Navigating the Grocery Store Aisle

Understanding “ Non-GMO ” & Other Food Labels

By: Stacey Stearns, Cristina Connolly, Sharon Gray, Jennifer Cushman, Michael Puglisi, Xiuchun Tian, Joseph Bonelli, & Robert Ricard

Cover illustration provided by: Aaron Weibe

A T T R I B U T I ON

Navigating the Grocery Store Aisle: Understanding Non-GMO & Other Food Labels

Copyright © Stearns, S., Connolly, C., Gray, S., Cushman, J., Puglisi, M., Tian, X. (Cindy), Bonelli, J., Ricard, R. 2021, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY- NC-SA 4.0). Published by Extension Foundation.

e-pub: 978-1-955687-03-4

Publish Date: August 13, 2021

Citations for this publication may be made using the following:

Stearns, S., Connolly, C., Gray, S., Cushman, J., Puglisi, M., Tian, X. (Cindy), Bonelli, J., Ricard, R. (2021). Navigating the Grocery Store Aisle: Understanding Non-GMO & Other Food Labels (1 st ed). Kansas City: Extension Foundation. ISBN: 978-1-955687-03-4

Producer: Ashley S. Griffin

Peer Review Coordinator & Editorial Consultant: Heather Martin

Technical Implementer: Heather Martin

Welcome to Navigating the Grocery Store Aisle: Understanding Non-GMO & Other Food Labels, a resource created for the Cooperative Extension Service and published by the Extension Foundation. We welcome feedback and suggested resources for this publication, which could be included in any subsequent versions. This work is supported by New Technologies for Agriculture Extension grant no. 2020-41595-30123 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

For more information please contact:

Extension Foundation c/o Bryan Cave LLP One Kansas City Place

1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105-2122 https://impact.extension.org/

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Attribution......................................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................3

Meet the Authors ...........................................................................................................................5

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................9

Part 1: History of Our Team .................................................................................................10 Goals...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Desired Behavior Changes .................................................................................................................................... 11

Part 2: Developing, Testing and Deploying Our Game..........................................................11

Food Label Facts & Messages ........................................................................................................12 “Organic” Label Key Message ............................................................................................................................... 12 “Organic” Label Key Facts ..................................................................................................................................... 12 “Natural” Label Key Message ................................................................................................................................ 12 “Natural” Label Key Facts ..................................................................................................................................... 12 “Non -GMO ” Label Key Message ........................................................................................................................... 14 “Non - GMO” Label Key Facts ................................................................................................................................. 14

Part 3: Research & Marketing Planning................................................................................15

Audience Analysis .........................................................................................................................15

Extension Research .......................................................................................................................16

Professional Development and Engagement: Connect Extension Survey ........................................18

Part 4: Game Development ..................................................................................................20

Game Play Overview.....................................................................................................................21

Game Testing................................................................................................................................22

Part 5: Deployment Strategy, Timeline, & Responsibility Levels ............................................24

Game Deployment ........................................................................................................................24

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................27 Reflection .............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Resources from our NTAE Team........................................................................................................................... 28 Project Sustainability and Future.......................................................................................................................... 28

Part 6: Appendix ..................................................................................................................29

Organic Food ................................................................................................................................29

Natural Food.................................................................................................................................29

GMOs ...........................................................................................................................................30

Other Games and Resources..........................................................................................................31 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 Research Consulted .............................................................................................................................................. 34

Literature Review ................................................................................................................37

GMO Food Label Research.............................................................................................................37

Trust in the Science .......................................................................................................................39

Relationship Between Knowledge and Beliefs................................................................................39

Predictors of GMO Beliefs .............................................................................................................41

GMO Research on Youth ...............................................................................................................42

“Organic” and “Natural” Labels .....................................................................................................44

“Free From” Labels ........................................................................................................................45

References....................................................................................................................................47

M E E T TH E AU THO R S

Stacey Stearns

Cristina Connolly, Ph.D.

