Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food

Cummings, Christopher; Selfa, Theresa; Lindberg, Sonja; Bain, Carmen

doi:10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GEFs is also intertwined with the history of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) ( Cummings, 2017 ; Friedrichs et al, 2019 ; Kuzma, 2022 ; Cummings et al, 2023 ; Lindberg et al, 2023 ). Public trust in GMOs has shown a significant discrepancy between scientific experts and the public.…”

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in 2015, 88% of scientists believed GMO foods were safe for human consumption compared to only 37% of the public ( Pew Research Center, 2015 ). Recent stakeholder studies show that proponents of GEFs are seeking to cultivate public acceptance by focusing on shared values and transparency in their communication while also seeking to define GEFs as heterogeneous to GMOs ( Cummings et al, 2023 ). Critics, on the other hand, view many of the concerns of GEFs as similar to GMOs and often seek to define GEFs as analogous to GMOs so that regulatory oversight and labeling mandates for GEFs are the same as GMOs ( Cummings et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While ongoing studies investigate potential risks associated with GEFs, including off-target effects, unintended on-target effects, and unintended consequences (Kawall et al, 2020), scholars suggest that trust in emerging technologies for food is influenced by factors beyond technical risks and benefits, including past experiences with technology controversies, transparency and openness on the part of those who manage the technology, and provision of consumer control and choice ( Slovic, 1987 ; Yawson and Kuzma, 2010 ; Kuzma and Kokotovich, 2011 ; Brown and Kuzma, 2013 ; Dietz, 2013 ; Yue et al, 2015a ; Brown et al, 2015 ; Yue et al, 2015b ; Cummings et al, 2023 ). For example, institutional trust plays a pivotal role in public perceptions and acceptance of both GEFs and GM foods ( Frewer et al, 2014 ; Yue et al, 2015a ; Cummings and Peters, 2022a ; Cummings and Peters, 2022b ).…”

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture

Kuzma,

Grieger,

Cimadori

et al. 2023

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper evaluates the U.S. regulatory review of three emerging biotechnology products according to parameters, practices, and endpoints of assessments that are important to stakeholders and publics. First, we present a summary of the literature on variables that are important to non-expert publics in governing biotech products, including ethical, social, policy process, and risk and benefit parameters. Second, we draw from our USDA-funded project results that surveyed stakeholders with subject matter expertise about their attitudes towards important risk, benefit, sustainability, and societal impact parameters for assessing novel agrifood technologies, including biotech. Third, we evaluate the regulatory assessments of three food and agricultural biotechnology case studies that have been reviewed under U.S. regulatory agencies and laws of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, including gene-edited soybeans, beef cattle, and mustard greens. Evaluation of the regulatory review process was based on parameters identified in steps 1 and 2 which were deemed important to both publics and stakeholders. Based on this review, we then propose several policy options for U.S. federal agencies to strengthen their oversight processes to better align with a broader range of parameters to support sustainable agrifood products that rely on novel technologies. These policy options include 1) those that would not require new institutions or legal foundations (such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements and/or requiring a minimal level of safety data), 2) those that would require a novel institutional or cross-institutional framework (such as developing a publicly-available website and/or performing holistic sustainability assessments), and 3) those that would require the agencies to have additional legal authorities (such as requiring agencies to review biotech products according to a minimal set of health, environmental, and socio-economic parameters). Overall, the results of this analysis will be important for guiding policy practice and formulation in the regulatory assessment of emerging biotechnology products that challenge existing legal and institutional frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parameters For Governance Important To Stakeholders and Cons...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture

Kuzma,

Grieger,

Cimadori

et al. 2023

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, the assessment of emerging technologies for sustainability should consider not only the environmental, health and economic impact but also the ethical, legal, and social implications (Florin, 2022; Kjeldaas et al, 2023; Kuiken et al, 2021; Rohr et al, 2021; White House, 2022). Another challenge to the sustainability assessment of agrifood biotechnology products is differing stakeholder's opinions on the impacts of biotechnology on the environment, society, and economics and their ethical and legal implications (Cummings et al, 2023; Nair et al, 2023). While policymakers are likely to focus on health and environmental risks and farmers are likely to focus on their costs and benefits, the public, including consumers, may care more about aspects related to their daily life including improved health, lower costs, better convenience, and quality (Cummings & Peters, 2022a, 2022b; Kuzma et al, 2008; Lindberg et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods

Wei,

Grieger,

Cummings

et al. 2023

Plants People Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal Impact StatementA diverse portfolio of genetically engineered food crops, as well as animal livestock and fish, are currently being developed and commercialized. To ensure their contributions to long‐term sustainability, a broad range of environmental, health, ethical, and societal parameters should be used in their evaluations. This paper proposes a set of parameters to evaluate the sustainability of genetically engineered food and agriculture products and discusses mechanisms to improve their governance and oversight. With such holistic evaluations, genetic engineering applications that are deemed beneficial to sustainable agriculture could be identified in an effort to foster sustainability.SummaryTo achieve international sustainable development goals, food and agricultural production need to rely on sustainable and resilient practices. Traditional breeding as well as the use of new agricultural technologies, including genetic engineering and gene editing, have the potential to help achieve sustainable agrifood production. Although numerous oversight mechanisms exist to guarantee the secure and sustainable advancement and utilization of genetically engineered agrifoods, the majority of these mechanisms heavily depend on a narrow set of parameters to assess risks and safety concerning human health and nontarget organisms. However, a more comprehensive range of parameters should be considered to promote environmental and social sustainability in a more holistic manner. This Opinion article argues that to achieve a more sustainable agrifood production that relies on genetic engineering, governance systems related to new agrifood biotechnologies should incorporate a broader array of environmental, health, ethical, and societal factors to ensure their sustainability in the long‐term. To facilitate this process, we propose a set of parameters to help evaluate the sustainability of agrifoods that rely on genetic engineering. We then discuss major challenges and opportunities for formalizing sustainability parameters in US governance policy and decision‐making systems. Overall, this work contributes to further developing a more comprehensive assessment framework that aims to minimize potential risks and maximize potential benefits of agrifood biotechnology while also fostering sustainability.

show abstract

Can societal and ethical implications of precision microbiome engineering be applied to the built environment? A systematic review of the literature

Hardwick,

Cummings,

Graves

et al. 2024

Environ Syst Decis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of engineering the microbiome of the built environment is to create places and spaces that are better for human health. Like other emerging technologies, engineering the microbiome of the built environment may bring considerable benefits but there has been a lack of exploration on its societal implication and how to engineer in an ethical way. To date, this topic area has also not been pulled together into a singular study for any systematic review or analysis. This study fills this gap by providing the first a systematic review of societal and ethical implications of engineering microbiomes and the application of this knowledge to engineering the microbiome of the built environment. To organize and guide our analysis, we invoked four major ethical principles (individual good/non-maleficence, collective good/beneficence, autonomy, and justice) as a framework for characterizing and categorizing 15 distinct themes that emerged from the literature. We argue that these different themes can be used to explain and predict the social and ethical implications of engineering the microbiome of the built environment that if addressed adequately can help to improve public health as this field further develops at global scales.

show abstract

Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food

Cited by 5 publications

References 47 publications

Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture

Parameters, practices, and preferences for regulatory review of emerging biotechnology products in food and agriculture

Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods

Can societal and ethical implications of precision microbiome engineering be applied to the built environment? A systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About