Study: Consumers prefer gene-disrupting pesticides over GMOs

Consumers prefer gene-disrupting “RNAi” biopesticides over genetically engineered crops, but they don’t much like either technology, according to a recent study.

Researchers from the University of Arkansas conducted the study by asking consumers about their “willingness to pay” for conventional rice sprayed with insecticides, rice that’s genetically modified to withstand pests and rice treated with an RNAi biopesticide.

The biotech rice and RNAi biopesticide described to consumers aren’t commercially available, so those possibilities were hypothetical.

In the U.S., survey participants were willing to pay $7.62 more for a five-pound bag of conventional rice over RNAi-sprayed rice and $12.56 more for conventional rice than genetically engineered rice.

In other countries — Canada, Australia, France and Belgium — consumers also required a greater discount for genetically modified rice than for RNAi-sprayed rice, though the monetary amounts varied by nation.
RNAi, or RNA interference, works by disrupting the expression of genes that are critical to an insect’s ability to survive, while biotech crops are often engineered to contain a bacterial gene that kills caterpillar pests.
Researchers explained to survey participants that both options were unlikely to be unhealthy for humans, while conventional pesticides have varying levels of toxicity. Nonetheless, the respondents preferred conventional rice.

Wayne Hunter, an entomologist with USDA who studies RNAi, said such biopesticides are natural products but opponents have the upper hand in spreading fear about the technology on the internet.
“Even though it’s safer, I don’t think the word is getting out,” he said.

Critics commonly claim that USDA and other institutions that have found RNAi is safe are beholden to corporate interests, undermining findings about the technology, Hunter said.

It’s part of a pattern of people being afraid of scientific progress, he said.

“The negative story gets more press, the negative story is more emotional,” Hunter said. “The horror story is the story you tell around the campfire.”

The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit critical of biotechnology, believes the study’s authors gave participants an overly rosey description of both genetic engineering and RNAi.

The descriptions played down the risks and limitations of the technologies while exaggerating their value, said Doug Gurian-Sherman, director of sustainable agriculture for the group.

For example, RNAi pesticides could harm beneficial insects related to pests, such as different types of beetles, he said.

If the technology had been accurately described, “the results could easily have been even more negative for RNAi and GE,” Gurian-Sherman said.

It’s also troubling that organic and agroecology methods weren’t offered as options, he said. “They are never discussed as alternative options in these surveys.”

It’s unfortunate if consumers are losing trust in scientists, but in the past, industry-backed scientists pronounced products such as tobacco safe and were later discredited, he said. “My guess is that has filtered into public perception.”