Stacey Stearns is a Program Specialist focused on communications for Extension, and formal and informal reporting. She works with Extension teams on farm to community, Bug Week, GMOs, and trails. Stacey earned a bachelor of science in Animal Science from the University of Connecticut and a master of science in Agricultural Education and Communication from the University of Florida. Stacey Stearns Educational Program Administrator College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut stacey.stearns@uconn.edu

Cristina Connolly is an assistant professor at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut. She has a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics from The Ohio State University, an master of arts in Economics, from The Ohio State University, and a bachelor of arts in Economics/Spanish, from Middlebury College. Her research areas are local food, consumer behavior, and spatial econometrics. Cristina Connolly Assistant Professor College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut cristina.connolly@uconn.edu

Sharon Gray

Jennifer Cushman

Sharon Gray is a Cooperative Extension Educator at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut. She supervises the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program and does food and nutrition programming in the Hartford County Extension office. She oversees a number of Community Nutrition and 4-H Grants. She also handles food and nutrition questions from the public. Sharon Gray EFNEP Supervisor College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut Sharon.gray@uconn.edu

Jennifer Cushman is Co-Center Coordinator and a 4-H Youth Development Assistant Extension Educator at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut. She oversees the Hartford County 4-H programs and teaches youth and adults in a variety of agriculture and program areas. She also coordinates the statewide 4-H dairy goat program. Jennifer is a graduate of UConn with a bachelor of science in Animal Science and Agriculture and Natural Resources. She also earned a master of arts in Curriculum and Instruction and Sixth Year in Educational Leadership.

Jennifer Cushman Co-Center Coordinator & 4-H Youth

Development Assistant Extension Educator College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut jennifer.cushman@uconn.edu

Michael Puglisi, Ph.D.

Xiuchun Tian, Ph.D.

Xiuchun (Cindy) Tian is a professor of animal science at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut. She has a master of science and a Ph.D. from Cornell University, where she conducted research in early pregnancy recognition and regulation of steroidogenesis in ovarian tissues. She received post-doctoral training as a recipient of a National Research Service Award from NIH in developmental genetics and molecular embryology at Cornell University and the University of Connecticut. Xiuchun (Cindy) Tian, Ph.D. Professor, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut xiuchun.tian@uconn.edu

Michael Puglisi is an assistant Extension professor at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Connecticut. He has a Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Connecticut, a master of science in Nutrition in Sports and Chronic Disease from Virginia Tech, and a bachelor of science in Dietetics from the University of Delaware. His professional and academic interests are food security, public health nutrition policy, low income programs and underserved populations, participant-centered nutrition counseling, and online nutrition education and technology in public health programs. Michael Puglisi, Ph.D. Assistant Extension Professor College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut michael.puglisi @uconn.edu

Joseph Bonelli

Robert Ricard, Ph.D.

Joseph Bonelli is an associate Extension educator of agricultural economics at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Joseph specializes in farm business planning, working with farmers across Connecticut. Since 2001, he’s been involved with the Connecticut Farm Risk Management and Crop Insurance program, providing information to Connecticut farmers on important risk management topics and crop insurance. He is the Northeast SARE Connecticut State Coordinator and the Agriculture team program leader for UConn Extension. Joseph Bonelli Associate Extension Professor College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut joseph.bonelli @uconn.edu

Robert Ricard is a senior Extension educator at the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut. He is responsible for helping Connecticut cities and towns better manage public trees and forests, focusing mostly on municipal tree wardens and community forestry volunteers. He also helps educators and researchers conduct social science research design and methods. He conducts the Tree Warden School and assists the Tree Wardens Association of Connecticut, Inc., which he formed in 1992. He is co-author, with Glenn Dreyer, of Greening Connecticut Cities and Towns: Managing Public Trees and Community Forests. Robert has a Ph.D. in public policy with other degrees in forest resources. He is a Fellow of the Society of American Foresters. Robert Ricard, Ph.D. Senior Extension Educator College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut robert.ricard@uconn.edu

I N T RO D U C T I ON

Navigating the grocery store aisle is challenging for many consumers — especially those who want to buy the most nutritious food and stay within their budget.

Food manufacturers and distributors cover their boxed, canned, and bottled foods with labels like “whole grain” and “low - calorie” to sugg est that their food has certain health benefits. But labels that make health claims are usually intended to improve product sales and not to help consumers make nutritious food choices. When food marketing labels seem to contradict the labels mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which requires packages to include the amount of food, nutrition facts, ingredients, and allergen statements (ESHA Research, 2019), grocery shopping becomes even more complicated. In a recent consumer survey, 80% of respondents said that this conflicting information confuses them and causes them to doubt their food choices (International Food Information Council Foundation, 2018).

