Brenna Shanahan

Professor Yang
CMM100-03
08 November 2016
Persuading the Public Through Peripheral Routes
Applying the ELM Model to the GMO Debate
The Elaboration Likelihood Model incorporates two routes one can take to persuade
others to agree with their argument. The first, the central route, focuses on appealing to ones
logic, is issue-relevant, and typically uses statistics to back up claims. The peripheral route,
however, relies on peripheral cues and taps into others emotions. Using the central route results
in long term attitudinal change while the peripheral route results in short term change and one is
more likely to be persuaded to change their opinion after hearing another perspective if first
convinced through this route (Jooyoung & Hye-Jin, 2009). Many news outlets prefer the
peripheral route because impressionable minds are likely to follow heuristic processing to
change their attitudes but because this has a short term effect, the media and other persuaders
must educate the lay public into acquiring the accuracy motive that leads the public to process
the given risk messages systematicallythey would be better able to process information that is
more fact-based, detailed, and balanced (Jooyoung & Hye-Jin, 2009, pg. 12). The media uses
the peripheral route of the ELM model to instill fear in the viewers in order to persuade their
audience that GMOs are detrimental to peoples health, the environment, and the economy while
scientists mainly focus on the central route of the ELM model to highlight benefits of GMOs;
however, the most persuasive arguments incorporate both routes.
The media, especially when framing the issue of GMOs in terms of their health risks,
typically turn to scientists for their information. Most scientists (89%) believe that the
consumption of GMOs is safe, so when media uses experts in the field to present the issue, they
are subtly trying to persuade the audience to also take this stance as well (Standing up for
Science, 2015). Media attempting to persuade the public that GMOs are safe mainly use the

central route in the ELM model to convince viewers through straightforward scientific evidence
either through interviews with professionals in the field. In Wunderlich and Gattos (2015) study
about Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information,
participants who were in favor of GMOs had more knowledge than those who did not and had a
better understanding of the science behind it. The participants who accepted GMOs as safe had
gained their knowledge from media outlets that use the central route of persuasion with scientific
facts (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Theses participants also, on average, had a higher level of
education and drew upon their educational background to inform their opinions rather than
judging the safety of a product based on how natural it is (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015, pg. 6). By
using the central route of the ELM model, these individuals were able to retain the information
presented to them and think more rationally about the issue over those who consumed media
outlets utilizing the peripheral route of persuasion. Using this route is also beneficial in that
consumers trust messages with expert backing more than those without knowledgeable input,
meaning that consumers will be more receptive to a scientist reporting GMO information than to
a news commentator (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015, pg. 5). However, only 13.6% of the public gets
their information straight from scientific sources (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). The media usually
takes the peripheral route to persuade the audience that GMOs are unsafe, and consequently, turn
less and less to scientists and experts in the field.
Using the central route also allows media to better challenge existing views that people
may already have. In the 2013 article Some GMO Crops are on the Same Side as Their
Opponents, the author addresses the assumption that much of the uninformed public has
concerning the health risks of GMOs and the government control over farmers. He contends that
golden rice, genetically modified to make beta carotene, was developed to reduce vitamin A
deficiency, which is estimated to cause two million deaths annually, mainly in young children.

Golden rice is owned by an independent humanitarian board, not a multinational company

