[00:00:00] Musical Jingle Intro

​

00:07 Understanding GMOs: Basics and Benefits

 

[00:00:07] Sarah: Welcome to Table Talks! Today's segment is all about GMOs. And you guessed it, we're talking about GMOs. So what is a GMO?

 

[00:00:19] Lucy: Well, a GMO is a plant, animal, or microbe in which one or more changes have been made to the genome. Typically using high tech genetic engineering in an attempt to alter the characteristics of an organism.

 

[00:00:35] Sarah: Yeah, I find that there's often a lot of combining of genes that go into it as well, from different types of organisms to acquire specific traits, right? There's a lot of GMOs out there that have the trait of resisting viral infections, herbicides, insect damage, right? And they're all kind of created to almost increase this potential for better global food security, enhanced food quality, right?

 

[00:01:05] Sarah: And I think that's why they're so widely adopted as well in over 20 countries right now. We have China, Canada, South Africa, Brazil, and many others who have adopted GMOs.

 

[00:01:18] Sonakshi: Moreover, the thing with GMOs is that instead of traditional breeding methods, which I have practiced for a long time. Genetic engineering offers scientists a chance to like to bring certain kinds of genes into one organism from another. Like where you can create a scenario where values of specific species are transgendered. So, this might be a reason to why they have been widely more popular recently.

 

 

01:47 The Controversy Surrounding GMOs

 

[00:01:47] Lucy: Yes, and regarding GMOs lately, there are lots of controversies and I think one of the biggest like consumer concerns about GMO foods is its health implications, like worries about maybe side effects or unintended consequences of GM products such as toxins, allergens or genetic hazards. And I think like many researchers concluded that the acceptance or rejection of GM foods is associated with the risks or benefits that the consumers have in mind.

 

[00:02:23] Sarah: That's true. Yeah. I know that there's GMOs despite what we just talked about with them having so many potential positives and just good opportunities for agriculture and economy. There are a lot of controversies, especially like you said, health concerns, right? You have people who are worried about getting cancer or long term illnesses, right?

 

[00:02:46] Sarah: So it kind of begs the question where they're getting this info from, right? I think also The World Health Organization tried to address this issue, right? I read their, what they put out there, and they said basically that it's impossible to make general statements about the safety of all GMOs, given how individualized their gene compositions are. But that all GMOs currently on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risk for human health. But I believe the first part of their statement there where they said that it was like impossible to guarantee safety that caused even more controversy and kind of more spiraling into this idea of “oh, then you can't promise that it's gonna be safe”. So I think that kind of fueled the controversies and these public misconceptions of people worrying that they are going to get cancer, because even the World Health Organization apparently can't confirm it, kind of that idea.

 

[00:03:47] Sonakshi: I completely agree that out of all the current topics being widely debated in modern science, GMOs have gained such a big magnitude that cannot be surpassed. on one end of the spectrum, there's like excitement for the probable benefits from GMOs, and on the other end, there is this uneasiness about the negatives, which are basically unknown right now. So, one thing worthy discussing is the potential impacts of GMO right now on health and environment is just to break down of communication behind it, the reason for the controversies around GMOs and if a more sophisticated and strategic communication could help us address it more.

 

[00:04:41] Lucy: And even extensive scientific research have proved that foods derived from GMOs are considered as safe as, and nutritious as those obtained through traditional breeding methods. Only 51 percent of the U. S. citizens believe these foods are safe, which means that there's a gap between public perception and scientific consensus. And this also reflects, the level of acceptance of consumers in maybe seeking more information and assurance regarding food safety. 

05:20 Social Media's Role in GMO Misinformation

[00:05:20] Sarah: Right. So I think that's what we're going to get into here, into our segment on this gap between public perceptions and scientific consensus. And like you mentioned, where this information is coming from and how the public are getting this misinformation and kind of these conspiracy theories that are popping up. And I believe, I think we should first tackle probably one of the biggest disseminators of information in general in the modern age, which is social media and how that is affecting the GMO conversation and kind of public opinions GMOs.

 

[00:05:57] Lucy: Well, I think the increasing presence of GMO products in the market have prompted like the public discussion online and also actions, like it has prompted actions, regulatory initiatives from like the government. And because social media provides an opportunity to disseminate information about GMO and increase public awareness. I think it's really an important, consideration to think about when we are talking where people are getting the information and whether they're trustworthy or not.

