The impact of ‘framing’ in the adoption of GM crops

ABSTRACT

Genetically modified (GM) crops offer significant advantages in our crop improvement programs because they are created using a more targeted approach which is not possible in traditional breeding methods. Human benefit is one of the main objectives of crop improvement but the legal framework for the introduction of GM crops and the depiction and portrayal of GM crops in the media create barriers to these benefits. This article attempts to highlight the barriers to GM crop adoption particularly focusing on the idea of “framing” and the way GM technology is framed in the media. The resulting public health, economic, and ecological concerns about genetically modified plants, along with the reality of these misconceptions, are discussed with specific examples. Finally, we propose potential routes toward increased acceptance of GM crops.

KEYWORDS:

• Crop improvement
• ecological concern
• economic concern
• framing
• GM crops adoption
• golden rice
• health concern

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) crops can contribute to people’s livelihood as well as their health, which otherwise may not have been possible with crops derived from traditional breeding methods. For example, scientists developed a genetically engineered rice with β-carotene (named “Golden Rice,” due to its gold color appearance), since rice cannot produce β-carotene on its own.¹ β-carotene is a precursor, which is converted to vitamin A in the human body, and its lackleads to varying levels of Vitamin A deficiency (VAD). In millions of children in more than half of all countries, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, VAD causes blindness and exacerbates common illnesses.^2,3 Golden Rice was developed as a proof of concept in the 1990s and made headlines as a valuable tool for combatting VAD. However, Golden rice is still not fully integrated into rice breeding programs or farming systems due to roadblocks and release delays. High costs, strict regulations and persistent anti-GM campaigns have prevented the release of Golden rice to its intended populations.^4–6

The objective of crop improvement is to benefit humans, but the regulatory framework surrounding GM crop introductions, as well as the framing and representation of GM in the media have created barriers to their benefits. Despite the imperative to focus on improving access to the technology and harnessing it to address poverty and food insecurity, much of the debate around GM crops and biotechnology focuses on environmental impact and biosafety issues.⁷ The objective of this article is to highlight barriers to GM adoption and suggest potential routes toward greater GM acceptance.

GM Crops: Definition and Usefulness

Definition

Understanding the processes of genetic modification is relevant in understanding the barriers to GM crops adoption. GM crops, also known as GMOs, are organisms whose genetic code has been directly modified in some way. However, definitions vary depending on country, regulating body, organization, and scientific convention.⁸ The inherent issue with the term GMO is its generalization. All crops have been genetically modified from their progenitor species through the process of domestication and human selection for thousands of years.⁹ These genetic changes were achieved mostly through cross pollination, which can take well over a decade for most crops, and decades for tree species. The term GMO has not been fully defined causing confusion between consumers, and even among researchers regarding what a “GMO” might exactly mean.

Let us consider maize as an example. The crop was cultivated nearly 9,000 years ago in the Balsas region of Mexico and varies from its progenitor (teosinte) in vegetative, ear, and kernel morphology.¹⁰ The cultivation of the maize we see today is a result of genetic modification, as humans directly selected for beneficial traits. However, Bt maize was genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry proteins, essentially providing “built in”protectionand reducing the amount of chemical insecticides to control lepidopteran insect pests.¹¹ Further, Bt insecticides are routinely sprayed on both organic and conventional maize farming systems to control lepidopteran insects.¹¹ Even though Bt insecticides are considered “natural insecticides” because Bt is from a naturally occurring soil bacterium, the maize sprayed with Bt and transgenic maize that produces Bt maize control insect damage are not the same. Without a useful definition, the term “GMO” could imply that the traditionally cultivated maize as well as the transgenic Bt maize have both undergone genetic modification.

Usefulness

The plant breeding process can be summarized into four steps (Fig. 1): (1) set clear attainable objectives; (2) create genetic variation; (3) make selections based on evaluation of material; (4) and obtain seed certification and try commercialization.¹² Even though the goals of a breeding program can vary based on the type of crop and the program objectives, most will involve creating variability because genetic variation is the foundation for crop genetic improvement.¹³ Importantly, creating genetic variation is the step in the plant breeding process that primarily differs between the production of a GM crop and a traditionally bred crop.¹²

Figure 1. The plant breeding process by conventional and GM methods.

