It is effective to sue 'benefits' rather than 'safety' to accept genetically modified crops



Genetically engineered crops, which are made by recombining genes, which is a blueprint for living things, are being repelled by some people for reasons such as “danger to the human body”. The research results have been published that it is more effective to appeal the benefits of genetically engineered crops than to claim the safety of genetically engineered crops in order to allow such people to accept genetically engineered crops. .

What Influences Consumer Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods?-Nguyen Pham, Naomi Mandel, 2019

ASU study finds that touting safety of GMOs just riles those who are encountered | ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact

In the United States, GMOs have been approved since the twentieth century, and farmers have grown and sold crops that are resistant to pests and droughts that scientists have made, or crops that have a high nutritional value that are prone to shortages. Yes. However, due to factors such as toxicity and allergy concerns, distrust in the testing process, and adverse effects on the environment, it is also true that there is a strong backlash against genetically modified crops.

Professor Naomi Mandel, who conducts marketing research at Arizona State University, said that he started this research from the question, 'How can I get consumers to accept GM crops?' '50% of Americans consider genetically engineered crops to be dangerous,' said Mandel, who investigated what is the most compelling message for those who are opposed to genetically engineered crops. .

According to Mandel, the position on genetically modified crops has several major powers on both sides. The genetically modified crops pro-American biotechnology companies and food manufacturers, the United States Food and Drug Administration and Government agencies, including the (FDA), the opponents the European Union (EU) of and grocery chain Whole Foods, Markets and Greenpeace, an NGO that advocates nature conservation, can be mentioned.



The research team of Mandel et al. Divided a total of about 900 subjects into four groups, 'Agree (for GMO)', 'A little agree', 'Disagree', and 'A little opposition' from the opinion on genetically modified crops. He also gave each participant a message on genetically modified crops in an online session and investigated how their opinion changed. At the beginning of the experiment, they said that they started by 'providing on the safety of genetically modified crops.' Participants were given the message, “Investigators from independent researchers and international organizations have shown that genetically modified crops are not at risk to the human body and are as safe as non-genetically engineered crops.”

Mr. Mandel, “When we measured the effectiveness of the message, those who were already in favor of GM crops did not change their minds with the message. For those who were against GM crops, the opposite level was The result is determined by People who showed weak opposition to genetically modified crops have changed their opinion with the message that safety has been demonstrated. However, those who strongly objected to genetically modified crops did not change their opinion because of the safety message. 'By raising the safety of genetically engineered crops, Mandel has added that people on the opposition have strengthened the revolt towards genetically engineered crops,' said Mandel.

Therefore, the research team searched for what kind of message would reach the opposition of genetically modified crops. Then, showing data that “GMOs are more nutritious, more affordable and less likely to fail to grow than existing crops” persuades far more than just being safe. It has been confirmed that it can be done.



Mr. Mandel, who says 'showing the benefits to the consumer can strongly persuade opponents of genetically modified crops,' may apply this fact to other polarization issues as well. thinking about. 'In recent years I have been interested in many types of political breaks,' said Mandel, who argues that how to reduce political bias is an interesting theme. In the U.S., there has been a major disruption among the citizens, such as the rise of anti-vaccination opponents and the breaking up of opinions on abortion and immigration issues.

Mr. Mandel's comment on the abolition of pro- and anti-vaccination, 'I've noticed that pro-vaccination is loudly complaining that anti-vaccination is a foolish, non-scientific entity.' He said that this was not the attitude of people trying to persuade the other. 'If you really want to go against vaccine opponents,' perhaps it is a good idea to quietly discuss the benefits of vaccination, 'said Mandel.

by Free-Photos

in Note, Posted by log1h_ik