 

[00:06:36] Sarah: Yeah. I know I looked at quite a few studies and they centered around Twitter, especially because Twitter is a very quick and fast source of information, right? I think over like 1 million tweets per day, surely. So they looked at that and what was found was that, at least in one study, it was over, like, one third of tweets were expressing a negative opinion towards GMOs. And then even further, there was a Boolean query, that was conducted. And what they found was that, within social media, negative sentiments have a much larger outreach than positive sentiments.

 

[00:07:22] Sarah: I think just in general, that study was referring to, but then they also looked specifically more into GMOs and that was applicable too. So any sentiments towards GMOs that were negative or they did an emotional analysis, so it was like disgust or anger towards it had. A much higher retweet rate and a                     greater outreach than something that was expressing more positive or neutral kind of attitude to GMOs. So, I think there's also just that inherent nature of social media right now to promote and spread more negative sentiments towards GMOs, you know, even we saw with vaccines, right, climate change? All these sources of public misinformation, I think are very well amplified in social media just with the nature of how it is right now.

 

[00:08:15] Sonakshi: It is definitely a significant finding that information and knowledge are kind of key factors in the forming of public opinions on GMOs. And social media among them has been one of the main reasons for these divergent public attitudes. I went through a quantitative survey conducted in 2022, where I realized that people who had a better level of education about GMOs, they, um, the responses from those candidates had a more like comprehensive perspective to it. And they had more exposure to a balanced information on GMOs at least. On the other hand, people like folks who had a lack of understanding, who basically relied on social media for information on GMOs. They had very little exposure to what it actually is, and that misinformation was what caused their suspicion towards these new crops.

 

[00:09:20] Sarah: Yeah, I believe I read a similar study actually, it was conducted in China too, and yeah, oh shoot, we read the same thing. But yeah, and that was really interesting too because that just kind of showed how the different, depending on where you get your information, can like really influence your opinion on a subject, even if you go into it like completely neutral you can come out of it with such a varying degree of perception.

 

[00:09:49] Lucy: And I think another important consideration of the use of social media is its accuracy of information. Because info presented in the media can be questionable and also leading to misconceptions, right? And Since the food choices directly impact people's well being and health, learning about like the channels through which that information is conveyed, and also about their credibility is, important for the public. And if they get, maybe wrong information, their choices towards GMO products purchase might also affect the marketplace.

 

[00:10:35] Sarah: That's true. Yeah. And definitely how people's perception on GMOs and how it's sparked by, you know, social media can have those big outstanding effects into the economy, right? Agriculture and that's a really big thing to think about how one, someone's tweet, just like one person's tweet. Okay. Maybe not one person. Yeah. Yeah. 10 people's tweets could lead to that sort of effect, which I think is why it's definitely important for us to consider social media as being that significant, right? And how we can regulate that information because we don't want “Joe in his Nissan” tweeting about how much he hates GMOs to result in, you know, all of a sudden, oh, shoot, these GMO products aren't selling off the shelves and then we have greater food insecurity, you know, that type of stuff. We don't want it to snowball necessarily that way.

 

[00:11:36] Sonakshi: I have something in my research where I saw, people had extracts of some interviews with local farmers and then extracts of interviews with big corporates on social media about GMOs and how people from both sides used it to influence people's opinion about GMOs.

 

[00:12:04] Sarah: Like purposefully?

 

[00:12:05] Sonakshi: Yeah, purposefully, [00:12:06] Lucy: Oh, I see.

 

[00:12:08] Sonakshi: Kind of like, and it's more common in the vulnerable economies in the world.

 

[00:12:13] Sarah: So that's almost like Not only is social media being used for misinformation, but also disinformation, which is the purposeful

 

[00:12:22] Sonakshi: Yeah, but it did benefit the big corporates, but like, it had a poor impact on the farmers, because they obviously rely on the production of their GMO seeds to maintain their income in those economies.

 

[00:12:37] Sonakshi: But the negative the negative opinion of GMOs which were formed as a result of those extractive interviews, it impacted their income in a sense.

  

12:51 The Power of Education and Awareness

 

[00:12:51] Lucy: And just talking about the role in social media, what do you guys think about the role of education which we just mentioned a little bit before? The role of education on people's perception towards GM food.

