Genetically modified foods (GMFs) have met with strong opposition for most of their existence. According to one account—the consequence-based perspective (CP)—lay people oppose GMFs because they deem them unsafe as well as of dubious value. The CP is backed by the data and offers a clear solution for easing GMF opposition. However, several scholars have claimed that the CP is faulty, that lay opposition derives from largely nonrational factors and is consequence blind. One recent statement of this, the moral-absolutism perspective (MAP), contends that GMFs’ opponents are principled “moral absolutists” who think that GMFs should be banned no matter their value or risk. Herein we critically weigh key arguments for this proposal. We also present five new studies that probed the clearest data that seem to favor the MAP—opponents affirming the statement that GMFs should be “prohibited,” no matter their value or risk. These studies jointly show that (a) most presumed absolutists do not understand the key question and/or (b) cannot validly answer it. We show that taking due steps in clarifying the question and screening for those participants who cannot validly answer it cuts down absolutism to near zero. Finally, we demonstrate that helping GMFs’ opponents imagine a world wherein GMFs are safe and constructive makes the majority willing to welcome GMFs in this context.

转基因食品（GMFs）的大多数存在遭到强烈反对。根据一个基于结果的观点（CP）的说法，人们反对GMF，因为他们认为GMF不安全且价值可疑。CP受数据支持，为缓解GMF反对提供了明确的解决方案。但是，一些学者声称，CP是有缺陷的，非专业人士的反对意见主要来自非理性因素，因而是盲目的后果。最近关于道德专制主义观点（MAP）的声明认为，GMF的反对者是原则上的“道德专制主义者”，他们认为，GMF的价值或风险均应被禁止。在此，我们严格权衡该提案的关键论点。我们还提出了五项新研究，研究了似乎更倾向于MAP的最清晰数据-反对者肯定了GMF的价值或风险均应“禁止”的说法。这些研究共同表明（a）大多数假定的专制主义者不理解关键问题和/或（b）无法有效回答这一问题。我们表明，采取适当步骤来澄清问题，并对无法有效回答问题的参与者进行筛查，会将专制主义减少到接近零。最后，我们证明了帮助GMF的反对者想象一个GMF安全和建设性的世界，使大多数人愿意在这种情况下欢迎GMF。我们表明，采取适当步骤来澄清问题并筛选那些无法有效回答问题的参与者，可以将专制减少到接近零。最后，我们证明，帮助GMF的反对者想象一个GMF安全和建设性的世界，使大多数人愿意在这种情况下欢迎GMF。我们表明，采取适当步骤来澄清问题并筛选那些无法有效回答问题的参与者，可以将专制减少到接近零。最后，我们证明了帮助GMF的反对者想象一个GMF安全和建设性的世界，使大多数人愿意在这种情况下欢迎GMF。