Countries that could benefit the most from genetically modified crops are also those most likely to be subject to mistruths about it, according to research on the level of misinformation clouding the technology.
In a study published in the journal GM Crops and Food, researchers used a two-year period from January 2019 to collate 535 articles on the technology.
They found 9% of the articles published in that time were factually inaccurate. These had a potential readership audience of a quarter of a billion. The angle of the misinformation tended to be largely negative-neutral in sentiment.
The proportion of misinformation exceeded even that about covid-19 vaccines, the subject of earlier work by the researchers.
In the vaccine work, they found only about 0.1% of articles in mainstream media contained misinformation, but had the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the conversation about it.
But John Caradus, CEO of Grasslanz, said what is of even greater concern is that a disproportionately high level of misinformation is published in Africa.
Researchers found that almost a fifth of Africa’s GMO content consists of misinformation.
“That compares to 5% in North America and 7% in Europe,” he said.
The study focused only on mainstream media publications, rather than social media postings that have proven so problematic for spreading covid-19 vaccination misinformation.
Caradus has been researching global and domestic perceptions of GMO and highlighting the overarchingly positive impact the technology has delivered in the 20-plus years of use. He has other papers on GMO uptake and regulatory challenges in the pipeline.
Of the misinformation published, the greatest amount related to “human health” topics, at 40% of the volume of articles published. This was followed by 25% each for “environment” and “pesticides” related articles.
“A lot of the information in Africa is not just false information, but also reflects an attitude separate countries are taking towards GM, particularly out of Europe,” Caradus said.
While GM technology’s use is approved and ramping up in South and North America, Australia and parts of Asia, Europe continues to remain ambivalent about its application.
A number of countries, including Germany and France, are choosing not to run with the technology.
Caradus said there is irony in the level of misinformation, given the benefits developing countries have experienced from the technology.
The report’s authors highlight how the adoption of “Bt brinjal” (eggplant or aubergine), a transgenic crop resistant to some insects, has contributed to a six-fold increase in profits to smallholder farmers in Bangladesh, while also significantly reducing the use of pesticides by them. Similar claims have been attributed to farmers in India and Pakistan.
Caradus said despite “human health” stories being highest on the list of misinformed articles, this is one area where the technology has proven to be safe. His earlier meta review of GM technology across over 800 studies found no proven human health impacts over the past 25 years from ingestion of GM foods.
The use of the technology has also contributed to 37% lower use of pesticide use over GM crop area. GM crops have a 23% lighter environmental footprint due to significantly lower pesticide use and less tillage area requirements.
He takes heart from another finding by the researchers – the high level of factual information that was published over the period under review. “So, I don’t this is completely damning,” he said.
In New Zealand there are 90 GM foods approved under NZ and Australia food safety regulations for consumption. There is a gap between what NZ consumers can buy and the techniques NZ farmers may and may not use in the absence of GMO production being allowed in the country.
“It comes back to a balance between benefit and risk, and I don’t think we have had that discussion in a sensible way here,” Caradus said.
