers Choice of GM
Foods. AgBioForum 14.3 (2011): 171-179. Web.
Jin, Hyun and Dae Han. Interaction between message framing and consumers prior subjective
knowledge regarding food safety issues. Food Policy 44 (2014): 95-102. Web.
Ludlow, Karinne, Stuart Smyth, and Jos Falck-Zepeda. Socio-Economic Considerations in
Biotechnology Regulation. New York: Springer, 2014. Web.
McLure, Jason. Genetically Modified Food: Should labels be required? CQ Researcher 22.30
(2012): 717-740. Web.
Mixing the old and new: How to succeed with corporate rebranding. Strategic Direction 24.7
(2008): 6-8. Web.
Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study. World
Health Organization. WHO Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne
Diseases, 2005. Web.
Muzellec, Laurent and Mary Lambkin. Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or
creating brand equity? European Journal of Marketing. 40.7 (2006): 803-824. Web.
National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food. Pulse Healthcare
Survey. Thomson Reuters, 2010. Web.
Phillips, Susan. Genetically Engineered Foods: Do They Pose Health and Environmental
Hazards? CQ Researcher 4.29 (1994): 673-696. Web.
Pimental, David. Economic and Environmental lmpacts of lnvasive Species and Their
Management. Pesticides and You Beyond Pesticides 21:1 (2001): 10-11. Web.

Pham 13
Potrykus, Ingo. Golden Rice and Beyond. Plant Physiol 125.1 (2001): 1157-1161. Web.
Shewry, Peter, et al. Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends in Food
Science & Technology 18:4 (2007): 201-209. Web.
Suszkiw, Jan. Tifton, Georgia: A Peanut Pest Showdown. Agricultural research magazine.
USDA-ARS, 1999. Web.
Twardowski, Tomasz. Uninformed and disinformed society and the GMO market. Trends in
Biotechnology 33:1 (2015): 1-3. Web.
Uzogara, Stella. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A
review. Biotechnology Advances 18:3 (2000): 179-206. Web.
Wesseler, Justus, and David Zilberman. The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition.
Environment and Development Economics 19:6 (2014): 724-742. Web.