Although GM crops are often portrayed as the product of a stand-alone process, their usefulness in introducing new genetic variation increases the efficiency of plant breeding through time saved in assembling and isolating desirable genetic variation.¹⁴ The development of new genetic variation at a faster rate, ensures that crop production can keep up with the ever-growing challenge of new or resistant pests, diseases, and weeds in the face of a changing climate.¹⁵

In a conventional plant breeding program, in addition to natural variation, both chemical and radiation mutation technologies are used to create beneficial genetic variation.¹⁶ However, mutation-based breeding can take years of research to identify and isolate useful mutations or be impossible to create due to sexual incompatibility. Such reproductive barriers can limit our ability to generate the desired genetic variability. Therefore, conventional breeding only takes advantage of genetic diversity present within sexually compatible groups.¹⁷ Although GM and conventional processes are different, scientific consensus maintains that the differences between techniques (processes) have no relevance in assessing the health or environmental effects of the results (products).¹⁸

Framing and Misrepresentation of GM Crops

Framing is a sociology concept which emphasizes that people do not associate meaning to things, situations, or experiences they encounter in daily life automatically. Instead, meaning arises from a person’s interpretation of daily processes or occurrences through cultural lens.¹⁹ In communication, framing can be positive or negative depending on the audience and the type of information that is being presented.²⁰ In mass-media communication, for example, a frame is how information is packaged to encourage one way of interpretation or discourage another.²¹ Effective framing can influence the interpretations of life events and the public opinion and perception of a topic, especially when framing is tied to a person’s identity such as national origin or socioeconomic status.^22,23 This is the case in the framing of GM crops since the 1990s as a threat to sustainable and organic farming by anti-GM groups in the European Union.²⁴ GM critics have counterposed the technology with “sustainable agriculture” and linked “GMO-free zones” with food sovereignty, “quality” products, and agricultural practices that protect local farmers and environments.²⁴ GM crops are capable of making farming systems more sustainable, just as they can possibly be used in an unsustainable way.²⁵ In the Philippines, for instance, there was a 37% yield increase and 60% insecticide reduction attributed to the introduction of transgenic Bt maize to control the Asian corn borer.²⁶ In both the United States and Europe, anti-GM groups have framed “GMOs”by consistent fearmongering not based on evidence, concepts or reasoning, but on images of “Frankenfood” to scare consumers.²⁷ A comprehensive study on the media was done and it suggests that, despite the fearmongering, there is an increase in the positive trend toward GM crops in both traditional media and social media.²⁸ Nonetheless, misinformation about GM crops remains a concern as concluded in a recent analysis of large scale data regarding misinformation in the media.²⁹

In this section, the cases of Losey’s Monarch butterflies and Séralini’s rats are discussed as examples of unsubstantiated studies that were used to amplify the anti-GM narrative. Scientific literature on GM material became available at a stagnant rate throughout the 1990s. The Monarch Butterfly incident, for instance, did not spark increased media attention and articles about GM food until around 1998 and 1999.^30,30 When the scientific journal, Nature, published a letter titled “Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae,” the findings indicated that monarch butterfly larvae exposed to Bt maize consumed less and grew slower than those not exposed to Bt.³¹ These findings were presented as preliminary with a need for more research, due to the small sample size and scope of the study.^30,30 The same day the letter was published, the story appeared in the New York Times in an article titled, “Altered corn may imperil butterfly, researchers say.”³² This sparked immediate concern around the safety of GM crop consumption and the potential loss of the Monarch butterfly.³⁰ For those looking to oppose GM, it became easy to make the leap from altered corn could imperil butterfly to altered corn imperils humans. The Monarch butterfly was subsequently co-opted by anti-GM activists who argued that GM crops were hazardous and the concern was reported widely by major media outlets.³⁰

Follow up research by independent scientists found that on a field level, Losey et al.’s findings³¹ could not be confirmed and that the impact of Bt corn on monarch populations is rather modest.³³ Although this research alleviated some concern within the scientific community about GM crops and their impacts on the Monarch butterfly, it was not picked up or reported at the rate of Losey et al.’s initial study.³¹ The study by Losey and co-investigators remains associated with the risks of GM³⁴ and is still framed as evidence of the risks of GM crops. Consequently, the Monarch butterfly is still currently in the label for the anti-GM group, the Non-GMO Project.³⁵ A study assessing GMO conversations in social and traditional media platforms between 2018 and 2020 suggests that the “GMO debate” is becoming more favorable and less polarizing. Therefore, the high levels of skepticism about GM crops could be related to how media coverage shapes these conversations.²⁸ In conclusion, Losey’s Monarch butterfly experiment was publicized in a way that framed GM maize as dangerous.

