UWA Science Communication

The recent approval of a genetically modified (GM) purple tomato in Australia is more than just a splash of colour for our salads. It also marks a pivotal shift in the narrative of GM food that we, as science communicators, need to pay close attention to. 🍅💜

Early genetic modifications for food focused more on agricultural traits, such as pest resistance and herbicide tolerance, which, of course, benefit farmers and the supply chain but offer little tangible difference to the average shopper. That’s why the conversation can easily slide into debates about risk, safety, and corporate control.

By borrowing genes from snapdragons 🌸🧬, the anthocyanin-rich Purple Bliss ™ tomato offers a direct consumer benefit: better nutrition and a striking new look.

Now that the regulators have already answered the question “Is it safe to eat?” ✅, what should science communicators do when safety data isn’t the only metric consumers care about?

Dr Heather Bray's commentary on Scimex’s Expert Reaction article shows how to move from the debate about risk to a conversation about preference. 💬

The role of a science communicator is to empower people to make informed choices based on their own values, whether that leads to putting purple tomatoes in the basket or leaving them on the shelf.

Read the full Expert Reaction here: 🔗 https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-genetically-modified-purple-tomato-approved-in-australia

We want to hear from you: 🗣️ Does a visible benefit change how you feel about buying GM produce? Or do your food values remain the same regardless of the trait?

Let us know in the comments! 👇



📸 Image credit: Supplied by Norfolk Healthy Produce (Big Purple Tomato).

Happy 2026 everyone! This awesome article resonates so much with our research and teaching related to making science communication more inclusive ...

Science is best communicated through identity and culture – how researchers are ensuring STEM serves their communities Scientists have traditionally focused on educating the public on science or correcting misinformation. But researchers from marginalized communities often have broader goals in science communication.