NZ study: How peoples’ emotional cues shape views of genetically modified food

• Surveys have continued to show many Kiwis aren’t comfortable with eating genetically modified (GM) food, despite studies supporting its safety.
• In a new paper, Otago University researchers delved into the factors behind that scepticism – finding emotional responses play a major part.
• It comes as the Government is looking to overhaul its regulatory stance on gene tech, while Food Safety Australia New Zealand has been consulting on a new definition for GM food.

New Zealand might be softening its regulatory stance on genetic modification – but a new snapshot survey suggests there’s still some consumer unease about its use in food.

Our supermarkets are full of imported processed foods that contain GM ingredients and must be labelled accordingly – but our shelves are essentially bare of GM meat, fruit and vegetables.

In a new study, Otago University researchers sought to explore what shaped peoples’ perceptions around GM and another long-standing food technology, irradiation, which is often used in fresh produce to control insect pests like fruit flies.

While there’s now a wealth of international studies to support the safety of both technologies, research has continued to highlight a degree of public scepticism about them.

Our supermarkets are full of imported processed foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients and must be labelled accordingly – but our shelves are essentially bare of GM meat, fruit and vegetables. Photo / Food HQ

This year, for instance, a poll by research firm Primary Purpose found there were as many Kiwis against using gene technology in food production as those in support of it.

Earlier surveys suggested nearly half of Kiwis would have concerns about buying GM fruit and vegetables – or even buying products from animals that had eaten GM food.

In the latest study, which involved surveying around 300 young adults, Iwan Junaedi and Otago University colleagues wanted to compare perceptions about GM and irradiation as both involved tech that modified food genetically.

“These similarities make them valuable for exploring how consumers respond to emerging food innovations, especially those perceived as ‘unnatural’,” Junaedi said.

“By comparing these two technologies, the study sought to uncover insights into the broader factors influencing public acceptance of novel food interventions.”

When presented with irradiated food, many participants had a visceral reaction – often rooted in emotional or “affective” associations – rather than logical, fact-based responses.

Words like “radiation” and “radioactivity” were frequently mentioned, tapping into fears stoked by media coverage of nuclear disasters and medical radiation risks.

Unlike GM foods, which saw improved evaluations when consumers had time to reflect, irradiation failed to gain much acceptance among those surveyed.

Interestingly, the researchers found a gender divide in attitudes: women were generally more accepting of GM foods, while men were slightly more inclined to support irradiation.

Impossible Foods' plant-based patty contains a GM soy protein and another ingredient made from GM yeast designed to give it a trick-meat taste.

Yet both groups preferred their fruit untreated over either of the technologies.

Another of the study’s most telling insights came from a word association exercise.

When participants were shown an image of a strawberry, people were drawn to the visual appeal of the strawberry: but the moment “irradiated” was mentioned, words like “unnatural” and “dangerous” quickly followed.

Junaedi said the findings, published in the journal Nutrients, highlighted how people often relied on emotional reactions rather than objective facts when assessing risk.

“For GM foods, terms like ‘genetically modified’ evoke feelings of artificiality, contamination, or ‘tampering with nature’, which can outweigh scientific safety assurances,” he said.

“Despite GM foods being widespread for many consumers, the specifics of genetic modification remain poorly understood – the unknown aspect triggers caution and scepticism.”

However, he said this could change if consumers were given more time to weigh up the evidence.

“When people reflect, they may acknowledge the weight of expert opinions and credible research over rumours or myths.”

The study comes as the Government last week revealed details of a new bill introducing long-awaited reforms to GM rules, reducing restrictions for scientists to work with the tech across a wide range of areas.

That move has been welcomed by biotech researchers, who argue current regulations are outdated and prohibitive, but have drawn concern from the organic sector – particularly over a potential impact on exports.

At the same time, Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has been consulting on an updated definition for GM food, which it said was needed to ensure regulation kept pace with new breeding techniques.

Jamie Morton is a specialist in science and environmental reporting. He joined the Herald in 2011 and writes about everything from conservation and climate change to natural hazards and new technology.

Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.