In another case, even though the Séralini study³⁶ is cited by many anti-GM groups as an example of the detrimental effects of consuming GM food, it is deemed by researchers and scientific groups as a flawed study with poor experimental design.³⁷ The original publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2012,³⁶ was retracted in 2014. But the initial conclusion that there was increased tumor formation in rats fed genetically modified corn³⁶ led to an immediate alarmist and negative response. Within hours, the study was blogged and tweeted about 1.5 million times, and within the month, anti-GM activists destroyed a GM soybean shipment in France, a 10 year moratorium of GM crops was imposed in Peru, and all GM food imports were banned in Kenya.^38–41 Although the Seralini study³⁶ was retracted, the article had already been published and communicated widely, conclusively framing GM crops as dangerous.⁴² A study of GMO discussion on X (formerly Twitter) between 2020 and 2022 found that there is a significant contrast between scientific consensus and public opinion, and that mixed attitudes toward GMOs can arise because of misinformation and conspiracy theories.⁴³ It is conceivable to argue that unsubstantiated studies like the Séralini experiment help fuel the misinformation.

The way GM is framed in the media can directly influence public opinion and down the road, governmental regulation. If the news coverage of GM food is minimal until a controversial or risky event occurs,³⁰ then the overall perception of GM crops will be negative. For instance, before the 2016 GMO ban in Russia, the media shifted the framing of GMOs from science and entrepreneurial opportunities to concerns.⁴⁴ On the contrary, positive framing of the rigorous risk assessment of GM crops and their importance to global food security⁴⁵ can improve the acceptability of GM and genome edited (GE) crops.⁴⁶ If GM crops are framed as sustainable by the media, it should be expected that this is also the way consumers would perceive the technology (Fig. 2). When consumers have no prior knowledge of a new technology, such as GM crops, media can fill the knowledge gap and frame the perception of the technology.⁴⁷

Figure 2. Framing of GM crops influences consumer attitudes.

Perceived Concerns Around GM Crops

Perceived Health Concerns

The media bias and negative framing of GM crops has led to several perceived concerns. Scientific and public debates on the safety of using GM crops for food and feed tend to focus on the safety of the inserted transgene (intended or unintended), its transcribed RNA, and the safety of its encoded protein.⁴⁸ One of the fears surrounding the safety of the inserted transgene and the transcribed RNA is horizontal gene transfer (HGT), or lateral gene transfer, which is the non-sexual movement of genetic information between genomes of related or unrelated species.⁴⁹

The potential risk of HGT to bacteria present in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) has led to concerns that transgenes might be incorporated into human and livestock genomes.⁴⁸ However, HGT of transgenic DNA from GM plants to bacteria is generally considered a low frequency event,⁵⁰ and even lower is the transfer from GM plants to bacteria or host cells in the GIT of mammals.⁵¹ In addition, most feed-ingested DNA is degraded upon digestion, particularly by the time the nucleic acid arrives in the colon or small intestine, which are generally considered critical sites for HGT.⁵² Furthermore, DNA from various organisms such as plants, animals, and microbes, has been present in human food and animal feed throughout history, implying that most DNA found in GM plants has entered the mammalian gut before the present time.⁵² Also, the somatic cells lining the gut and immune system, that are responsible for the uptake of this DNA have a rapid turnover, which would lower the risk of HGT.⁵²

Another concern regards the proteins encoded by transgenes and their possible toxic or allergenic effects.⁴⁸ What deserves more appreciation is that all GM crops are assessed for potential allergenic impacts and presence of proteins similar to known allergens and their digestion stability in the GIT.⁵³ Organizations like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have extensively outlined regulatory developments and recommendations on testing for non-IgE-mediated adverse immune reaction to foods, in vitro protein digestibility tests, and endogenous allergenicity testing of GM material.⁵⁴

A joint survey organized by the FAO and WHO resulted in a robust allergy risk assessment process to determine if proteins developed by transgenes exhibit properties of known food allergens.⁵⁵ In the FAO/WHO risk assessment, the under or over-expression of specific allergenic proteins or the creation of new proteins are both considered in assessing GM food safety and unintended effects of genetic engineering.⁵⁵ The assessment found that food derived from modern biotechnology is just as safe as food derived from traditional plant breeding.⁵⁵ What also needs more highlighting is that modern biotechnology can provide additional benefits when there is a need to remove allergenic proteins in certain plant species. For example, transgene induced gene silencing was used to prevent the accumulation of Gly m Bd 30 K protein, an allergenic protein present in soybeans, effectively suppressing the allergenicity of the soybeans.⁵⁶

