Features Business & Policy Consumer Issues
Editorial: Potatoes Summer 2015

It seems consumers have a complicated relationship with biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food chain. In January’s “We Are What We Eat: Healthy Eating Trends Around the World” report, the Nielsen Company found 32 per cent of North American consumers rate GMO-free attributes as very important in their purchasing decisions. GMO-free is in a three-way tie with “made from vegetables/fruits” and “no high fructose corn syrup” for the top spot on a list of 27 attributes consumers are concerned about when choosing which foods to eat. Nielsen also found 25 per cent of North American consumers are “very willing” to pay a premium for GMO-free foods.  

Now consider this: new research from Iowa State University found consumers are actually willing to pay more for genetically modified potato products boasting low levels of a chemical compound that’s been linked to cancer in animals. Acrylamide occurs naturally when starchy foods are cooked at high temperatures; potato products such as French fries and chips are a major source of acrylamide in the American diet. So far biotechnology and genetic modification have yielded more promising acrylamide reductions than conventional plant breeding techniques. In a study examining consumer willingness to pay more for enhanced food safety delivered through biotechnology, researchers found participants were willing to pay $1.78 more for a five-pound bag of potatoes after they received scientific information on health hazards associated with acrylamide exposure and a potato industry perspective on using biotechnology to reduce acrylamide in potato products. The study also found participants were willing to pay an extra $1.33 for a package of frozen French fries after learning about the scientific implications of human exposure to acrylamide.

What’s the potato industry to make of all this?

Speaking at this year’s Ontario Potato Conference, Joe Guenthner, a professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology with the University of Idaho, made the case for using a “green GM” concept to market biotech potatoes. Guenthner defined green GM as genetic modifications that use genes from within the potato family to create new varieties with desirable traits. This, he argues, makes a difference in the minds of many consumers: eating a spud with genes borrowed from a close relative in the potato family just doesn’t sound all that scary.

The J.R. Simplot Company is already using the green GM tactic to market the Innate potato, which offers reduced black spot from bruising and low asparagine, which reduces the potential for acrylamide formation. The company has been working hard to drive home messaging around the green GM concept. As its press releases reiterate, “Innate potatoes only contain genes from wild and cultivated potatoes, grow naturally just like conventional potatoes, and introduce no new allergens.”

That J.R. Simplot has been upfront about marketing Innate potatoes as a GM food will likely play well with consumers, many of whom support labeling of genetically modified foods. According to an Associated Press-Gfk poll conducted last December, two-thirds of Americans (66 per cent) reported they are in favour of requiring food manufacturers to put labels on products containing genetically modified organisms or grown from seed engineered in labs. Just seven per cent of American consumers are opposed to the idea.

Today’s consumers are hungry for information about their food: where it comes from, how it’s produced and the footprint production leaves behind. As an industry, we shouldn’t be afraid to feed this appetite. Organic farmers proudly share their stories with consumers; producers who use biotechnology to bring their crops to market shouldn’t be afraid to do the same. As the study of willingness to pay for low acrylamide potatoes demonstrates, information has a key role to play in consumer acceptance.

May 8, 2015  By  Brandi Cowen