 

[00:13:07] Sarah: Well, I think if we go back to that study that we saw where when people were not only getting their information from more credible sources like the news or just actual government statements, right? And science, but it was also those people, they were better educated on GMOs themselves. And I think that does have a really big impact on someone's perception, or they have a more holistic understanding. Rather than someone just going in to social media completely, having no idea, right? And that's like their first introduction into GMOs is they, you know, type into Twitter GMOs, and whenever it comes up, that's like their first introduction.

 

[00:13:50] Sarah: I feel like most definitely they'd be more likely to have a more negative impact. But yeah, I think a lot of misconceptions, just in general, come from this place of not understanding what it is, right? ‘Cause if you never understand something, then of course you're probably gonna have some misperceptions and misconceptions, because you just don’t know about it. If GMO is just GMO to you, and you don't know that it is genetically modified organisms or just what we went through at the start of this podcast, it could be very hard to understand what it actually is, right? and if you don't understand what it is, then there's a fear behind it.

 

[00:14:28] Sonakshi: I agree. The question about GMO is basically very apparent and very complicated, and so like, education can definitely play a big, big role in modifying people's opinions because the discussion surrounding GMOs, it's not just about people having different attitudes about it, it also flows into moral and ethical concerns that go with GMOs.

 

[00:14:59] Sonakshi: Apart from the health issues, there, there could be, uh, implications on environment, biodiversity, and other societal values. So, education, utilizing education even social media, any kind of interactive websites, or even podcasts, like we are doing one, just to have a more productive discussion or conversation about GMOs can make a big, big difference to the public opinion.

 

[00:15:28] Sarah: Yeah, definitely. Because also I think you just touched on it a bit there, but the impacts too, right? And especially if we just see within the last decade, a lot of sources or a lot of areas and topics that rose a lot in controversy over social media and just in the public where topics like GMOs, vaccines, those types of things, they all have effects that implicate health or let's say the environment, which are two things that really hit close to home, especially in this modern day and age, right? We have a lot of climate change discussions, right? So anything that's talking about the environment and might have effects on the environment is also a big cause for concern.

 

[00:16:15] Sarah: And then just. Anything like our food, our food is like a very inherent kind of like, this is what we need to survive, right? So if something is, if you don't understand what's happening with your food, that can be a very scary idea, right? ‘Cause food definitely has a very direct and could potentially have a big negative effect on your health, right? So I think that's also why GMOs might be getting hit pretty hard in the controversy and kind of the. The opposition to it because it does if you do not understand it. It seems like it could be really bad.

 

[00:16:53] Lucy: Yes. And if there's like a low level acceptance of GM products, um, like marketing managers or companies might also adopt strategies to mitigate the organizational risks. For example, they might just avoid the information, avoid disclosing information about GMO in their products and which this might concern about the transparency and also maybe create dissatisfaction among public, right?

 

17:27 Labeling Laws and Consumer Choices

 

[00:17:27] Sonakshi: Speaking of info, information disclosure, what do you guys think about the impact of labeling laws and the disclosure of using those GMO ingredients in their products by the corporates can be?

 

[00:17:42] Sarah: Honestly, from what I've seen and from the studies I've read, it seems like labeling laws does have a negative impact on this conversation and the public perception of GMOs.

 

[00:17:57] Lucy: Um, I used in my research Google Trends to assess consumers interest and awareness of GMO related topics over time based on online search patterns for some keywords. And the keywords I chose were “GMO”, “genetically modified”, “non GMO”, and “GMO free”. And the trends observed suggest a common pattern of initial rapid growth in interest of these keywords around 2012 and 2013. And all the keywords have a peak in popularity during 2013. However, after the peak, there is a general trend of decline in search interests.

 

[00:18:44] Lucy: And around 2013 to 2016, it is when the public's interest in genetically modified topics peaked. And this increase, I think, was due to the government, the implementation of laws. So in 2013, it is when the government discussed the law and 2016 it is when the bill was passed. And this bill requires food manufacturers to choose one of three types of labels that companies can choose to convey their information. One is a statement on the package, it is like the physical label. The second one is the guidance to a website or phone number. And the third option is the QR code for smartphone scanning. And I think related to the labels, it is kind of limited sometimes, because some products might just be small and have limited space to convey more.

