The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States

• Published in: Societies (Basel, Switzerland) Vol. 12; no. 5; p. 133
• Main Authors: Suldovsky, Brianne, Hallman, William K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.09.2022
• Subjects: Agriculture; Americans; Benefits; Bioengineering; Biotechnology; Codes; Consumers; Crops; Deoxyribonucleic acid; Descriptive labeling; Disclosure; Disclosure of information; DNA; Food; Food and beverage production/distribution software; Food industry; Food labeling; Food labelling; Food processing industry; Food products; Genetic modification; Genetically altered foods; Genetically engineered foods; Genetically modified crops; genetically modified food; Genetically modified organisms; Genetics; GM disclosure; Government regulation; Ingredients; Labeling; Laws, regulations and rules; Manufacturing; National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard; Personal grooming; Product information; Risk; Science and technology; Supermarkets; Technology; Telecommunications; Web sites; Websites; United States; United States > US
• ISSN: 2075-4698; 2075-4698
• DOI: 10.3390/soc12050133

Genetically modified (GM) foods have been commercially available in the US for more than two decades, yet Americans know very little about them. With the implementation of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016, food manufacturers will be required to disclose the presence of GM ingredients in their food products. How food manufacturers communicate with consumers about GM ingredients may have consequences for public understanding of GM technology. In Study 1, we explore how food manufacturers characterize GM ingredients within their food products on SmartLabel, a digital disclosure website established by the Grocery Manufacturers Association. In Study 2, we test the effect of those characterizations on perceived risks and benefits of GM food. Overall, we find that varying characterizations of GM ingredients do not significantly affect perceived risks and benefits. Post hoc analyses suggest that knowledge of GM technology and moral evaluation of GM technology significantly predict perceived risks and benefits. Implications for the public communication of GM technology are discussed.