Unintended effects of transgenes are challenging to predict, but equivalence testing is recommended for assessing novel foods, including GM crops. Equivalence testing focuses on identifying differences in terms of agronomic, morphological and chemical characteristics of GM crops to its comparator, which is usually a genetically-closely related variety.^57,58 Equivalence testing was established by the 1996 FAO/ WHO risk assessment to be used as a tool in assessing the substantial equivalence of GM crops with their non-GM counterparts with a history of safe use.⁵⁵

Substantial equivalence testing is a key starting point in the safety assessment process of a novel food (including GM crops) in comparison to its traditionally bred counterpart. In one study, a comparison was made between glyphosate resistant soybean and a conventional soybean cultivar for their composition of fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrates, amino acids, fatty acids, toxic and anti-nutritional compounds. The results established that glyphosate tolerant soybeans varieties were substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.⁵⁹ The analysis of the glyphosate tolerant varieties was further repeated for several generations and in different genetic backgrounds with consistent results.⁶⁰

Perceived Economic Concerns

Agriculture is one of the largest industries in the world and accounts for 4% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and as much as 25% of some developing countries GDP.⁶¹ In the United States, agricultural and food sectors account for 10.5% of jobs.⁶² However, there are growing concerns about food production becoming a sector that is dominated by for-profit private companies with more control over GM crops. A key reason for the concern is that the high cost of the regulatory processes to develop GM crops has enabled private companies to dominate the technology.⁶³ A study conducted by CropLife in 2022, found that between 2017 and 2022, the cost of discovery, development, and authorization of a new plant biotechnology trait was $115 million and took an average of 16.5 years.⁶⁴ The cost is a barrier to non-for-profit organizations and public research institutions, therefore, giving major private sector entities an oligopolistic advantage.⁶⁵ The private sector is undertaking research and development of GM crops because they can profit from the technology, but the profit motive has the potential to preclude resource-limited farmers. Domination of GM technology by the private companies gives significant power to dictate where research is done, what traits are being researched, and how GM material will be distributed and marketed to the consumer.

Critics of GM crops have argued that using GM to alleviate poverty and food insecurity is only possible with the investment in traits that are beneficial to more than countries like the United States.⁷ But the high cost associated with the regulatory processes of GM crops makes their research and development inaccessible to public institutions and small businesses that might have otherwise invested in the development of not-for-profit traits. This is the case with public-funded projects like the Golden Rice Project, which ran into roadblocks and release delays due to high costs and strict regulations associated with bringing GM material to market.⁵ Golden Rice was intended for use in local rice breeding programs with no limitations on saving and replanting seed, and selling seed or grain.⁶⁶ These types of projects do not guarantee profit, which makes them less attractive to private investors.⁵

Because profit is the main motivator in GM crop research and development, the scope of GM trait development has become limited to traits that can be “lucratively marketed” by private companies.⁷ Traits like insect resistance, enhanced micronutrients, and abiotic and biotic stress resistances, are all valuable traits for smallholder farmers.⁶⁷ However, GM trait research and development has focused on creating transgenic herbicide tolerant soybean, cotton, maize and canola because they are effective forms of weed control and complementary agrochemicals sales.⁶⁸ Public institutions might have offered an alternative, yet their role has largely been research rather than development because of limited funding to bring GM crops to market.⁵ As a result,public institutions are unable to develop GM crops that private companies are unwilling to invest in.⁵

GM papaya resistant to ringspot virus is an exceptional example of a public private partnership, where the public institution researchers cleared the regulatory path themselves and made the variety free of use to farmers. The variety was created using patented technologies licensed by Washington University to Bayer, formerly Monsanto, a private company. The researchers were granted free use of the technology because papaya is not a high profit crop, therefore there was no economic opportunity for the company.⁶⁹ At least in non-major crops, similar public-private partnerships could potentially increase access to GM crops to communities in need of crop solutions, as in the case of GM papaya.

Perceived Environmental Concerns

There are also concerns around sustainability and whether GM crops can reduce food waste, lower pesticide and herbicide usage, and increase resource conservation. The UN defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”⁷⁰ Environmental opponents to GM crops believe that the technology is an unsustainable “treadmill phenomenon” that fixes temporary problems while creating a need for new solutions to the same problem.⁷¹