 

[00:19:52] Lucy: And that might pose a challenge, that might be really challenging for companies to think of and to be creative with their labels to think how to include certain information. And sometimes just by saying yes or no in the label might not be enough for consumers. And this might be challenging for food companies since there is a limited space available on the products packaging, and there are several surveys that suggest that the public not only want a yes or no about GMO products. They might want additional information such as the production place or what type of genetically modified organisms were used and what are the risks or benefits of those.

 

[00:20:49] Sarah: I agree. I read a study, it was by researchers Ellen and Bone, and they dealt with this kind of idea that you just mentioned where there's this deterrence because of the labels due to the stigma attached to labels as being something negative, like they're identifying something negative. And consumers reviewing the GMO labels, like that, especially because they were so new on the market too. Like all of a sudden they just popped up. So then consumers kind of looked at that label and were like, “oh, it's a warning, it's an avoidance. I do not want this in my product”, right? So if, like you mentioned, companies were able to add that information that people in the survey were indicating, right. What type of genetically modified material is in it, what that's doing. I think that would definitely help consumers associate the label with less of it being a warning or, you know, big red X, like, “no, don't eat this, it's bad”. And instead is just like an information marker. ‘Cause that's really what the GMO label was essentially meant to be. Like you mentioned, it was just more of like an indicator, you know, it was to have that transparency, right? with what's in your food. But not necessarily indicated as being something bad or what has now been made up to be like cancerous, right? It's more just a nice little indicator, a nice little info, little fun fact sheet almost, you know?

 

[00:22:28] Lucy: Yeah, and because consumers are unlikely to seek additional information beyond what is available in the product label. Those labels must be concise and clear about what they're conveying. And I think that even though the government presents three types of options, consumers are more inclined to the physical labels because according to our research, it says that 88 percent of the participants had a preference for traditional printed labels because there were concerns about privacy in relation to collecting data from barcode scans or QR codes. And if general information is only accessible via QR code, it may also go unnoticed by many consumers.

 

[00:23:22] Sarah: That is true. It is honestly from personal experience. My phone is five years old and it does not scan QR codes. I have been struggling in university because everything is through QR codes. If I want attendance, QR code. If I want to vote for a club election, QR code. I cannot scan QR codes. So, I cannot access GMO information. Also, I feel like QR codes too. They're very common on like every single product and it's something I don't think I've ever really looked at a QR code on like any product and I'm like, I want to scan that.

 

[00:23:57] Sarah: I don't think I've ever done that to be honest. So yeah, I definitely, I am all for physical labels. I need something to spell it out. Be like, this has GMO in it. GMO, you know. Even though you're right, that does pick up packaging material. So in order to figure out kind of a balance between giving information and suitable information, Right? Because I also don't think the little sticker that just has GMO on it

 

[00:24:23] Lucy: helps a lot.

 

[00:24:25] Sarah: Is necessarily the only one is that, you know, if you don't know what that is, then literally that could just be letters to you or especially if it's like red, then you're just like, “oh, maybe I should get the one that doesn't have the GMO”, you know.

 

[00:24:38] Lucy: Another problem with QR code is that there are people who don't have access to smartphones or internet connections. And even among the smartphone owners, some might not know how to scan QR codes. For example, like my parents.

 

[00:24:51] Sarah: Like me and you too.

 

[00:24:52] Lucy: Yeah, me too, me too actually. Um, but still like companies like Coca Cola still choose to implement the QR code approach.

 

[00:25:01] Lucy: However, even like with that being said, I think the main problem is not in food companies or consumers. And at least in my case, when I go to like grocery stores, I don't spend too much time on choosing or comparing products on the spot. So I would maybe prepare and learn about the products that I will be buying in advance. And so that when I get there, I would just grab them.

 

[00:25:25] Sarah: That is actually really, that's a good point, because when I go to the supermarket, the only comparison that happens is. With the prices, because listen, if the one's cheaper and it's not, you know, like for GMOs, that's food. Let's talk about fruits and vegetables, right. I don't analyze the tomato to see if on the little label, it has a GMO sticker. And I just look at the price. I'm like, “Oh, this is a 1 tomato. This is an 88 cents tomato.” I'm getting the 88 cents, you know, maybe like if it's rotten or not. But you are right, in day to day, like, actual life, not a lot of people are analyzing the stickers on fruits, vegetables, or just any products. There's not like, scoping through necessarily the nutrition facts or the labels necessarily every single time they want to buy something. So that is a good point.

