Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland

Abstract

Biotechnology might contribute to solving food safety and security challenges. However, gene technology has been under public scrutiny, linked to the framing of the media and public discourse. The study aims to investigate people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology with focus on transgenic genetic modification versus genome editing. An online experiment was conducted with participants from the United Kingdom (n = 490) and Switzerland (n = 505). The participants were presented with the topic of food biotechnology and more specifically with experimentally varied vignettes on transgenic and genetic modification and genome editing (scientific uncertainty: high vs. low, media format: journalistic vs. user-generated blog). The results suggest that participants from both countries express higher levels of acceptance for genome editing compared to transgenic genetic modification. The general and personal acceptance of these technologies depend largely on whether the participants believe the application is beneficial, how they perceive scientific uncertainty, and the country they reside in. Our findings suggest that future communication about gene technology should focus more on discussing trade-offs between using an agricultural technologies and tangible and relevant benefits, instead of a unidimensional focus on risk and safety.

Communication of food‐related health risks and benefits – a systematic review (2018‐2022)

“…This can lead to building trust amongst consumers. Findings show that, for example, consumers accept new technologies more if they are aware of the benefits it may bring, even if there are some perceived risks (Hartmann et al, 2018;Bearth et al, 2022;Busch et al, 2020).…”

“…Furthermore, in the context of biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland, Bearth et al (2022) found that the form of media consumers received information from on the risks and benefits of production techniques did not have a significant impact on their willingness to accept the technique. Therefore, consumers receiving information from journalistic media were no more trusting than when they received information from social media or blogs.…”

“…Only a small fraction (0.5%) of the respondents perceived nanotechnology negatively. Bearth et al (2022) found that genome editing was more positively perceived than genetic modification in both Switzerland and the UK. This was argued to be because the former 'has been described as more precise compared to the latter.…”

“…presented in Research Questions 1 and 5, which showed that when consumers perceive food production techniques as uncertain or unproven, they are more likely to perceive them as risky or dangerous (Bearth et al, 2022).…”

A sustainability assessment framework for genome-edited salmon

“…Our analysis use farmed genome-edited salmon in Norwegian ocean facilities as a case with the purpose of elaborating a sustainability assessment framework for genome-edited salmon in aquaculture using three sources of information; strategy and policy documents published by governmental offices and industry organizations; relevant GMO regulations and operationalization reports; and qualitative empirical data from 19 semi-structured interviews with Norwegian key stakeholders, and four semi-structured citizen groups. This work contributes to the growing knowledge on stakeholder and citizens views on genome-editing in food production (Bearth et al, 2022;Busch et al, 2022;Kantar., 2020;van der Berg et al, 2021), and to the more general discussion of how to operationalise sustainability in aquaculture.…”