87% of consumers globally think non-GMO is ‘healthier’. But where’s the evidence?

By Elaine Watson

- Last updated on GMT

Health Focus International: “GMOs rank within the top five food concerns globally."
Health Focus International: “GMOs rank within the top five food concerns globally."

Related tags Genetically modified food

A large consumer study* from market researcher Health Focus International spanning 16 major consumer markets includes this pretty jaw-dropping statistic: 87% of consumers globally think non-GMO foods are ‘somewhat’, or ‘a lot’ healthier.

And while products such as caramel color, starch, or oils and sweeteners from genetically engineered corn may be nutritionally and chemically indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts, 63% of consumers think they are “less safe to eat”.

Meanwhile, more than half of consumers surveyed (55%) also believe GM crops are “worse for the environment​”, adds Health Focus International​, which surveyed 2,300 US primary grocery shoppers, and 500-1,000 shoppers per country in Canada, Brazil, Mexico, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Japan, China, Australia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines in 2014.

“GMOs rank within the top five food concerns globally. GMO concern is even surpassing ingredient concerns such as sugar, sodium, hydrogenated oils and artificial ingredients.” 

The findings are echoed in a separate survey​ of 2,000 US consumers conducted by Packaged Facts earlier this year, which found that 43% of Americans agree with the statement ‘GMO food products are not safe to eat’, while 42% believe that ‘GMO crops are not safe for the environment’ and 39% believe non-GMO foods are ‘more nutritious’.

Levels of concern about GMOs vary between countries, with 22% of Indian consumers and 28% of UK consumers saying they are concerned about GMOs compared with 71% of Chinese consumers, 61% of Italians, 61% of Russians, 56% of Mexicans, 55% of Brazilians and 49% of Americans surveyed by Health Focus International.

The food industry shot itself in the foot by opposing the labeling initiatives

So what should we make of these findings, and is there any evidence than GM foods are “less safe to eat”?

Man shopping cropped
According to Packaged Facts, those most likely to seek out non-GMO products are “typically 18-44 years old, have children at home, are college students or a post grad degree, are Hispanic, black or Asian, and live in the western or northeastern United States”.

Not according to the European Commission​, ​the National Academy of Sciences​, ​the American Medical Association​, ​the World Health Organization​, ​the Royal Society​, ​the FDA​, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science​.

However, the consumer survey data is not wholly surprising “given the avalanche of information coming out on GMOs has been so one-sided, coming primarily from groups trying to protect their market share from a newer, better technology”,​ Dr Wayne Parrott, professor of crop science at the University of Georgia, told FoodNavigator-USA.

 “The food industry shot itself in the foot by opposing the labeling initiatives… but without explaining what the technology is all about, even though they have a great product to talk about.”

The food industry urgently needs to regain the initiative, he said: “They started one ​[an education campaign] in 2004, but quickly dropped it, not realizing that nature abhors a vacuum.  If the food industry does not deliver the message, someone will deliver it for them, and whoever does can twist it around any way they like, as we are seeing.”

Steve Hoffman: Listen to consumers

However, Steve Hoffman, managing partner at natural products industry consultancy Compass Natural, said agricultural biotechnology was not delivering on its promises, adding: 

“What this survey confirms for me is that - despite the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that biotech and multinational junk food companies have spent over the past four years in PR to promote the alleged benefits of GMOs and in defeating GMO labeling bills throughout the U.S. - consumers around the world are not convinced.” 

GMO safety Healthfocus international
Source: Health Focus International. AMS: Americas (USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico); EUR: Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain); AP: Asia Pacific (Japan, China, Australia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines).

Most consumers find the GM debate complex and confusing, so conclude that “it’s probably safer to stay away​.”  

Health Focus International project manager Cali Amos speculated that most consumers find the subject of GMOs complex and confusing, so tend to adopt a default position of “it’s probably safer to stay away".

If media messages are mixed, and you can’t see any immediate consumer benefit, caution is logical, she added:

Consumers are asking questions about everything in their food now. Why is this here? What does this do? So when it comes to GM ingredients, consumers want to know: What can they do for me?”

Meanwhile, ongoing legal wrangling around GMO labeling – which most large food companies are against – has kept GM crops in the public eye and contributed to the perception that there must be something wrong with GMOs if manufacturers appear to be so intent upon “hiding​” them, she said.

“It's a transparency issue.”

GMO concerns Health Focus International
Source: Health Focus International. AMS: Americas (USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico); EUR: Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain); AP: Asia Pacific (Japan, China, Australia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines).

GMOs and pesticides: No simple answers

While Health Focus Intl did not explore why consumers thought non-GMO was safer or healthier, Amos said concerns about pesticide use – which shoppers see as a food safety as well as an environmental issue – were key to the debate, which presents a challenge for the biotech industry as the data in this area is confusing.

At a recent debate​ hosted by Intelligence Squared, for example, Monsanto chief technology officer Dr Robert Fraley said insecticide use had gone down significantly since the introduction of GM crops engineered to produce their own insecticide from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt).

