Recently, there have been news reports of a new genetically-modified potato known as the “Innate” potato – so named because it borrows genes that occur naturally in the potato and uses them to modify traits of the potato. In this case the modification produces a potato more resistant to bruising and with less acrylamide – a substance known to cause cancer in rats, though not in people, when it is ingested.

Predictably, this GMO potato has met with strong opposition from anti-GMO campaigners though generating what might be considered surprising support from Michael Jacobson, a persistent critic of the food industry.

However, this blog post is not about the merits or demerits of GMO potatoes or GMOs generally. This post is about the way we humans perceive and judge risks and process information about risks and why the GMO debate seems to be stuck in the mud.

Whenever I see an issue where one side says, “If only they understood what we understand,” it’s a good sign that they are getting the approach wrong. In the case of GMOs, just because people can’t or don’t understand the facts or the science doesn’t mean they are acting irrationally. In fact, they are acting completely rationally on the basis of their own beliefs and experience. From behavioral psychology, we know that for all of us, beliefs are rational for those who believe them. From risk communication science, we know that the key to effective communication on risks is to understand people’s key beliefs and their underlying rationale and, and with that insight, provide the information people do not already have that is relevant and useful for their decision making and action on the risks.

Let’s accept for a moment that it is true that most people don’t accurately or fully understand the technology that goes into genetic modification. I think that’s a fair assessment. Many of us may not understand the technology that makes our cars work, but most of us are comfortable driving to work each day in something that is creating hundreds of tiny explosions per minute and hurtling us down the road at a speed that would likely cause us grave injury if something were to go wrong. Why? One important reason is that we tend to believe we are in control of the car and over the risks associated with its operation and use.

However, there are several factors that make GMOs more troubling to some people than other kinds of risks we confront each day:

1. A Relatively Easy Choice. Today, the debate around GMOs is asking people to take sides before there is really a meaningful choice to be made. For most people right now it would be relatively easy to reject GMOs if they believe doing so would have little or no consequence to their daily lives. That makes it difficult to affirmatively choose something where the immediate benefits (or risks) are unknown or not apparent. It is easier to accept current risk, or risk where we believe we have personal experience and insight, than unknown or perceived irrelevant future risks.
2. Distrust of Science. We read “studies” every day that are refuted by new studies the next day, week, or month. While this can be part of the scientific process (when studies are legitimate) it can create confusion and distrust of study results and “answers.”
3. Lack of Personal Context/Distrust of Intermediaries. Because GMOs can only be evaluated on a systemic rather than individual basis we are forced to rely on larger entities to make those choices, removing the individual choice that we value, particularly on something so personal as food. For various reasons, people may not have full confidence in intermediaries, including those who are pro and those who are con. People may believe they’ve been misled in the past, and that it could happen again.

If we are going to have productive dialogue about any kind of new technology, including GMOs, it has to start with a recognition that shouting about the validity of the science from the rooftops won’t get there. Rather, it should build on where people are at today in their thinking on the technology and its risks and benefits. Communications must be tailored to meet people where they stand – keeping pace with their evolving understanding of the issue.

Robert Schooling is President of Reservoir Communications Group

Gordon Butte is President of Decision Partners