Researchers considered that question specifically for new technology foods, like GMOs, where there is a great deal of public opposition. They made use of Amazons Mechanical Turk, the Internet version of college students taking an introduction to psychology. The participants answered questions regarding food crops that were new and old, and were the result of traditional breeding or new technologies, like genetic modification or irradiation. The participants were asked whether they would be willing to consume the product, where it was safe for them or society, and whether it was moral to grow it at all. [1] Here is what they found over a series of studies.

Thesestudies were conducted on US citizens, so while it may well be generalizable to other first-world, Western countries, it may not apply as well to developing countries where adequate nutrition is an over-riding life-changing issue.

People prefer food that has stood the test of time, a heuristic rule that is captured in Talebs Lindy Rule, where old ideas and objects are more resilient to the buffeting winds of change. While some opponents of GMOs argue that they are not safe despite significant testing and can produce examples to prove their point, it is also clear that this cognitive bias, what the researchers termed recency negativity, is also at play. The more widespread acceptance of GMOs or other genetically modified crops may well require the passage of time more than any logical argument.

[1] For example, SP6321 is a domesticated sweet potato (it does not grow wild in nature). Humans changed the DNA of SP 6321 ancestors by selectively breeding only the largest and most drought-resistant sweet potato plants over multiple generations. That DNA is in SP 6321 today and it makes SP 6321 larger and more drought-resistant than many types of wild sweet potatoes. Farmers are just now beginning to grow SP 6321 for human consumption.

[2] While both techniques involve human action, irradiation is an older, lesser-known technology, whereas gene modification has had quite a bit of media and controversy.

Source: Recency Negativity: Newer food crops are evaluated less favorably Appetite DOI: 101.1016/j.appet.2020.104754

View original post here:
Is There Bias In How We Judge GMOs? - American Council on Science and Health