Among the most misunderstood food marketing labels are “non - GMO,” “natural,” and “organic:”

In a representative survey conducted by GMO Answers (2018), 69% of consumers could not define GMO (genetically modified organism). Wunderlich et al. (2019) surveyed members of Montclair State University and found that over 98% of respondents had heard of the term “GMO,” but only 8% of consumers were familiar with the definition. “Organic” foods are often credited with health and nutrition benefits that the food does not have (Noone, 2019). This is in part due to media frames that portray organic as ethical, healthier, and more nutritious (Meyers & Abrams, 2010).

The “natural” label, which is not regulated, has various meanings depending on who is using it (Nosowitz, 2019).

Food labels also exact a steep economic consequence, especially for lower-income and underserved populations. While all consumers often unknowingly and unnecessarily pay a premium for food labeled “natural,” “organic,” and “non - GMO,” it’s the lower -income, underserved consumer who pays the highest price. Such food costs them a more significant percentage of their food budget, yet they’re not getting what they think they are paying for. Kalaitzandonakes et al. (2018) assessed the average cost of the regular and non-GMO versions of various foods between 2009 and 2016 and found that the cost of “non - GMO” labeled food was 10% to 62% higher than for food without that label. A similar issue exists with “organic” food. A Consumer Reports (Marks, 2015) study com pared the prices of the organic version versus the regular version of 100 different foods. Although there was a great deal of variation, the average cost of organic foods was 47% higher. Putting this into everyday budget terms, if a family that spends $400 to $500 per month on groceries decided to purchase the organic versions of foods, this could increase their expenses roughly $175 to $250 per month, or over $2,000 per year. Consumers may be purchasing organic or other labeled foods due to loss aversion (Abrams, 2015). Unless loss or gain is quantified, most consumers will continue their current behavior (Abrams, 2015). Jeong and Lundy (2015) found that the product type (processed versus fruits and vegetables) and food label have a greater effect on consumers than the gain or loss.

Our group of Extension professionals and educators from the University of Connecticut (UConn) pursued this project to increase consumers’ understanding of these three food marketing labels and empower people to make more informed food buying decisions. We curated a range of science-based resources and collaborated with the Learning Games Laboratory at New Mexico State University (NMSU) to develop an interactive online learning activity (or game), “Unpeeled: The Case Files of Maya McCluen.” This eFieldbook documents our team’s history; details how we developed, tested, and deployed our project; and shares a trove of research about food labels, particularly about perceptions and knowledge of GMOs. We hope our project inspires other Extension teams to create or enhance their outreach education programs.

Part 1: History of Our Team

In 2017, we created a working group — which several members of the New Technologies for Agricultural Extension (NTAE) team were then and are currently involved with — to focus on outreach education about GMOs. We created a website, some social media posts, a fact card, and other material. The NTAE project has

allowed us to expand our offering to include the “ non-GMO, ” “ organic, ” and “ natural ” food marketing label. We wanted to develop further our messaging about food labels and find new ways to connect with our audiences. Several of our team members had worked with NMSU’s Learning Games Laboratory on a

Social media post created by original GMO working group

USDA AFRI grant-funded gamification project. They suggested we talk to the lab about how we could use gamification — applying game-based strategies to educate people about a topic — as an educational outreach tool. We decided to explore this strategy and applied for the NTAE grant through the Extension Foundation to support our idea. After NTAE selected our project for grant funding, we added team members from the UConn Extension Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to our GMO working group and collaborated with our NTAE catalysts and our partners at the NMSU lab to create a gamification plan. Our team worked with the leadership development services offered by the Extension Foundation to develop a stronger team founded on the principles of Project Aristotle. These include psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact. We regularly scheduled leadership development opportunities to continue our team building, in addition to completing our project. After our conversations with the NTAE catalysts and the NMSU Learning Games Lab, we broadened our scope to include educating consumers about “natural” and “organic” food labels in addition to the “non - GMO” label. Focusing just on GMOs might have unintentionally led our audience to believe that PODCAST Connect Extension Podcast Background on our project and team development

GMOs warranted their own project because they are something to be more concerned about. So we set the following goals, objectives, and desired behavior changes for our game:

Goals Clarify consumers’ common misconceptions about “non - GMO,” “natural,” and “organic” food labels.

Empower consumers to make confident grocery shopping decisions based on their needs.

Objectives 1. Consumers will gain knowledge about food marketing labels and their meanings and develop more confidence in their choices at the grocery store.

