International Comparison between Japan, the U.S.A., and Germany on consumer attitudes toward genome editing technology-applied foods and their governance

Tachikawa, Masashi; Kato-Nitta, Naoko; Maeda, Tadahiko; INAGAKI, Yusuke; Matsuo, Mitsuyoshi

doi:10.5874/jfsr.21_00034

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study found that the public expects strict regulation of GEF as compared to experts ( Fig 2 ). Such gaps between public and expert opinion on GEF coincide with the findings of previous studies [ 41 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Additionally, we sought opinions on keyword recognition, labeling issues, expected regulation, etc. [ 37 , 41 – 49 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a research group compared public attitudes (N = 3000) and genome editing experts’ opinions (N = 197), toward the applications of three agricultural biotechnologies: conventional breeding, GMO, and GEF. Public has stronger interests in risks, safety, and mandatory labeling of GEF, as compared to experts [ 41 ]. Interestingly, the public had more positive attitudes toward GEF than GMO.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community

Shineha,

Takeda,

Yamaguchi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 have been developed in the last decade and have been applied to new food technologies. Genome-edited food (GEF) is a crucial issue with those new food technologies. Thus, each country has established GEF governance systems to maximize benefits and minimize risks. These emphasize the importance of communicating about GEF to the public. The key concerns are understanding various viewpoints and value perspectives (framings) in science and technology and encouraging and opening communication with the public. Thus, it is essential to understand differences between the public and experts’ interests and discuss various framings and effective communication with regard to GEF. Accordingly, this study involved administering a questionnaire to analyze the public’s attitudes in Japan and identify gaps between these and expert opinions on GEF. A total of 4000 responses from the public and 398 responses from GEF experts were collected. The study found that the Japanese public has a “wait-and-watch” attitude toward GEF, and the demand for basic information on it is quite high. Moreover, they are apprehensive about proper risk governance systems for GEF. This is despite experts’ emphasis on the adequacy of the mechanism, necessity of technology, and trust in the scientific community. Understanding gaps between the public and experts’ opinions on and interests in GEF provides essential insight for effective communication and acts as the basis for appropriate governance of emerging science and technology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Additionally, we sought opinions on keyword recognition, labeling issues, expected regulation, etc. [ 37 , 41 – 49 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community

Shineha,

Takeda,

Yamaguchi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another Japanese survey, 3,000 laypeople and 197 experts were surveyed to understand their attitudes toward genome editing technologies, gene-edited food, and other products, using questions on perceptions of anxiety. Approximately half of laypeople agreed with the statement “bioethically questionable” (i.e., they chose “agree” or “agree somewhat”) or “cannot understand well and feel somewhat fearful” (i.e., they chose “agree” or “agree somewhat”) ( Tachikawa et al, 2017 ). Conversely, among the experts, approximately 30% and 10% agreed with the statements “bioethically questionable” and “cannot understand well and feel somewhat fearful,” respectively ( Tachikawa et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately half of laypeople agreed with the statement “bioethically questionable” (i.e., they chose “agree” or “agree somewhat”) or “cannot understand well and feel somewhat fearful” (i.e., they chose “agree” or “agree somewhat”) ( Tachikawa et al, 2017 ). Conversely, among the experts, approximately 30% and 10% agreed with the statements “bioethically questionable” and “cannot understand well and feel somewhat fearful,” respectively ( Tachikawa et al, 2017 ). Although comparing the results of the survey by Tachikawa et al with those of our study would be inappropriate, we speculate that a certain proportion of laypeople felt anxiety over HGE as well as genome editing in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Sawai,

Hatta,

Akatsuka

et al. 2023

Front. Genet.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The world’s first gene-edited babies, reported by the Chinese scientist He Jiankui, prompted an outcry of criticism and concerns worldwide over the use of genome editing for reproductive purposes. Many countries and academic associations opposed to heritable genome editing (HGE) called for public discussion involving various stakeholders. To hold a discussion of this nature and form a consensus concerning HGE, we must understand under what conditions stakeholders consider HGE acceptable and the reasons for which they deem it unacceptable.Methods: Laypeople and researchers were surveyed in May 2019. They were asked about the degree of their acceptance toward somatic genome editing (SGE) and HGE; those who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose” were queried further regarding their acceptance in the contexts of specific clinical purposes.Results: Responses were obtained from 4,424 laypeople and 98 researchers. The percentage of respondents choosing each option in attitudes to HGE was, from largest to smallest: “acceptable depending on purpose” (laypeople 49.3%; researchers 56.1%), “not acceptable for any purpose” (laypeople 45.8%; researchers 40.8%), and “acceptable for any purpose” (laypeople 5.0%; researchers 3.1%). In an additional question for those who answered “acceptable depending on the purpose,” laypeople found the following purposes acceptable: infertility treatment (54.5%), treatment of life-threatening diseases (52.2%), and treatment of debilitating diseases (51.4%). Meanwhile, the degree of acceptance for enhancement purposes was 10.7, 7.9, 6.2, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancements, respectively. In contrast, acceptance among the researchers was 94.5% and 92.7% for the treatment of life-threatening and debilitating diseases, respectively, compared with 69.1% for infertility treatment. Researchers’ acceptance for enhancement purposes was similar to that of the lay participants, with 12.7, 9.1, 10.9, and 5.5% for physical, cognitive, health, and personality enhancement, respectively.Conclusion: In the past, debates regarding the acceptability of human genome editing in clinical applications tend to focus on HGE in many countries. Society will now need to debate the acceptability of both types of human genome editing, HGE and SGE.

show abstract

International Comparison between Japan, the U.S.A., and Germany on consumer attitudes toward genome editing technology-applied foods and their governance

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community

A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community

Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About