GMO labeling: US consumer concerns raise questions on branding strategy

28 Jun 2018 --- With consumers becoming increasingly mindful about their consumption, transparency has become a must for suppliers. However, achieving the right level of transparency can be tricky. New research by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation has found that the presence of references to “bioengineered” (BE) foods on labels can lead to an increase in consumer concerns, especially regarding human health, impacting the likelihood they will purchase as well as the price they would be willing to pay for a product containing GMOs.

Innova Market Insights has noted strong growth of non-GMO claims in new food and beverage launches over the past five years, with a CAGR of +30 percent (2013-2017). However, for suppliers not switching to non-GMO how the presence of GMOs or BE foods is labeled could have a profound effect on their business.

The IFIC research was conducted after the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) sought comments on its proposed BE labeling standards, as well as consumers’ views generally of genetically modified foods (GMO)s. AMS has been charged with developing a national mandatory system for disclosing the presence of bioengineered material as part of the US National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law.

As part of the proposals, AMS has come up with three types of BE labeling symbols – a plant, a sun and a smile. The IFIC Foundation tested reactions to these three symbols and two variations of text disclosures. In every combination, levels of concern across a variety of factors increased when a disclosure label was applied.

Consumers were shown bottles of canola oil; one without any BE logo or text; one with one of the three symbols; one with a symbol, plus “bioengineered” in text; and one with a symbol, plus “may be bioengineered” in text. An additional group of consumers were shown just text disclosure, without any BE logo.

This approach found that 31 percent of respondents had human health concerns when shown the bottle without any disclosure. However, that percentage rose to 50 percent when shown the BE “plant” symbol, further increasing to 51 percent when text was added to indicate that the product was “bioengineered,” and to 57 percent when “may be bioengineered” was added to the “plant” logo.

Human health concerns almost always showed the greatest increase, compared to other factors such as animal health or environmental concerns, IFIC reports.

The survey also asked about broader perceptions of GMOs. Thirty-six percent of respondents said they know very little or nothing at all about bioengineered or genetically modified foods, identical to the number who say they know at least a fair amount. Despite the low level of knowledge, a greater number (47 percent) said they avoid GMO foods at least somewhat.

The vast majority (85 percent) of those who avoid GMOs do so out of human health concerns, with the environment (43 percent), animal health (36 percent) and agriculture/farming (34 percent) concerns trailing far behind, IFIC notes.

“Despite broad scientific consensus that GMOs are safe to consume, a majority of Americans seem to be convinced otherwise. It’s a significant disconnect and it underscores the need for more creative public education on the science behind our food,” says Joseph Clayton, CEO of the IFIC Foundation.

The IFIC findings raise the question of what the right amount of disclosure is. When consumers were asked which combination of logo and text provided the “right amount” of information, a significant majority said that any of the three logo disclosures plus the text disclosure provided the right amount. Far fewer said that the logos alone provided the right amount.

Consumers were also asked how they preferred to receive the legally required GMO disclosure information from food companies, ranking their choices among six methods. “Symbol or visual representation” was selected as the top method by 51 percent, followed by “text on a food package” at 29 percent. Trailing far behind were sending a text message to receive more information (7 percent), visiting a website (6 percent), calling a phone number (4 percent) and scanning an electronic or digital link (3 percent).

The IFIC survey also sought to understand how statements about GMOs, or GMO-free claims, stack up against other front-of-pack labels. The foundation found that several claims rank higher than GMO-free claims. In fact, when given a list to choose from, the top labeling claims consumers seek out when buying food are:

• All Natural, 100 percent Natural or Natural (71 percent when purchasing for themselves, 72 percent for their families).
• Raised without Antibiotics (71 percent for themselves, 72 percent for their families).
• Sustainable (62 percent when purchasing for themselves, 63 percent for their families).
• Locally Sourced (61 percent when purchasing for themselves, 63 percent for their families).
• USDA Certified Organic (60 percent for both themselves and their families).

GMO-free claims including “Not Made with Genetically Modified Ingredients” and “Non-GMO Project Verified” were important to more than 55 percent of consumers each, significantly below any type of natural claim, as well as several others, IFIC notes.

The presence of a bioengineered logo reduces what consumers would be willing to pay for a product versus one without a logo. For instance, respondents indicated they would be willing to pay an average of US$2.96 for a container of squash soup with no BE disclosure. However, the tolerated price falls when various BE symbols are applied.

Consistent with labeling claims sought by consumers, however, the tolerated price actually rises much closer to that of the unlabeled product if “all natural” or “sustainable” is added to a package alongside the BE symbols. In one case, the tolerated price with a BE disclosure and “all natural” is in fact equal to the product with no BE disclosure.

The IFIC Foundation will be submitting formal public comments on the proposed labeling schemes, including the full survey.

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com