Indeed, if big companies go non-GMO, they won’t all convert to organic supply chains, but will instead source ingredients from firms producing crops via conventional agricultural techniques - the failings of which prompted the development of GM crops in the first place, one professor told a House of Representatives subcommittee on Wednesday.
But when consumers understand the actual choices on a case-by-case basis, rather than the generic mythical ones (dangerous + artificial vs safe + all-natural) they weigh up their options differently, said David R. Just, Ph.D, Professor and director of the Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs at Cornell University.
“For example, consumers would rather buy poultry that has been genetically modified to resist diseases than chicken that has been fed antibiotics to accomplish the same purpose.”
Consumers tend to consider genetic engineering as a “monolithic technology with a single set of characteristics”
The problem with the catch-all term “GMOs” is that consumers tend to consider genetic engineering as a “monolithic technology with a single set of characteristics”, that is set up in contrast with some mythical all-natural alternative, when in fact it is a multifaceted technology spanning thousands of applications, he added.