2. Consumers will lear n to interpret the “non - GMO,” “organic,” and “natural” food labels.

3. Consumers will understand the definition of a GMO, which will reduce their uncertainty surrounding GMO terms (GMO, genetically engineered, and bioengineered).

4. Consumers will understand the “organic” label and what it means about the product.

5. Consumers will understand the “natural” label and what it means about the product.

6. We will connect with our audience and establish trust and rapport for university and science- based resources.

Desired Behavior Changes Consumers know what is important to them and their families when they choose food.

Consumers know where and how they can check some food marketing label information.

Consumers understand that labels are helpful, but brands have the ir own agenda, which isn’t always in the consumer’s best interest.

Part 2: Developing, Testing and Deploying Our Game

From October 2020 through April 2021, we gathered the research and food label messaging content that would inform our game, identified our audience, got feedback from Extension colleagues, and built and piloted our game.

F OO D L A B E L F A C T S & M E S S AG E S

The first thing we did was gather and articulate the basic food label information we wanted to communicate to our audience through the game. We wanted to build trust and rapport with people, not suggest they should be for or against any food label or production practice. We curated science- based facts about each label and developed the key message we wanted consumers to understand about each one. We have a considerable amount of research about consumer perceptions about GMOs, in particular, which you can access in the literature review of GMO food label research. “Organic” Label Key Message The term “organic” refers only to a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) certification that verifies how a food was grown and processed; it does not necessarily indicate that the food has nutritional value. “Organic” Label Key Facts The term “organic” is a certificati on designation from the USDA (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2020) and has nothing to do with safety, nutrition, or environmental health. Companies cannot use the certified organic label unless they comply with and receive USDA inspection (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2020). USDA certifies only a food’s agricultural production practices. Organic food may have slightly more certain nutrients, but overall, it has a similar nutritional makeup to non-organic food (Popa et al., 2019; Crinnion, 2010; Lairon, 2010). Health benefit studies of eating organic foods found mixed results of better, no difference, or worse (Noone, 2019). Most consumers understand that all organic food is non-GMO. Consumers often associate organic with small farms, however like non-organic food, most organic food is produced by large farms, not necessarily local farms (ESHA Research, 2019; Noone, 2019). “Organic” does not mean no pesticides were used; instead, it means that producers may use natural pesticides, and they must be approved by the USDA (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2020). The standard is that organic pesticides must be natural and non-synthetic, and this does not mean they are safe. Some organic pesticides are toxic, and some are not. Copper sulfate is an example of an organic pesticide that is highly toxic and allowed in organic agricultural production. Fish and vegetable oils are non-toxic examples of organic pesticides. Studies of the environmental impacts of organic agricultural production are mixed; there is not a strong indication that organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming, and in some instances organic farming has disadvantages because it requires more land ( Barański et al., 2014) . “Natural” Label Key Message The term “natural” means only that nothing (including artificial or synthetic ingredients, such as color additives) has been added to a food during processing that wouldn't normally be expected in that food. “Natural” Label Key Facts The “natural” label, which firs t appeared on food in the 1970s, addresses only how food is processed, and there is no certification or regulatory process for the “natural” label (Chambers et al., 2019). The

USDA, responsible for regulating labels on meat and poultry, says that beef and chicken can use the word “natural” only if they have no artificial colors and were not fundamentally altered during processing. Eggs are always natural, according to the USDA. The FDA regulates all other foods. The USDA (2020) policy guide states that the term “natural” may apply to labeling for meat and poultry products, provided that the applicant for such labeling demonstrates that a) the product does not contain any artificial or synthetic ingredient and b) the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. Minimal processing may include the following:

traditional processes used to make food edible or to preserve it or make it safe for human consumption

smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, or fermenting

physical processes that do not fundamentally separate a whole intact food into parts, e.g., grinding meat, separating eggs into albumin and yolk, and pressing fruits to produce juices.

The USDA does not define foods labeled “all - natural” as any different than those labeled “natural” (USDA, 2020). Despite the USDA policy, there is no certification or regulatory process.

The FDA considers the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives, regardless of source) is included in or added to food that is not typically expected in that food (U.S. FDA, 2018). However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as using pesticides, nor address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as pas teurization or irradiation. The FDA did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefits. The FDA also has no certification or regulatory process. In 2015, the FDA opened a request for comments on the use of the term “natural,” including for foods that are genetically engineered or contain ingredients through the use of genetic engineering (U.S. FDA, 2018). This resulted from three citizen petitions asking that the FDA better define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one citizen petition asking to prohibit the term on food labels. In addition, some federal courts requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup could be labeled “natural.” The public comment period closed in 2016; the FDA has yet to decide.

