One side benefit of a convention seminar program is that you can instantly gauge interest level in topics based on audience turnout. At a recent convention sponsored by the National Grocers Association, attendance for a seminar on genetically modified foods could be counted on one or two hands. It wasn't that the session lacked importance or useful information. Neither did it signify a lack of attendance at the convention, which posted significantly higher visitor numbers with some standing-room-only seminars on other topics.
Rather, the seminar turnout reflected the manner in which many U.S. industry executives and consumers often view this biotechnology-related issue. They seem to pay attention when publicity or a crisis has thrust the topic to the forefront. Otherwise, they are happy to focus on other matters. This, of course, is not the case in Europe, where anti-biotechnology activists have pushed this issue to the forefront.
But GM foods deserve more consumer awareness in the U.S. At this early stage, the benefits of the technology haven't been that apparent to consumers. But down the road, the expectations are for enhancements that may help in the fights against cancer and heart disease. Other benefits may include improved nutritional value and removal of allergens.
A lack of education or awareness puts consumers at risk of misunderstanding GM foods as some consumer groups question the safety of these products. So the leadership of the food industry has been wise to try to get the information out about safety and benefits through seminars, Web sites, printed materials and other educational means.
Now the public relations momentum on the safety issue appears to be moving in favor of the proponents of biotechnology. In a presentation at the earlier-mentioned seminar, Lisa Katic, director of scientific and nutrition policy, Grocery Manufacturers of America, noted that groups opposed to GM foods once publicly questioned the science and technology involved. But she stressed there is widespread consensus by government agencies and health organizations that GM foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts. "So now these [anti-biotechnology] groups have had to shift the debate to one over labeling, trying to use that to kill the technology."
Another speaker at the seminar, Karen K. Marshall, director, industry relations, Monsanto, said the American consumer shows a trust for the regulatory process that goes far beyond that exhibited in other parts of the world. Marshall put it this way: "U.S. consumers believe someone is watching out for them."
The food industry will need to continue to disseminate the science and safety facts on GM foods in a nonpartisan manner that enables consumers to make up their own minds.
One industry consultant on biotechnology and other science issues, Adrianne Massey of A. Massey & Associates, told me she looks for dissemination channels beyond the media. One of the best, she said, is word of mouth. She suggested food companies provide GM foods education to their employees, who can then spread the facts to their friends and families. That's one interesting and very traditional means of spreading information about a nontraditional product.
