Beware of Tricky New USDA Labeling on GMO Products
The new USDA labeling for genetically modified products features a bucolic farm scene and deceptive messaging. Pretty tricky! Photo by Alejandro Barrón.
Analyzing design & messaging choices on the new USDA labeling for GMO products
As of Jan 1, New USDA guidance has changed the language requirements from "Genetically Modified" to "Bioengineered" in an effort to whitewash products that contain GMO ingredients. This update is a marketing ploy. (It’s also ugly AF, do we really need another awful badge on our packaging? I digress.)
I’m not typically one to assume the worst. Generally I expect government agencies to work on behalf of the people they serve. But when I saw the language revisions it set off an alarm bell for me. Partly because I am so passionate about the power of language; and partially because I am also passionate about the small companies we serve, many who work hard in narrow margins to produce Organic and Non-GMO products. Language can be used in powerful, wonderful ways; it can open communication and illuminate opaque topics. Or it can be used to manipulate an audience into thinking something is not what it is. Language can be used to deceive; and that’s exactly what we see in this revision.
Before we get into it, let’s talk about connotative and denotative meanings since it’s pretty darn relevant to this discussion.
Denotative meaning is what a word or phrase actually means. The dictionary definition. It’s finite and typically cut-and-dry. The denotative meaning can be either correct or incorrect, but it’s never vague or nuanced.
Connotative meaning is what a word or phrase conveys emotionally. It’s the feeling or suggestion that the word carries. English may get a lot of flack for being complicated and hard to learn, but actually it’s a language rich in options — options that convey all kinds of emotional content. I love it. I totally love language. (Which is probably why it makes me so mad when it’s being used to manipulate, but we’ll get into that in a second).
As an example, let’s take two words with the same denotative meaning: Plan and Scheme. They both represent an idea about the future; a method you intend to use to accomplish something. But these two words have vastly different connotative meanings. Would you buy into a scheme? Of course not! But re-brand it as a plan, and perhaps you would. This is the power of nuanced word choices. In the dictionary they seem interchangeable, but due to our own cultural understanding of each word, they are almost diametric opposites. ie: You can get away with things on paper by choosing words that have a more attractive connotative meaning.
Language matters a lot.
Language can be used to help people understand; to tell a story, to endear, encourage, or entice. But the new USDA “Bioengineering” update is using language nefariously, to hide information about what’s in our food. “Genetically Modified Organism” correctly conveys that a product is — well — genetically modified. Beyond this, the connotative value of the message is specific, somewhat intimidating, and science-y. Even if you don’t know what it means, it delivers enough connotative meaning to let you know that it’s something to be careful with. Maybe you’ll do some research and find out what it means, maybe you won’t — but you know it’s something serious.
“Bioengineered” on the other hand, conveys careful planning, ecological thinking, biology, nature. “Bioengineered” calls to mind a plucky young farmer, selecting his finest crop for successful reproduction. It sounds like it could even mean a natural biological process, such as “the three-toed sloth is bioengineered to make the most of its limited calorie intake.” Cute, isn’t it? Connotatively, “Bioengineered” tells us that this product is basically natural, thoughtfully made, and probably smarter than the average bean.
Furthermore, the word "Bioengineered" was most likely selected precisely because it contains the root word "bio" which has a connotative value similar to "organic" and is even used in place of organic in some languages/countries. The new message is designed to be deceptively friendly and familiar; close enough to organic and just as attractive. Just to be clear — “Bioengineered” still means it’s genetically modified. It’s not organic and it’s not Non-GMO.
Design matters, too.
At We Are Charette, we use design to convey information that words can’t get across. We use color, shape, texture, and symbolism to relate ideas that are far beyond language. It’s the realm of visual emotional content. There’s a lot of nuance to it; and we employ the principles of design judiciously so that we can honestly represent each brand and product. In the newly approved Bioengineering label, they’ve used a bucolic farm scene to convey a wholesome feeling. This is manipulation. Using design to hide information is a page straight out of the design school chapter on propaganda. The new labeling also shares striking similarities to the USDA Organic label. This is another effort to confuse the consumer. Similar design = same concept, right? Wrong. The USDA is using the natural human tendency to categorize things by visual similarity in order to let us believe these two are interchangeable. They aren’t.
GMOs are not all bad -- they make food more resilient to draught and disease. That's good. But on a massive scale; bioengineered products created to resist products like Roundup mean that toxic chemicals can be used in enormous quantities. That's NOT good. It's obvious that Monsanto and other chemical companies have funded this policy change. While science is wonderful and all; we have a right to know when we're eating it. GMO lobbies should not be manipulating the public through crafty language and deceptive graphics.
And by the way; if your meat has been fed GMO foods, producers are no longer required to tell you about it.
Beware, folks, and please use your power of language for good.
Take care,