Communicating about contentious critical public issues: The case of GMO labeling

Dr. Joy Rumble and Nicole Dodds

• UF/IFAS Center• State funded• Research-based solutions for ANR issues• Communication research• Public opinion research• Perception research • Public policy evaluation

• Outreach

What is the PIE Center?

• Introduction• Communicating about contentious issues• Evaluating information• Floridians’ purchasing intent for GMOs• Arguments- GMO labeling policy• Proposed legislation• Break• Case Study/Simulations• Debrief and discuss• Review/summary

Overview

• Are you asked about controversial issues by your clientele?• Do you find it challenging to discuss polarizing issues?• What controversial issues do you encounter most often?• Have you been asked about GMO labeling in the

workplace by clientele?• Do you personally know what side of the GMO labeling

debate you are on?• Has anyone read HB1 or SB558 from the 2014 legislative

session?• What we are not talking about today: the science

Setting the stage

• Issues are complicated• We cannot ignore them

Discussing critical issues

Offer you an easy way to:• Stay up to date on current, new, or proposed

public policy• Have quick reference materials about

contentious issues• Incorporate public policy information and

communication strategies into conversations

Conversation starters

• Recognize conflict as ok• Seek 1st to understand• Check your own bias• Don’t take sides• Remain calm• Be aware of non-verbal cues

Communication strategies – Role of neutrality

• Pose questions to encourage • Broader thinking• Consideration of alternative

arguments• Check with IFAS for guidance

Communication strategies – Role of neutrality

• Acknowledge science, policy, and public opinion

• Recognize uncertainty• Expert vs. personal opinions• Use of language – appeals to

emotion• Evaluating information sources

Communication strategies – Relaying Information

• Authority• Bias• Quality• Timeliness• Relevancy• Red flags• Special concerns about Internet sources

Evaluating information sources

Authority

Bias

Quality

Timeliness

Relevance

• Spelling and typographical errors• Poor grammar• Inflammatory or emotional language or

images • Graphic styles aimed at persuading you to

accept the author’s point of view• Vague or sweeping generalizations that are

not back by evidence• Broad generalizations that overstate or

oversimplify the matter• Political, ideological, or financial goals

Red Flags

• A, B, Q, T, R

Internet concerns

Survey conducted in late 2013:• 510 Florida residents over 18

years.• Data were weighted to

represent FL population demographics.

• Perceptions and concerns about GMOs/genetic modification

Public opinion: About the survey

“I believe genetically modified food should be labeled”

Public opinion: Results GMO labeling

Strongly

Disagre

e

Disagre

e

Neither A

gree nor D

isagre

eAgre

e

Strongly

Agree

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

0.4% 1.0% 5.5%

35.3%

57.8%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Public opinion: Results GMO labeling

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

21%18%

38%

20%

3%4%8%

39%36%

13%

I would purchase a food product labeled as genetically modifiedI have purchased and/or consumed genetically modified food

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

• Policy problem• A condition or situation that produces needs or

dissatisfaction among people, who then desire government action.

• Interest groups• Media • Political agenda

How do issues influence policy?

Genetically engineered food• Food that consists of, contains or is produced

from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through cell fusion or in-vitro nucleic acid techniques.

GMO Labeling- Background

Root of issue

GMO Labeling- Background

Authority

GMO Labeling- Background

Existing labeling policy• Pose health or environmental risks• Mislead consumers• Easily assumed characteristics• Significantly different nutritional property• Includes allergens• Includes toxicant beyond acceptable limits

GMO Labeling- Background

Similar terms

GMO Labeling- Background

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BjuoitLVSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI31JogDLjM

Based on what you know of the debate, what are the positions for/against GMO labeling policy?

GMO Labeling- Positions

• Those in favor of labeling emphasize consumers’ right to know what is in their food as an important attribute of a democratic society.

GMO Labeling: Proponent Position

• Those opposed are concerned about the increased cost of food and the logistical challenges of labeling with no corresponding improvement in human health or food safety.

GMO Labeling: Opponent Position

• Is supported by Floridians with 93% agreeing or strongly agreeing

• Empowers choice• Informs consumers • Enables consumers to avoid GMOs• Aligns with at least 40 other countries • Enhances U.S. capacity to export

Pro-labeling arguments

• Voluntary labeling measures • Consumers can purchase certified organic• Consumer options could decrease • No other food production process requires labeling• It could be misleading• Labeling is not needed to identify GMOs containing

animal genes • Food costs could rise

Anti-labeling arguments

• Provides definitions• Provides a list of commercial commodities found by the

legislature to be commonly commercially cultivated in GE form• Requires FDACS to publish compile and publish such a list

annually• Requires mandatory labeling for GE raw agricultural

commodities & processed foods containing them• Lists exempted foods• Provides for enforcement of labeling requirements • Provides civil remedies & penalties (slight difference)

Proposed in Florida- HB1 and SB 558

• Introduced April 2014• Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act• Preempts any state or local laws

• GMOs intended for food use• Labeling requirements

• Prohibit voters from proposing initiatives at the state level• Supported by GMA• Reportedly- would require food companies to submit new

GMOs to the FDA for review• Includes ‘base products’ not processed foods (final food products).

Proposed federal law- Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H. R. 4432)

10 minutes

Break

• Split into pairs• Each pair will be assigned a case study• In your pair talk through the case study• Discuss the questions posed• Prepare to share your ideas with the group

Case Study- Pair Share 10 min.

• How would talking to each of these groups be similar?

• How would talking to each of these groups be different?

• What would be the challenges associated with talking to each of these groups about proposed GMO labeling?

Case Study- Pair Share 10 min.

• Imagine it is 2015 and GMO labeling legislation has been proposed in the state legislature again.

• This topic is on the minds of volunteers, clientele, and Extension faculty alike.

Simulations 35 min.

• Find a new person to partner with• Two role-play simulations• Decide who will play the role of the Extension

Agent and who will play the role of the clientele• For the second simulation you will switch roles

• ~5 minutes to prepare and familiarize yourself with your role

• ~10 minutes for each simulation

Simulation directions 35 min.

• What went well?• What could have gone better?• Why is it challenging to discuss contentious issues?• What other issues are contentious in your county?• How did the simulation help you think about how

you may communicate about a contentious issue in the future?

Simulation discussion 15 min.

Strategies for communicating about contentious issuesMethods of evaluating informationFloridians’ purchasing intent for GMOsProposed legislationArguments for and against GMO labeling policyCase Study/Simulations

What we talked about today

Were they helpful?What did you like?What could be improved upon?What topics are most pertinent to you and conversations you might have?

Evaluation

Conversation Starters materials

Contact us:Joy Rumble – jnrumble@ufl.eduNicole Dodds – ndodds@ufl.edu

Questions?

www.piecenter.com