Here is what is not included in the definition of “natural:” local, organic, or higher nutrients:

Natural foods can be GMO and do not have to be organic.

Natural foods can be grown with pesticides, and meat can be raised with antibiotics and hormones.

“Natural” does not mean non -toxic (Chambers et al., 2019; Houck, 2019).

Food manufacturers often add “natural” labels to foods to increase their marketability to consumers, which can be done easily (Houck, 2019). A 2016 survey released by Consumer Reports showed that 73% of shoppers sought food labeled “natural” when they made food purchasing decisions. These findings came after a 2015 Consumer Reports survey that showed that almost two-thirds of shoppers

believed that the “natural” label means more than it does. Nearly half incorrectly believe that “natural” claims on labels have been independently verified.

“N a tural” labels don’t mean anything and are not worth the extra cost. If you care about pesticides, buy organic (Chambers et al., 2019; Houck, 2019). If you care about GMOs, buy non-GMO. If you care about local, buy foods that you have independently verified are produced locally. “ Natural ” does not address any of these. Until the FDA and USDA provide better definitions of and policy regulations to verify these terms, consider the “natural” claim on a food label to be a marketing strategy. “Non - GMO” Label Key Message There are only 13 actual “GMO” foods, as of this publication, and they are no less safe than conventionally produced food. “Non - GMO” Label Key Facts Genetically modified organisms are bioengineered products in which the genetics were changed on purpose using DNA technology. We have always used traditional selective breeding methods to alter DNA, but bioengineering is a more precise process to create GMOs. Eighty-eight percent of all scientists surveyed agree that GMO foods are no less safe than conventionally produced food, and 99% of scientists that study GMOs think they are safe (Plumer, 2015). Only 13 crops have GMO versions, as of the publication of this guide, and the most current list (using the term bioengineered) is always available on the Agricultural Marketing Services website. A “non - GMO” label on a ny other product is unnecessary and misleading because no GMO version exists. The current approved GMO varieties (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2020) are the following:

alfalfa

•

apple (Arctic varieties)

•

canola

•

corn

•

cotton

•

eggplant (BARI Bt Begun varieties)

•

• papaya (ringspot virus-resistant varieties)

pineapple (pink flesh varieties)

•

potato

•

salmon (AquaAdvantage)

•

soybean

•

squash (summer)

•

sugarbeet

•

Not all GMOs are produced by corporations; some are produced by universities to solve nutritional or environmental problems. For example, papayas in Hawaii were almost totally wiped out by the ringspot virus until researchers at the University of Hawaii created a GMO version that allows them to be grown. Universities and governments also collaborated to create golden rice, a GMO product (not approved in the United States) that adds extra vitamin A to help with eyesight and health issues in Africa. GMO salmon was produced because salmon is endangered. Since 1992, the number of wild salmon has been below the natural replacement level. GMO salmon is farmed and not released in the wild. The farmed salmon is sold to consumers, decreasing market demand on wild salmon.

Bt-crops — Bt is an organic pesticide — are an example of a GMO. The GMO version (Bt-crops) allows fewer synthetic pesticides and reduces the carcinogen level in Bt-corn. Bt crops are often associated with corn and soybean production. Beginning January 1, 2022, all products made with GMO ingredients must state that they are bioengineered, the term used by the USDA to identify GMO products (USDA AMS, 2020). Still, the label can be something as simple as a phone number or a QR code. If no genetic difference can be found, the rule further specifies that highly refined ingredients, such as oil and corn syrup, do not need to be labeled. Meat and milk from animals fed GMO feed do not need to be labeled.

In addition, not all food has DNA. Foods without DNA include salt, sugar, and highly refined oils like corn syrup. Therefore, all salt and sugar are inherently non-GMO and none of them needs to be labeled non-GMO (Knutson, 2018). Companies started applying the non-GMO label on these products to match consumer demands (Charles, 2016). Companies like Hershey are willing to pay 10 to 15 percent more for sugar cane versus GMO sugar beets to address consumer concerns (Charles, 2016). Farmers that raise GMO sugar beets stress that it is a better crop for their workers and the environment because it uses fewer pesticides, however they will grow products that food companies will purchase (Charles, 2016).

