Gene-Edited Meat: Disentangling Consumers' Attitudes and Potential Purchase Behavior

Martín-Collado, D.; Byrne, T. J.; Crowley, Jonh J; Kirk, Tom; Ripoll, G.; Whitelaw, C. Bruce A.

doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.856491

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The terms used to describe the technology are debated in the regulatory sphere [ 56 – 58 ], suggesting that stakeholders perceive this to be important. Comparisons between cis-genetic and trans-genetic applications also appear in these discussions [see 59 , 60 for two recent examples]. Taken together these previous studies suggest that the way in which terms are defined and presented can affect perceptions, but our work indicates that in some cases at least this effect is likely to be small, and that many people recognize the terms as synonymous.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetic engineering of animals has been proposed to address societal problems, but public acceptance of the use of this technology is unclear. Previous work has shown that the source of information proposing the technology (e.g. companies, universities), the term used to describe the technology (e.g. genome editing, genetic modification), and the genetic engineering application (e.g. different food products) affects technology acceptance. We conducted three mixed-method surveys and used a causal trust-acceptability model to understand social acceptance of genetic engineering (GE) by investigating 1) the source of information proposing the technology, 2) the term used to describe the technology, and 3) the GE application for farm animals proposed. Further, participants expressed their understanding of technology using a range of terms interchangeably, all describing technology used to change an organism’s DNA. We used structural equation modelling and confirmed model fit for each survey. In each survey, perceptions of benefit had the greatest effect on acceptance. Following our hypothesized model, social trust had an indirect influence on acceptance through similar effects of perceived benefit and perceived risk. Additional quantitative analysis showed that the source of information and technology term had little to no effect on acceptance. Applications involving animals were perceived as less beneficial than a plant application, and an application for increased cattle muscle growth was perceived as more risky than a plant application. When assessing the acceptability of applications participants considered impacts on plants, animals, and people, trust in actors and technologies, and weighed benefits and drawbacks of GE. Future work should consider how to best measure acceptability of GE for animals, consider contextual factors and consider the use of inductive frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants in their survey required a smaller discount for gene-edited potatoes with health-related improvements (lowering acrylamide, a component released when potatoes are fried) compared to environmentally related improvements (pesticide and food waste reduction). Some studies have explored consumers' WTP for gene-edited meat products [41] and found that in general consumers would only accept gene-edited meats at discounted prices. The discount decreased when consumers were informed that the benefit from gene editing was improved animal welfare associated with increased disease resistance or consequences for human health through increased Omega 3 fatty acids [41].…”

Section: Consumer Response To Food Produced With Gene Editingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have explored consumers’ WTP for gene-edited meat products [ 41 ] and found that in general consumers would only accept gene-edited meats at discounted prices. The discount decreased when consumers were informed that the benefit from gene editing was improved animal welfare associated with increased disease resistance or consequences for human health through increased Omega 3 fatty acids [ 41 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer acceptance of new plant-breeding technologies: An application to the use of gene editing in fresh table grapes

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study estimates consumers’ willingness to pay for specific product (quality) and process (agronomic) attributes of table grapes, including taste, texture, external appearance, and the expected number of chemical applications, and for the breeding technology used to develop the plant. Considering varietal traits, on average our survey respondents were willing to pay the highest price premiums for specific offers of improvements in table grape taste and texture, followed by external appearance and expected number of chemical applications. Considering breeding methods, on average our respondents were willing to pay a small premium for table grapes developed using conventional breeding rather than gene editing (e.g., CRISPR). Results from a latent class model identify four different groups of consumers with distinct preferences for grape quality attributes and breeding technologies. The group of consumers most likely to reject gene editing considers both genetic engineering and gene editing to be breeding technologies that produce foods that are morally unacceptable and not safe to eat.

show abstract

“…It is well discussed that consumers would pay more for not genetically modified (Non-GMO) products [ 27 , 28 ]. In most cases, GE is still considered as GMO and are not preferred [ 29 ]. Considering that GE is beneficial only as long as alleles with reasonable effect sizes have not been fixed in the population, GE may not be appealing enough for the farmers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing

Chuang,

Wellmann,

Meijboom

et al. 2024

Genet Sel Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In spite of being controversial and raising ethical concerns, the application of gene editing is more likely to be accepted when it contributes to improving animal welfare. One of the animal welfare and ethical issues in chicken breeding is chick culling, the killing of the male layer chicks after hatching due to the poor fattening performance. Although establishing dual-purpose chicken lines could solve this problem, unfavorable genetic correlations between egg and meat production traits hindered their competitiveness. Although it is also controversial in ethical terms, gene editing may accelerate genetic progress in dual-purpose chicken and alleviate the ethical concerns from chick culling. Results The simulation compared the utility improvement in dual-purpose use under two breeding schemes: one consisting in the improvement of the laying hens, and the second in the improvement of a synthetic line obtained from a layer broiler cross. In each breeding scheme, the breeding programs were simulated with and without gene editing. Polygenic breeding values and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) with different levels of pleiotropy caused negative correlations between egg production, meat production, and overall health. The results of the simulation demonstrated that genetic gain could be accelerated by at most 81% for several generations if gene editing was used. The actual increase in genetic gain depended on the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) being edited per animal. The rate of genetic improvement became equal in scenarios with and without gene editing after 20 generations. This is because the remaining segregating QTL had small effects and their edition would have negative overall health effects from potential off-target edits. Although gene editing can improve genetic gain in quantitative traits, it can only be recommended as long as QTL with reasonable effect sizes are segregating and detectable. Conclusions This simulation demonstrates the potential of gene editing to accelerate the simultaneous improvement of negatively correlated traits. When the risk of negative consequences from gene editing persists, the number of SNPs to be edited should be chosen carefully to obtain the optimal genetic gain.

show abstract

Gene-Edited Meat: Disentangling Consumers' Attitudes and Potential Purchase Behavior

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

Consumer acceptance of new plant-breeding technologies: An application to the use of gene editing in fresh table grapes

Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About