 

[00:26:28] Sonakshi: Then that is what realistically happens with the price right here. Nonetheless, I mean, stickers could maybe make a bit of a difference to what people know, what fact people know, and maybe help with the breakdown of the pre-existing negative stereotypes about GMOs being unhealthy or something, but maybe they are not the way to go, they're not the long run options as the solutions.

 

[00:27:02] Lucy: And yeah, as you said before, labels are just indicators of whether they contain GMO or not. So the main problem is actually not on labels, but on, I think, people's knowledge about GMO food and their acceptance toward this type of products. So I think implementing awareness campaign may be an important thing to consider when maybe increasing people's awareness.

 

[00:27:32] Lucy: During my research, I found out that even before the introduction of the mandatory GMO labels, people were actively seeking and choosing products with non GMO labels. And those labels are implemented by the Non GMO Group Project, which claims to educate consumers and the food industry to help build awareness about GMOs and their impact on our health.

 

[00:28:02] Sarah: You're right, because I looked at studies too in regards to this and I found I think almost the non GMO label might have had, correct me if I'm wrong, but a larger impact than the GMO label itself because when you have something that says this specifically points out that this doesn't have something in it, just out of the blue, that even further perpetuates this idea that what, that like the GMO that this product doesn't have in it, is bad, or that this product that doesn't have the GMO is better, right? Because it's been pointed out, you know, like this juice has no GMOs in it. You know, it gives this idea where it's like, “oh, GMOs are bad”. Yeah. “oh, what's this GMO? I don't want that. I want the thing that says that it doesn't have it in it”, you know?

 

[00:28:58] Lucy: Yeah.

 

[00:28:59] Sonakshi: The non GMO thing would shine separately in the shelf.

 

[00:29:04] Lucy: Yeah. And when looking at the health benefits linked to GM foods, such as added nutritional value. There was a survey who asked about that, and participants were willing to pay more for those that have an added nutritional value if GMO were used. However, factors such as price, products, benefits, technology can influence on their choices. If the label presents positive impact on health, environment, and production related benefits, consumers might be more inclined to buy them.

 

[00:29:52] Sarah: That's true, because that would almost be counteracting. The negative stigma attached to the GMO label of it being like a warning if it was purposefully used to point out the benefits of it. Where it's like, “this has GMOs in it because it's more resistant to insecticides”, right? And then it's like, “Oh, okay. That sounds good. I don't like insecticides”. Like, yeah. Woo. You know? I feel like that’s a good way to kind of counteract that negative associations and statements with the label.

 

[00:30:29] Lucy: And just adding, another form of label that companies could use, there is the website or phone number. I researched on a food company, Campbell. They operate a website where people can discuss GMO ingredients in their products online and provide GMO labels for additional information.

 

[00:30:56] Lucy: And I think this action sets transparency standards in the food industry and supports digital disclosures through online platforms. So by offering consumers a place to comment about the company's products can increase maybe consumer satisfaction, and also their proactivity in learning and understanding about GM foods.

 

[00:31:23] Lucy: But of course, it is also understandable that many companies are against GMO labelings or don't take any action since it is costly to change the designs and labels to adapt consumers preference and trends.

 

 

 

31:39 Moving Forward: Strategies to Combat Misinformation

 

[00:31:39] Sarah: At this point in our podcast, we are now going to move into next steps because we have been talking about all the controversies, the conspiracies, the kind of problems that are going on, but how do we move forward? How do we eliminate, or at least lessen these misconceptions, conspiracy theories, misinformation that the public has about GMOs? How do we move forward?

 

[00:32:16] Sarah: I know throughout our conversation, just, before here, when we were talking about labeling laws, we talked about having transparency, right? More transparency in information about the GMO label, right? Making clear that it's not a warning. It's not something to, you know, make you fear the product. It's more an indicator.

 

[00:32:32] Lucy: It’s informative.

 

[00:32:35] Sarah: Yeah, it's informative, you know. So I think that is definitely a big next step that could be taken in terms of the labeling laws and just having that better implemented.

 

[00:32:46] Lucy: Right. So your idea is to adopt clear and standardized labeling practices to like ensure that consumers can easily maybe identify the GMO ingredients and also understand the presence of them.

 

[00:33:03] Sarah: Yeah, I think that would be really significant. And then of course, we were talking about social media at the start of our podcast.