Part 3: Research & Marketing Planning

AU D I E N C E AN A L Y S I S

Before we created a food label game that would appeal to our audience, we needed to understand that audience and how they process and use information.

Our team identified that women between the ages of 25 and 40 who are responsible for grocery shopping are our target audience. We worked with the Extension Foundation’s marketing wraparound services to analyze that audience and our marketing initiatives to increase our effectiveness. KJM Digital completed an audit of our digital marketing and website presence of our GMO resources (website, social media) from January 1, 2020, through November 30, 2020. The audit found that we had 1,090,147 impressions on social media in the cross-network performance summary. However, our engagements were 78,165, and our post link clicks were 8,186, showing areas where we could improve. A review of the demographics of digital audiences showed that our core audience is the same as the demographic identified by our team for this project.

The audit findings were used to analyze our audience and determine where improvements could be made. Key recommendations from the digital audit were the following:

Use a call to action to create more user-generated content.

Develop user-generated content campaigns.

Maximize engagement by adhering to posting recommendations.

Start a digital “ GMO awareness ” campaign.

Develop key partnerships with fellow Extension programs.

Create transparent campaign messages.

We used these findings to develop the resources page for this project, edit and refine our gmo.uconn.edu website, and build a social media campaign with our GMO content. Findings also guided the deployment and marketing strategies for our NTAE project.

E X T E N S I ON R E S E A R CH

With the audience and marketing analysis from KJM in hand, it was time to talk to our Extension col leagues to get their feedback on consumers’ understanding of food labels and gamification in Extension programs. In November 2020, we hosted a chat — which has been archived — on the Connect Extension site. We had 63 participants from across the country, including representatives from the USDA, FDA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Chat participants agreed that consumers are confused by and have biases our three food labels and that the lack of regulations adds to the confusion. We talked about how interactive, game-based learning would be a powerful and fun way to teach young people and adults about these labels. We discussed how to connect with the participant s’ Extension program audiences (primarily low-income urban residents, many of whom are 4-H and EFNEP participants). And we came away from the chat with strategies for creating effective educational games.

We learned that the best way to reach these program audiences is to build a relationship with them — which starts with understanding their viewpoints and values — and that we should consider creating a game that

offers science-based information without forcing it;

gives players incentives and recognition;

has strong visuals

might include matching exercises, Jeopardy-style questions, card games, or spin-the-wheel exercises;

doesn’t embarrass players but gives them positive feedback as they progress;

is compatible with many platforms; and

is accessible to all audiences.

Chat participants also suggested that we

assign a color to each food label;

consider adding a component about food processing;

look for ways to feature farmers and farm families to humanize the food production process for players; and

plan for how to train other Extension services to incorporate the game into their programs.

Survey results from the chat showed that our participants found the session useful. Takeaways from the survey included that:

“The need to collaborate as Extension professionals.”

“Games are a great way to promote active learning.”

“Really appreciated the different resources that were shared today. I’m new to Extension (one week in!), so did not have much to contribute, but look forward to collaborating more with others.”

Chat participants also cited additional areas of need or confusion:

“I’m looking for something to teach through Zoom, like a PowerPoint game. It uses low bandwidth, and the teacher is the conducto r.”

“How do we effectively keep in touch with Extension audiences?”

“How do we build relationships in a virtual world?”

“Need more ways to engage youth, teens, and adults remotely.”

Overall, the chat we hosted on Connect Extension was an effective way to share information about our project and crowdsource our project. We used crowdsourcing to identify existing resources while gaining clarity around the types of educational outreach materials our colleagues want and will use in their Extension programming.

RESOURCES SHARED BY CHAT PARTICIPANTS

UConn EFNEP Fat Game

Healthy Lifestyle Resources

Water Calculator

National Geographic Food Education

FDA Whyville Snack Shack Games

H5P Virtual Tour

RESOURCE LINKS

H5P Interactive Content

UConn 4-H Virtual Escape Room

Sarah Eber: Dissecting Food Package Labeling, Module 2 Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

