Why your attitudes to technologies in foods depends on your attitudes to the world around you

The almost 400 page report, by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, analysed over 1,000 studies on the use of GM crops, since they emerged in the 1980s to make this determination. Indeed the report even stated that there is some evidence that GE crops have some benefits to human health.

So we can now anticipate no more debates and discussions and discourse over the safety of GM foods, yes? Game over, done and dusted!

Well – most probably not.

Why? Because when it comes to debates on genetically modified (GM) foods, arguing about the validity of the science is about as effective in changing attitudes as taunting name calling.

And that’s because our values, or worldviews, filter our receptiveness to messages and govern our attitudes – and this report is likely to have very little impact on anyone who already believes that GM foods are not safe.

Let me explain how this works. When we are presented with information that is complex, we tend to make emotionally-based judgements, driven by our values rather than on the information presented to us. So messages that don’t align with our values or worldviews tend to be rejected by us or dismissed.

It is already well-shown that pro-science and technology values are a strong indicator of support for GM foods and tendencies towards conspiracy theories are strong predictors for anti-GM positions.

Studies of how our world views and beliefs translate into attitudes towards GM foods have been undertaken by the Department of Industry and Science and the Office of Gene Technology Regulator. These studies have found there are four key values-based segments of the population that are better predictors of people’s attitudes to GM foods than age, gender, or other standard demographics.

And a good understanding of these values segments can helps us understand what drives support or opposition to technologies in the food chain, such as GM foods.

Segment 1 is the least enthusiastic about the benefits of science and technology. They have the highest agreement that “the pace of technological change is too fast to keep up with” and are the most likely to agree that “science and technology creates more problems than it solves”, that “scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than the poor”, and that “we rely too much on science and not enough on faith”.

This segment tends to be less positive towards the benefits of science and technology generally, and biotechnology specifically. They are also more concerned with related risks. but in contrast to Segment 1, they have relatively high awareness of the term “biotechnology” and various biotechnological applications. They are least likely to agree that “human activities have a significant impact on the planet” and least likely to agree that “not vaccinating children puts others at risk”.

Segment 3 has relatively high interest in science, and agrees that “the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects”. In relation to GM, this segment is the second most positive, yet while awareness of biotechnology is relatively high they can be very risk averse. They also have the highest agreement that “children should be protected from all risks”.

This group is the most positive towards science and technology. They express greater agreement that “science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest”, that “new technologies excite me more than they concern me” and that “the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects”. They also strongly disagree that “science and technology creates more problems than it solves” and that “we depend too much on science and not enough on faith”.

When asked if they supported modifying the genes of plants to produce food by introducing the genes of a plant of a different species, the results by segments were stark.

​Similar values segmentation have been found in relation to climate change and attitudes to science and technology, and they can provide an insight into how to engage with different audiences. It’s rarely about needing to debate the quality of the science of genetic modification, as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report has done. For many people it more about ensuring children are safe from the effects of unknown technologies, or about feeling unsettled by the pace of technological change, and if you are not addressing these you are not addressing or changing their concerns.