What a Survey on DNA in Food Tells Us About Science Communications
Headlines on the latest consumer survey popped up all over my feeds this week. They varied from exasperated (80% Of Americans Support Mandatory Labels On Foods Containing DNA. DNA!) to insulting (Are Americans really dumb enough to worry about food containing DNA?). Oklahoma State University’s Agricultural Economics Department asked consumers, “Do you support or oppose the following government policies?” 86.5% of respondents support mandatory country of origin labels for meat. A large majority (82%) “support mandatory labels on GMOs.” But curiously, about the same amount (80%) also “support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA.” Yes, DNA: the building block of all living things and practically every food. So what are we supposed to take away from this? Should science communicators be crying into our cereal? Should we be sitting smugly, proclaiming, “See, it’s the audience’s fault”? Here’s what these headlines say to me: Is this survey taker answering what she thinks she’s answering? 1. Dig deeper into surveys. There is a lot of data circulating about what food issues Americans do or don’t support. Remember how influenced this information can be by survey design. One example is around biotechnology labeling, which is a key parallel these headlines draw with the OSU survey. In our IFIC Food Technology survey, we ask what information consumers would like to have that isn’t on the label. Only about 4% of those surveyed say that they want information about biotechnology. That’s a dramatically different percentage than when you just give a survey taker a yes-or-no option. 2. Improve scientific communications. When a lot of different scientific concepts come together, it’s easy to muddy the waters. DNA, selection, modification, genetics, engineering. It’s not surprising that many folks can’t explain all these notions and how they fit together. For those of us who focus on science communications, don’t let […]
article