The trend of health awareness is highly correlated with an increase in the public’s concern for Genetically Modified Organisms, also simply known as GMOs. It is not surprising that Whole Foods, as one of the leading “healthy” supermarkets, has decided to take a stand on the issue, and to start an anti-GMO campaign, claiming that by 2018, the company will label all their products as either non-GMO or GMO. Whole Foods believes that this transparency plan will help their image and sales, and that it reflects with their values, but evidence supports that the opposite effect will probably occur. The unfamiliarity behind the concept of genetically modifying our food has created a misconception that all GMOs are harmful and dangerous, but science proves that that is not always the case. Therefore, is GMO labeling necessary, and should Whole Foods continue its transparency plan? While some justly believe that we have the right know what is in our food, they do not understand that the negative connotation behind the word will harm Whole Foods’ reputation and performance.
There are countless good GMOs, but they are not as publicized
As many would like to portray GMOs as a new, harmful, moneymaking technology, we often do not realize that they have been around for thousands of years in harmless forms. Humans intervened in the evolution of the DNA of our food in countless ways. For example, some might not be aware that common vegetables such as broccoli, kale and brussel sprouts are all variations from the same species, but ironically we sell and label them as non-GMO. Scientists have also been able to add certain vitamins and elements that protect and enhance our food by modifying its DNA. The development of “golden rice” is a great example of a success story, which has helped poor and disadvantaged countries, as well as people with vitamin-A deficiency, by engineering a type of rice containing a higher amount of vitamin A. Farmers also benefit from GMOs, because science has developed different types of crops that require less amounts of water and pesticides, gave them the ability to grow in different types of soils and environments, and the possibility of producing larger quantities at a time. The reduction of water use and of pesticides have cut down costs for farmers, and reduced prices for grocery stores and therefore for customers. Statistics show that the price of basic food that contains GMOs are about 15 to 30 percent lower.
On their website, Whole Foods points out that in North America, “over 70 percent of our packaged foods contain GMOs” and that “crops are currently modified to survive herbicide treatment, produce their own pesticides and resist certain diseases.” These messages are very vague and are generalizing a concept that is partly true, but explained under a biased perspective. This mentality was developed because of issues such as the Monsanto scandal and their unethical practices. The latter has created a misconception that one of the only purposes of genetically engineering our food is to create crops that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides, that do not only harm insects and parasites, but are also poisonous to us. We assume the worst without paying attention to the the productive and non-dangerous side of GMOs and the benefits they have brought to farmers, businesses, the environment and consumers.
Does Whole Foods want to associate its products with the image of GMOs?
Whole Foods’ target audience consists of individuals who are willing to pay a premium price to shop at Whole Foods for the quality of the food and because of its reputation as offering the healthiest options on the market. As health-conscious individuals, they likely to have a stronger fear of ingesting GMOs compared to the average person, therefore, this group of people is even more sensitive to the topic of labeling. Since Whole Foods is known for offering more organic and GMO-free products compared to the average store and less unhealthy food, labeling GMOs would definitely negatively impact the consumer. The few products that contain GMOs could switch the focus to them rather than the healthier options. This would have a negative halo effect that would overshadow the healthy reputation of the store, which is the only reason some of Whole Foods customers shop there.
Customers have the right to know what is in their food
Those supporting GMO labeling believe that as consumers, we have the right to know what is in our food. This is an ethical and fair remark, because it would not be right if companies put something dangerous in our food without notifying us. We would feel betrayed and would lose trust in grocery stores. When we take a look at current labels, which are still very vague and confusing, we notice that they were adopted for pure informative reasons, and they are treated simply as a source of information in regards to our food. GMO labeling, on the other side, has a warning effect on customers, and supporters have a hard time recognizing the difference between the two.
The main issue and difference between these is the portrayal and especially the image behind the two types of labels. While one is generally treated as an informational item where customers rely on to actually reading the ingredients in their food, the other is more seen as a warning sign. A sign that you should not eat that item, because it is unhealthy and you’re poisoning your body. If customers really want to know that no GMO is present in their food, they also have the option of buying organic products, which are naturally grown and constantly verified not to contain any GMOs. In fact, these types of products have become increasingly popular in the United States, and it makes it easy for consumers who are trying to avoid products containing GMOs at all costs.
Whole Foods customers are savvy and informed
The healthy and aware customers that Whole Foods targets, often tend to also be the ones who know exactly how many calories they are going to consume in a day or how many grams of protein are necessary with each meal. These individuals usually go out of their way researching what brands have healthier options, and usually have a clear idea of what they are purchasing. In fact, they are willing to pay that premium in order to obtain products that are higher quality. Also, with the aid of technology, people have time to go on the Internet and research anything in detail. Whole Foods is aware of this — in fact, it provides its customers with a guide on how to avoid GMOs on its website.
Customers also have the option to choose organic or non-GMO verified products. Those labels ensure those concerned that they are purchasing products that do not contain GMOs. This alternative is more expensive, but Whole Foods’ target audience shops at the store only because of the wide variety of non GMO products the store offers. It is an easy way for the company to indirectly provide consumers with the information they want to explicitly provide, but in a subtler way that will not harm their sales. This is because if labeling something as organic or GMO-free allows Whole Foods to charge a premium, the company would take advantage of every opportunity it has to do so. Therefore, if a product is not labeled as GMO-free, it means that it contains a modification.
Why Whole Foods should not label their products
We expect to be able to buy foods that taste and look perfect, but, ironically, we are opposed to a genetically modified apple that does not bruise. We have the right to know what is in our food, but it is entirely up to us to decide if we want to get informed. Technology has helped us advance in creating smarter crops, just like it has provided us with smartphones and other ways that allow us to find out what we are eating and what we are putting in our bodies. We should take advantage of all these options we are given, because they help us and our surroundings as well. Whole Foods has been focusing on creating a positive and healthy image of itself towards the public, and the effect of these efforts attracted a clientele that tends to be willing to pay a little more knowing that they are getting a better quality and healthier product. These individuals are very well informed of what they are putting in their bodies; therefore, Whole Foods should not label its products that contain GMOs. The latter would cause a halo effect on its healthy products as well and ruin its healthy image just because of the negative connotation associated with GMOs. These products are mistakenly viewed as “unnatural” and not authentic because of their nature, but what we fail to consider is the amount of organisms as humans we modified for thousands of years, and how most products that are labeled as organic, and presumably are GMO-free, they have probably gone through some sort of genetic mutation over the years.
Whole Foods is making a mistake by supporting the fear of GMOs and by promising to label and categorize all its products by this criterion. Until the government does not impose a law for supermarkets to adopt labeling of products as either GMO or GMO-free, customers will still view these labels as warnings. The fear they have will drive them away from Whole Foods, because they will lose trust when they will see even a few numbers of food containing these organisms. They will automatically assume they are unhealthy, therefore come to the conclusion that Whole Foods is just as unhealthy as other supermarkets. This will result into the store losing loyal customers. Informal thinking and emotions are stronger and will prevail over Whole Foods’ attempt to stand by their values.
Sources:
Allchin, Douglas. “Organisms, Modified, Genetically.” The American Biology Teacher 76.9 (2014): 639-41. JSTOR. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.
Kardish, Chris. “Washington State Joins California in Saying no to GMO Labeling.” McClatchy – Tribune Business News Nov 06 2013. ProQuest. Web. 6 Nov. 2015
Hart, John. “GMO Labeling: Advocates Like Transparency, Opponents Dislike the Cost.” Southeast Farm Press (2014) ProQuest. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.