When it comes to herbicides (weedkillers), however, he acknowledged that weeds developing resistance to a herbicide used with some GM crops (glyphosate) are a problem, with some farmers now using more glyphosate, or supplementing it with other less environmentally-friendly herbicides because it is becoming less effective.

But this is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, said Dr Fraley, who noted that farmers are constantly having to adapt the tools they deploy to keep pests, weeds and other threats to plants at bay, whether their crops are genetically engineered or not.

"Here's a simple question: You've all heard of antibiotic resistance. It's a problem, right? So what should drug companies do?  Should they not develop new​ antibiotics just because there's become a resistance to an antibiotic? Absolutely not.”

Packaged Facts GMO consumer research 2015
Source: Packaged Facts online consumer survey of 2,000 Americans, Jan and April 2015

Non-GMO does not necessarily mean natural and organic, just a return to conventional farming, and pesticides

Many consumers, meanwhile, did not realize that conventional agricultural techniques – which involve multiple pesticides - are not necessarily any greener, or created using techniques consumers would consider ‘natural’, he added (eg. using x-rays to induce mutations in the DNA of the crop).

Moreover, if farmers move away from GM crops, they are not all going to go organic, he said.

The solution to herbicide-resistance is to keep evolving, he said. “I'm proud of the fact that we are developing our third and fourth generation technologies and staying ahead of the curve.”

GM crops … it’s not just about soy and corn

Speaking at the same event, UC Davis genomics and biotech researcher Dr Alison Van Eenennaam said the whole debate about what we spray on corn and soy diverted attention from scores of other truly exciting applications of GM technology, particularly in tackling plant viruses.

Dr Alison Van Eenennaam: Plant diseases destroy some 15% of our world's agricultural harvest

“Other introductions include drought resistant corn, virus resistant squash… nitrogen efficient and flood-tolerant rice… consumer traits like a non-browning apple, a low-acrylamide potato, and crops produced oils with improved for nutrition.  None of these applications require the use of any chemical pesticides.

“Researchers are working to develop GM oranges that are resistant to citrus greening disease, something that is devastating the Florida orange industry. Plant diseases destroy some 15% of our world's agricultural harvest, a number that is likely to grow as our climate changes.”

For more information on the Health Focus International study, click HERE​. 

Related news

Show more


Show more

GMO is a dangerous poison

Posted by Mark Donner,

GMO and its associated lethal pesticides and herbicides are dangerous poisons. Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, "developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females." The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. Everywhere GMO is being grown, food allergies, disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others have been skyrocketing in the human populations.

There has been a drastic decline of crop-pollinating insects all over the world, and what this means for the future of the world's food supply. Wild pollinators like bumblebees, butterflies, and beetles are basically disappearing. GMO industrial agricultural practices are causing this insect genocide. Pollinating insects in general, which include a wide range of insects and other animals, are simply vanishing from their normal habitats and foraging areas. That lower diversity and lower abundance of wild insects means less fruits and destruction of the diversity of plants and their fruits worldwide.

GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―surviving deadly weed killers. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

GMOs do NOT increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The toxins associated with GMO should never be tolerated. NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE neurotoxins are absolutely the main factor causing the collapse of bee and pollinator populations along with other lethal chemicals, Agent Orange herbicides, glysophate, etc. When these poisons are banned as they were in Europe the bee populations start to recover. GMO neonicotinoids, roundup etc. MUST BE BANNED OUTRIGHT and all the farmers along with USDA, Biotech and chemical companies told to cease and desist from what they are doing.

An even scarier prospect: the "BT" version of GMO soybeans and corn, (basically pesticides engineered directly into the plant)

The "BT toxin" gene is put into the DNA of the corn in order for it to manufacture its own toxins that kill pests. The BT gene originated from a soil bacteria that also infiltrates the microflora (friendly digestive bacteria) in your gut. The Bt gene converts the microflora in your intestine into toxin-manufacturing machines.

So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.

Report abuse

More than 300 scientists worldwide signed that GMO is NOT safe

Posted by Angelika,



Report abuse

To anyone using Giles Seralini resources to argue against GM and biotech

Posted by Hákon Sigurðsson,

I noticed that someone in the comments used the link "http://www.gmoseralini.org/en/"

I can assure you that this person has not done any research outside of sources that already agree with them and continue to reaffirm their biased opinions.

In my opinion, a layman can refute Giles Seralini's study. That study was called "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" (which was retracted - Source 1).

The study is pretty simple to refute. The 2 biggest problems with the paper a (1) the insufficient sample size - they only had 10 rats for each sex in the control group! - and (2) the strain of rats used. The rats used are called "Sprague Dawley" and they have been found to spontaneously develop tumors (Source 2). The paper was also extremely misleading and disingenuous by attempting to make it sound as if the control group didn't get a similar rate of cancer.

For a slightly more in-depth analysis of the study, check out Source 3.

At this point, I have decided that anyone who cites this study or Giles Seralini as a source is not interested in learning about the subject and are only interested in mental masturbation.

1 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
2 - http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
3 - https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-corn-and-cancer-what-does-the-evidence-really-say-9746

Report abuse

Follow us


View more