 

[00:33:12] Sarah: Now, with what I've read from socially about social media and the studies that have been put forth, I think personally, that we should try and move away from using social media as a platform to spread GMO information. Just with how, like we talked about earlier, social media's nature of spreading negative information far faster, and with a much greater outreach than positive information.

 

[00:33:49] Sarah: I think that it might be better suited to switch our focus from trying to put forth credible information from governments or science on social media, and try and shift over to put it forth on a different platform, whether that be through news, that be through journals, articles, making those more accessible or just as accessible to the public than social media.

 

[00:34:15] Sarah: Right, currently, we are putting out information, credible information, about GMOs. It's not like we've completely given up and Joe in his Nissan is the only person giving out information about GMOs. We have scientists and we have government, but if they're putting that out on social media, Joe in his Nissan is going to have a greater outreach, or at least according to the studies, than you know, the scientists, right? And the credible information. So that's why I think that if we create that separation between the information on social media and then the credible information on, let's say, articles or news reports or, you know, those types of platforms, then it might be easier for the public to separate what they can count as credible information and not credible information, rather than having it all on this one platform, social media, and then leaving it entirely up to the consumer of the information. So that public viewer to figure out, “Oh, wait, this is from Joe in his Nissan, so this is not credible, but, oh, this might be from a scientist or, oh, but this person's telling me this”, you know, if you create a better separation there, that might be easier for consumers to identify what information they can trust and what they can't trust. And I'm sorry if you are a listener named Joe, and you have a Nissan. Very sorry. But don't be spreading bad, misinformed tweets about GMOs no more, because we will find you.

 

[00:35:55] Sonakshi: I think we've already established that the issue of information and knowledge is what has the most significance on the debate of GMOs and only if people could obtain a bit more information from more credible sources, it would be a lot more beneficial.

 

[00:36:14] Sonakshi: I would suggest a long term assessment of the impact of communications regarding GMOs or GM foods to determine the effectiveness and identify new trends and adapting new strategies. Even if, until we find alternatives to social media platforms, even if we can find a way to track the change and track those changes in public perceptions, attitudes and behaviors over time, and utilize that mixed approach methods by analyzing the social media analytics and focus groups, et cetera. There's a way to collaborate with researchers, evaluators, and funding agencies to establish prolonged monitoring processes contributing to towards more informed policy making based on sound evidence-based practices.

 

[00:37:10] Lucy: I totally agree with that idea because the public trust scientists and alsolike research groups and medical professionals, so if the experts like scientists and government can contribute to create a more positive perception among consumers by, for example, working together to elevate consumer awareness, such as you said before, like, have a diversified stream where people can get information as separated from the Joe in his Nissan. It might be a really good solution to misconceptions.

 

[00:38:01] Lucy: And also talking about that, we can see through our conversation, there is a relationship between different stakeholders such as consumers, government entities and food companies, right? They form like a interconnected circle that shape the environment surrounding the GMO and this type of technology.

 

[00:38:26] Sonakshi: I think in addition to more comprehensive labeling laws, there is a need for more consistency and responsibility in GMO laws and regulations by advocating for policies grounded on scientific evidence and societal objectives and public values, and not just, you know, Joe's opinions. Um, a more transparent decision making process with impartial supervision, uh, should be reinforced to foster more credibility about opinions on GMOs. So yeah, as you said, working alongside with policymakers, NGOs, and global organizations is a way to push forward policies founded on factual premises. Which prioritize sustainability regarding environmental health and public's health in general over just the social media opinions. I believe it would enhance the legitimacy of the debate.

 

[00:39:35] Sarah: Definitely. I think transparency is definitely key in this part, or we, you guys touched on. You know, transparency and labeling laws and transparency in these effects, right, that are kind of muddy right now. No one really knows and how those are all stemming to these big conspiracies and public misconceptions, right?