(Lynas, 2013, pg. 1). Using factual information regarding the nutritional value of GMOs and
providing background on the people behind golden rice categorizes this type of persuasion as
using the central route.
In 2012, California proposed Proposition 37 which attempted to turn GMO labelling from
voluntary to mandatory, but it eventually failed (Krause, Meyers, Irlbeck, & Chambers, 2016). In
a 2016 study, researchers examined the persuasive messages regarding the proposition posted on
YouTube. 162 videos were examined, and 71.6% were in favor of the proposition while 16.1%
opposed it and only 12.3% of videos were neutral (Krause et al, 2016). This imbalance can be
attributed to the negative media coverage [that] prime(s) consumers to view GM labels as
warning signs (Krause et al, 2016, pg. 3). The videos supporting the proposition appealed to the
emotions of the viewers, using the peripheral route of persuasion similar to the media outlets
they had retrieved their knowledge of GMOs from. However, videos both against and neutral to
the proposition had scientists featured in their videos and took the central route of persuasion by
using statistics and objective statements rather than statements that could provoke emotions
(Krause et al, 2016, pg. 10). However, attempting to persuade the public using only the central
route does not appear to be as effective as the peripheral route in persuading people that GMOs
are safe from Krauses results. Lynas (2013) also agrees that the scientific consensus on GMO
safety has little impact on anti-GMO activists and that those in support of GMOs must take a
new approach in order to convince others of their beliefs (pg. 1).
Supporters of GMOs must persuade the public that GMOs are safe not just through the
central route or the peripheral route, but rather through the incorporation of both. Krause et al
(2016) states that political videos with logical and emotional content have the ability to engage
both highly motivated publics, as well as those who would rely on affective cues during

processing (pg. 11). Although opponents of GMOs tend to rely on the peripheral route and
supporters the central route to persuade people, the most effective means of persuading others,
according to Krause, is through both. In the 2016 article GMOs are Our Destiny, Hope Jahren
incorporates both the central and peripheral routes of persuasion to convince readers that GMOs
are beneficial. She first engages readers with an anecdotal story of when she took her dog for a
walk then continues to explain how her pet is a GMO wolf and eventually connects the genetic
modification of the dog to crops (Jahren, 2016). Many people can connect with having a dog and
being fond of animals. By first appealing to these emotions, Jahren is able to more easily
convince the audience later that the global population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050the crop
cultivators that we plant today are not equal to the task of feeding the new world that we are
creating. We need more GMO research (Jahren, 2016, pg. 1). If Jahren had only taken the
central route and relied on logic, her argument would have been true but less compelling to
readers. Dogs are associated with pureness, love, and innocence; by associating the dog with
genetic modification, she challenges peoples perception of what GMOs are.
Steven Savage, author of The Non-GMO Food Label is a Lie (2016) also attempts to
persuade his readers that the labelling of GMOs would do more harm
than good through both the central and peripheral routes of persuasion.
Similar to Jahren, Savage introduces the topic through playing on the
readers emotions. He uses visuals to back up his claims that he
Above is an image Jahren uses
in her article to highlight the
simplicity of GMOs and their
naturalness.
http://time.com/4521582/2016election-food/?iid=sr-link10

describes using the central route, but the combination of both together
are most effective in persuading his audience. For example, the image

to the left shows what watermelons, corn, bananas, eggplants, carrots, cabbage, kale, and
broccoli looked like prior to mutagenesis breedingseeds were exposed to gamma radiation in
substantial doses and then sifted through to find ones with mutations to their DNA that had

desirable qualities (Savage, 2016, pg. 1). The images of the foods to the left have little
resemblance to what foods in grocery stores look like today, even those plastered with the NonGMO label. This proves his point that foods have been
genetically modified for decades. According to Savage, nearly
every food product has been genetically modified in some way,
even most products that claim not to be. Labelling would not
force those products to be labelled and would only further
peoples misunderstanding of what GMOs are (Savage, 2016).
Rose Eveleth of the Smithsonian first appeals to readers
Above is a depiction of what foods looked like
prior to mutagenesis breeding and other GMOs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2016/06/11/the-nongmo-food-label-is-a-lie/#4e5d303a33fa