P RO F E S S I ON A L D E V E L O PM E N T AN D E NGAG EM E N T : CONN E C T E X T E N S I ON S U R V E Y

Our team identified the aspirational goal for our project: We wanted our game and resources to be available to audiences nationwide as an educational outreach tool. We understood that to accomplish this, we would need to engage Extension educators nationwide with the resources that we developed and implement a deployment plan and marketing strategy (see Part 5). After the Connect Extension chat, we deployed a survey to the chat participants and others on the Connect Extension platform who were interested in the resources our team is developing. Our goal was to learn how other Extension programs are incorporating gamification. We asked nine questions and had 74 responses total. Respondents represented a variety of Extension program areas, including 4-H (36.5%), Agriculture (31.1%), Family and Consumer Science (40.5%), Natural Resources (14.9%), and Other (18.9%). The first question asked if interactive learning was incorporated into their Extension program, and 86.5% responded that it was. Extension educators use a variety of interactive learning tools (Table 1).

Interactive learning tools have been beneficial in creating awareness and behavior changes among program participants. Respondents wrote that games, quizzes, jeopardy, problem-solving activities, hands-on activities, virtual and augmented reality, peer-to-peer learning, scenarios, and online certificates all had positive outcomes. Multimedia, polls, and shared learning experiences were all elements included in the tools. Evaluation measures included pre- and post-test (50%), time spent on the activity (23.7%), survey questions throughout activities (35.1%), end of activity surveys (50%), and other (20.3%). Barriers to using interactive learning tools included funding, broadband access, resources, technology skills, knowledge of the options available, staff support, time to create activities, and training on incorporating technology. Respondents stated that they needed tools, training, funding, new ideas, support, and access to technology to increase interactive learning in their Extension programs.

Table 1. Interactive Learning Tools Used in Extension Programs

Tool

Percent Using

Gamification

29.7%

Badging

1.4%

Classroom Technologies

51.4%

E-textbooks

6.8%

Virtual Reality

9.5%

Augmented Reality 5.4%

Mobile Learning

28.4%

Online Learning

77%

Technology Enhanced Learning

44.6%

Extension educators encourage their peers to incorporate interactive learning into programs. Preparation and

Other

13.5%

flexibility were cited by many respondents. Educators encourage their peers to use trial and error, give themselves plenty of time, incorporate participant feedback, keep it learner- centered, and “just try it.”

Overall, we found an interest and willingness among Extension professionals to incorporate interactive learning into programs. Most already use some version of interactive learning and would include more if they could overcome funding and resource constraints, among others. Our team found that the NTAE project accelerator process allowed us to be innovative and learn new ways of incorporating technology into our programs.

Part 4: Game Development

Once we had our key label facts and messages, market research, and Extension chat and survey feedback, it was time to develop our game. In a weeklong brainstorming session with the NMSU lab staff in February of 2021, we talked about ideas for the game’s story narrative and how players would interact with the game. We also identified the key features we wanted the game to include. It would need to be

highly visual and accessible to all;

ADA compliant;

bilingual (Spanish and English, to match our program audiences’ languages; and

usable for people with limited internet access.

At the end of the week, the lab had designed a prototype for our game, which we titled “Unpeeled: The Case Files of Maya McCluen.” In the game, the player is Maya McCluen, a film noir-type detective who helps a consumer, Mark, find clues and answers to his questions about food labels. Maya can travel to a grocery store, a farm, or the library to look for information and talk to experts like an orange farmer or a registered dietitian. The more clues and answers she gathers, the clearer the case becomes as she deciphers what the non-GMO marketing label on the orange juice container means. At the end of the game, the player has the information they need to help Mark make an informed buying decision.

GAM E P L A Y O V E R V I EW

When players arrive at the game site, they see the game credits, followed by an opening screen, where they begin to play.

Next, in conversation bubbles, Maya shares the background information for the game’s “case files.”

The grocery store, farm (or orange grove), and library are three locations in the game where Maya and the player collect clues.

Once the player and Maya collect all six of the clues, they complete an analysis of the clues they collected.

Clicking on each of the six clues allows the player to review the information they found. Maya then makes a recommendation to Mark, the confused consumer she met in the grocery store at the beginning of the game.