 

[00:39:56] Sarah: I think transparency from the government and science and these corporations is essential because if there's no transparency, then it's very hard to form a foundation of trust. And if you can't trust the government or science or these credible sources, then people are, of course, going to look to different sources for their information, which is likely going to be social media, and that's how you end up with Joe in his Nissan, right? Because if the government and science are not putting forth this kind of transparent foundation of trust in which you can be like, “yes, the government or the scientists put out this article, you know, it's credible information. I'm going to trust it.” If you can't have that relationship with these entities, then it's going to make it very difficult for you to have trust in the products and the innovations, right? such as GMOs that they're promoting. So I think definitely at the root of it, it's this idea of trust with the government and science. Because if you can't trust who's putting forth the information about GMOs, then you look for alternate routes, right? You look for social media, you look for Twitter, right? all those different sources of information which are not credible. And you don't trust the policies that they're putting forth because they're not transparent about it, right? Labeling lies, they kind of popped up all of a sudden there were GMO labels, right? And if you don't understand the process behind it, or understand why it's happening, then it makes it hard to trust it. So then you're going to avoid it, right? Because you don't understand it, they didn't explain it to you, right? So there's that lack of trust, which is like, “okay, then I'm going to avoid GMO products.” So I think, definitely transparency, you know, having that foundation of trust, which I think the government and scientists themselves need to take into consideration. How do I promote and how do I create this trust with the public?

 

[00:42:08] Lucy: Even if the government implement labor policies, which might not be really helpful in terms of putting or adding more information regarding GM ingredients. I think it is important to increase people's knowledge and awareness, rather than just telling them whether the product contains GMO or not.

 

[00:42:38] Lucy: So with that being said, maybe implementing awareness campaigns is the way to go. For example, by reducing the average quantity of audience to improve the effectiveness and quality of communication. So if you just focus on maybe one region to convey information about GMO, it might be more effective than maybe you just spread out on social media. And whoever knows, like, whether they, my mom sees it or young people, like you don't know who will actually reach out to that information and whether they understood that information or not. So, collaboration, I think, between the government entities and local business is important. And also conveying GMO information through education and setting up workshops, educational programs would be a really helpful way to enhance people's acceptance towards these products.

 

[00:43:50] Sarah: For sure, and I think that would also help facilitate, you know, that trust if the government was working with these corporations and actively, you know, outreaching government and science is actively outreaching to the public. You're like, “Hey, this is this new thing that we're doing, let us explain it to you” rather than it just kind of sneak attack me in the supermarket, you know.

 

[00:44:12] Sonakshi: Moreover, I think in addition to handling the already fired up controversies, it is necessary for us to look at a way to handle this spread of misinformation at the very grassroots level to avoid, to avoid more “Joes” being originated.

 

[00:44:29] Sonakshi: One way could be working with educational institutions, community organizations, etc. to extend services, representing specific local areas and like the GMO aspect related to them. We could do it by creating experiential learning initiatives like farm excursions or lab tours to offer students or consumers direct involvement in the GM food production or processes and let them provide their own valuable insights. I think by engaging with the industry experts first hand consumers could gain a more comprehensive knowledge about GM foods, enabling them to make more informed decisions without any misconceptions.

 

46:34 Conclusion: Building Trust and Transparency Through Information

 

[00:45:26] Sarah: For sure. So, education, transparency, trust, right? All very important. All just providing information, you know, providing information to the public, because really, I think what we've identified here in this podcast is that misinformation stems from not only a lack of trust, but just lack of information, right?

 

[00:45:50] Sarah: If you don't know it and you don't understand it, then it's likely to lead to misinformation and misconceptions. I support our steps forward. I think with all we put forth is really good. I think we just need to focus on those key factors. Transparency, information, giving, sharing, right? That trust between government, science, corporations, all those that are putting forth GMOs, and to just really make the public more aware and more understanding of what GMOs are. Rather than this big, scary, you know, thing that no one really understands, an acronym that no one knows what it's for, right?

 

[Laughter]

 

[00:46:34] Sarah: Thank you so much for listening here today. We hope that you gained a better understanding on GMOs, what they're all about, what they are, and the public misconceptions and misinformation behind it. Perhaps you might have had these misconceptions yourself, and we hope we helped clarify. And we hope we've provided some hope for the future, some next steps, some advancements, right? Again, sorry if your name is Joe and you have a Nissan, this podcast is not meant to target you. But if you are spreading misinformation about GMOs, don't do it.

 

[Laughter]

 

[00:47:13] Sarah: So again, thank you for listening to Table Talks and our segment on all about GMOs. If you would like to know where we got our information from, read more about what we've talked about today, please check the transcript. We've added all our sources that we've used to put forth this podcast today. And yeah, have a good day.

 

[00:47:37] Lucy: See you next time. Bye bye!

 

[00:47:47] Musical Jingle Outro