senses by describing a scenario where one is given the option

to eat a plate of food labelled natural or a plate labelled

genetically modified (Eveleth, 2012). In setting up her argument with a story that engages the
audience and makes them take a stance, she then is able to challenge those existing beliefs
through the central route of persuasion. Eveleth assumes that most people, including herself,
would prefer to eat the natural plate due to its more positive connotation. She aligns herself
with the readers first to gain their trust so that they are more easily persuaded into believing her
main argument proposed through the central route that nearly a billion people go hungry
because they cannot grow or buy enough foodan estimated 2 billion people suffer from a lack
of iron, causing everything from tiredness to premature death (Eveleth, 2012, pg. 1). She
attempts to persuade readers that although most people prefer food labelled natural, GMOs are
necessary and beneficial for the world as a whole. Eveleth also challenges the audiences original
perceptions of GMOs by inserting the visual on the left, depicting tomatoes as beautifully
decorated orbs (Eveleth, 2012). The negative connotations associated with GMOs typically
derive from the medias portrayal of them as scientific experiments of sorts and unappetizing to

increase fear in the public in order to convince them that consuming GMOs is detrimental to
ones health. Eveleth attempts to replace the images people have of GMOs (like the image of the
needle injecting the tomato) by utilizing the peripheral route of persuasion and creating her own,
more positive image of what GMOs are.
It appears that the reason why those against GMOs usually only use the peripheral route
of persuasion to convince others that their argument is correct because there is no scientific
evidence stating that GMOs are unsafe (Docksey, 2013). In other words, there would be no
feasible way to persuade others to oppose GMOs through the central route
of persuasion because their argument is based on morals and emotions
rather than facts. Many supporters of GMOs are frustrated with the
publics lack of knowledge concerning GMOs and attempt to inform them
This image depicts genetically modified tomatoes
as pristine decorations.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/what-will-convince-people-that-geneticallymodified-foods-are-okay-125478012/?no-ist

fails to engage
argued that the

through stating facts using

the central route. Although
this route is informative, it

A hypodermic needle pierces a natural

looking tomato.
http://www.article-3.com/geneticallymodified-ignorance-914581.1.html

readers. Through research, it can be

most persuasive pieces utilize both the

central and peripheral routes. However, because the argument that GMOs are detrimental is not
based on science, the arguments in favor of GMOs that use both routes hold up the best because
they can draw from both peoples emotions and statistical information. The medias use of the
peripheral route to persuade the public that GMOs can be harmful is effective in the short term
because connecting with people emotionally can only go so far. The media must incorporate
scientific evidence and perspectives from others to better inform the public of the issue rather
than try to persuade them to oppose GMOs outright.

References
Docksey, L. (2013). Genetically modified politicians: Their battle to persuade the public to
accept GM food. Center for Research on Globalization. Retrieved from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-politicians-their-battle-to-persuadethe-public-to-accept-gm-food/5359610
Eveleth, R., (2012). What will convince people that genetically modified foods are okay.
Smithsonian. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-willconvince-people-that- genetically-modified-foods-are-okay-125478012/?no-ist
Jahren, H. (2016).Food: GMOs are our destiny. Time. Retrieved from
http://time.com/4521582/2016-election-food/?iid=sr-link10
Jooyoung, K., & Hye-Jin, P. (2009). Information processing of genetically modified food
messages under different motives: An adaptation of the multiple-motive heuristicsystematic model. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 29(12), 1793-1806.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01324.x
Krause, A., Meyers, C., Irlbeck, E., & Chambers, T. (2016). What side are you on? An
examination of the persuasive message factors in proposition 37 videos on Youtube.
Journal of Applied Communications, 100(3), 68-82. Retrieved from:
http://journalofappliedcommunications.org/images/stories/issues/2016/jac_100_edition_i
ssue

_3_article_7.pdf

Lynas, M. (2013). Some GMO crops are on the same side as their opponents. MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522651/some-gmo-cropsare-on-the-same-side-as-their-opponents/
Savage, S. (2016). The non-gmo food label is a lie. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2016/06/11/the-non-gmo-food-label-is-alie/#4e5d303a33fa
Sinberg, S. (2014). Genetically modified ignorance. Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.article3.com/genetically-modified-ignorance-914581.1.html
Standing up for science. (2015). Nature Biotechnology, 33(10), 1009. doi:10.1038/nbt.3384
Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015). Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms
and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition, 6(6), 842-851.
doi:10.3945/an.115.008870