Weeds compete with agricultural crops for nutrients, moisture, and light, and can lead to billions of dollars in global crop losses annually.⁷² Engineered herbicide resistance is a valuable tool in combating weed pressure and can result in lower herbicide use when used in conjunction with a weed management program that integrates crop rotation, cover crops, competitive crop cultivars, low till, and targeted herbicide application.⁷² When herbicide resistant GM crops were released, growers were quick to adopt herbicides as their primary form of weed control, particularly because weed control had previously been labor intensive.⁷³ However, the intense selection pressure exerted by the herbicides has resulted in the development of herbicide resistant weeds.⁷² To address this, agrochemical companies have begun creating stacked herbicide resistant GM crops, combining tolerances to herbicides with different modes of action, making it less likely for weeds to evolve multiple resistance to several herbicides.⁷⁴ The use of herbicides with multiple modes of action can lead to increased herbicide use, as is the case with herbicide programs that recommend combining glyphosate with 2,4-D or dicamba,⁷² but as of 2020, there were 104 weed species with resistance to multiple herbicides.⁷⁵

Inserting additional resistant traits and promoting weed control programs that rely on one or two herbicides is unsustainable and a reason that GM crops are criticized as being a “treadmill” solution to problems. There are integrated management approaches, however, to control weeds that are herbicide resistant, such as the control of glyphosate resistant horseweed with cover crops and soil-applied residual herbicides.⁷⁶ A study conducted to compare maize and soybean yields in a low external input (LEI) cropping system and a conventional cropping system found that even with a 94% reduction in total herbicide use, yields matched or even exceeded levels that were obtained from the conventionally managed crop.⁷⁷

Potential Routes Towards Greater Acceptance of GM Crops

GM crops have been around since the 1990s, yet consumer knowledge of GM has not increased with their adoption by farmers.⁷⁸ As previously discussed, the term “GMO” does not have an effective definition, it is a pseudo-category that has been framed and exploited.⁷⁹ But, consumer preferences to GM material can be influenced by the type of information they receive, whether it be positive or negative, scientific or nonscientific.^80,81 Effective language is necessary moving forward in educating and disseminating information to the public.

There have been calls by scientists and researchers to reframe and reorient the public to “GMOs” by getting rid of the term completely, and basing regulation on the product, rather than the process.⁷⁹ The USDA has ruled that gene edited crops that could have otherwise been developed through conventional breeding are exempt from regulation (USDA, 2020) a positive transition toward more effective regulation. Europe, however, still insists on regulating based on the process by which a new plant is made; regulation based on the process rather than the product.

The study by Taguchi and coworkers on acceptance of GE foods in Japan found that, when consumers are provided with appropriate information, their acceptance of GE foods increases.⁴⁶ Further, there is an increase in acceptance, particularly when the information helps consumers understand why GE foods are important and how they are tested to ensure their safety.⁴⁶ This implies that a similar approach could be used for GM foods. Taken together, consumer attitudes toward GMOs remain mostly negative, but consumer knowledge can lead to increased adoption of GM crops.⁸²

There is a need for a more proactive effort by educators, researchers, the scientific community, and private companies to fill knowledge gaps and help reframe GM crops in a more transparent and positive way. A study assessing multiple social media and web-based services between 2019 and 2021 found that most of the mentions of GMOs were neutral or negative, and the major emotion expressed toward GMO was disgust.⁸² Further, negative sentiments on social media outnumber positive sentiments.⁸² There is evidence, however, that the more knowledge of GM technology possessed by consumers, the less likely they would be affected by misinformation. A good example for this is the observed shift in public sentiments and preference for GM food in China following the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸³ This should serve as a motivator to share success stories of GM crops even more broadly.

As mentioned earlier, in Hawaii, researchers developed a transgenic papaya resistant to the papaya ringspot virus,⁸⁴ a disease that was difficult to control by conventional means and cultural methods, leading to close to 50% reduction in papaya production.⁸⁵ How many consumers in the United States think of GM crops when they eat papaya? Speaking out more about GM technology and its use to save the papaya industry in Hawaii, is an example of how positive framing could be utilized to combat the negative perception of GM foods (Fig. 2). Utilizing various social media platforms to disseminate information about GM crops might be useful in helping to lessen consumer fear from misinformation about GM technology.^86,87

Despite the positive outlook, it is simplistic to say that consumer knowledge and effective framing will immediately solve many of the concerns and issues surrounding GM adoption. For instance, without harmonization of regulatory frameworks and availability of GM seed, there would be no widespread adoption. In Kenya, for example, tissue cultured banana was widely advertised to farmers who were interested in pathogen free material,⁸⁸ yet despite farmers’ interest and awareness of the technology, the adoption of the banana, particularly by smallholder farmers, was hindered, by high costs associated with plant biotechnology.⁸⁹ Likewise, Golden Rice still faces limited availability in its intended populations because of regulatory expenses and barriers.⁵ Therefore, consumer acceptance and knowledge of GM material is simply a step toward the larger goal of making GM technology and material more broadly available.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Iowa State University (ISU).