GAM E T E S T I NG

We began beta testing in April 2021, with our target audiences and those from the Connect Extension chat. We also shared the game with our colleagues in UConn’s College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources (CAHNR) and the greater Connect Extension community for as much feedback as possible. We presented at the Association for Communication Excellence (ACE) Virtual Professional Development conference for further input. The people who tried the game provided detailed feedback and insights into what they learned and how we could improve it. This short-form game prototype was developed as a proof of concept to prompt research on the development of a proposed complete game. Game developers at NMSU Learning Games Lab and content experts from the UConn Extension collaborated during a week-long Game Jam to create the prototype, which has simple, place-holder graphics and gameplay. Using this prototype, the team can now investigate how to move forward with a fuller game, refining audience and content and identifying a production budget. Our prototype has one module in what will eventually be a multi-module game about interpreting food marketing labels. In a proposed complete game, the several modules would address various parts of reading food marketing labels in the grocery aisle and include “ organic ” and “ natural ” labels, as well as other “ non-GMO ” labeled products

The NMSU team included a short survey on the game webpage. We created the survey with Qualtrics software and used emojis our audiences could use to show their reactions to the game. The survey had nine questions: three emoji-based questions, three text entry questions and three multiple choice questions — one asking about the game’s length, one asking if the player is the primary grocery shopper, and one asking for the player’s age, to help us in understanding how different target demographics perceived the game. Google Analytics on the NMSU Unpeeled page collected data on engagement rates (time spent playing the game), and total

A word cloud showing the 50 words most frequently used in response to the question , ” What do you think about when you think about GMOs? ”

users. We collected traffic sources, basic demographics (country, state, and city/town), time of day that the game was played, and browser (desktop, mobile, tablet, operating system) through Google Analytics. Our goal was to learn what audiences thought about the game, including what they did and did not like. The game and survey took participants about 20 minutes to complete. Survey results from the beta testing showed that 92% of participants (n=103) found the game enjoyable, and 92% learned something new playing the game. The majority (85%) found the game easy to play, and 73% thought the game’s length was just right. Participant learning text entries showed that our game helped them understand the concepts we were trying to teach. These included that there are no GMO oranges; food marketing labels have different meanings; some crops have GMOs and others don’t; and DNA must be present for a crop to be a GMO.

We asked respondents what they think about when they think about GMOs. Text responses were compiled in a visual, and illustrate positive and negative sentiments.

The majority of our respondents were grocery shoppers. Only 9% of respondents said that they are never the primary grocery shopper for their household. The age ranges of our respondents included 12% in the 18-24 age group, 23% in the 25-40 age group, and 57% in the 41-64 age group. One

limitation of our survey was that we do not know how many of our respondents are parents of children. However, no respondents complained that the game was not appropriate for kids. Although children were not originally one of our target audiences, our team decided that the game prototype would appeal to this demographic.

We presented a sharing session at the ACE Virtual Professional Development Conference in June 2021. The session provided an overview of our project and goals. Then, the land-grant communicators all played the game and came back to the session to provide feedback on the game and ideas for deploying it to a national audience. We incorporated the feedback into our game design and marketing strategy. We used survey respondent and presentation attendee input to improve the game, and we had another meeting with NMSU to prioritize game edits. Seeking feedback from multiple sources and outlets strengthened our project. Edits we prioritized include making the game easier to navigate (how many clues to find, where to click), renaming a character, and clarifying information sections while providing easier access to additional resources. Final edits to the prototype were completed in July. Part 5: Deployment Strategy, Timeline, & Responsibility Levels

GAM E D E P L O YM E N T

We launched our game in August 2021. The game is available on our website and on the websites of New Mexico State Learning Games Laboratory, UConn EFNEP, UConn 4-H, and other locations. All other websites will point users back to s.uconn.edu/unpeeled to streamline our analytics and game evaluation. We also link to gmo.uconn.edu for additional resources.

There are four key audiences for the game deployment strategy:

Stakeholders: provided funding or have an interest in the outcomes of our project

Amplifiers: key contributors that will help us raise awareness and promote the game through their networks

Messengers: educators and collaborators that will use the game in their programming or have direct connections with our target audiences

End Users: customers playing the game (Our target audience is adults that are the primary grocery shoppers for their family.)

Audience Definitions

Stakeholders: Extension Foundation, Connect Extension staff, Extension administrators, Northeast AgEnhancement, FDA, USDA, and UConn administrators

Amplifiers: NTAE marketing/digital engagement, our team members, USDA-NIFA, and UConn

Messengers: Connect Extension chat participants, ShopRite registered dietitians (10 in Connecticut and 70 in the Northeast), SNAP-Ed teams in Connecticut, and the 4-H and EFNEP/SNAP-Ed teams at UConn (team members that are not currently involved in our NTAE program team)

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48

impact.extension.org