The family of emerging gene editing techniques (GET) may add precision and speed
to the genetic improvement process. With GET, scientists can turn off, delete,
substitute, or add desired genes without addition of DNA sequences typically
transferred in traditional genetic engineering technologies. The result of GET is a
custom product identical to one that could have been produced via traditional
breeding over years, decades, or centuries, if appropriate gene variants were
available. GET is considered so revolutionary that one technique, CRISPR/Cas9,
was awarded the 2015 Breakthrough of the Year in Science [Travis, 2015]. The
emergence of this versatile technology has opened the doors for other relevant
applications that impact the global food system. For example, traits that reduce
pesticide demand by interfering with the molecular basis of pathogen
susceptibility may be created in crop plants. Similarly, genes that expedite the spoilage of raw products can be deleted to extend the shelf life of perishable foods.
As GET research continues to gain momentum, specifically within the context of
the agricultural commodities market, we must also provide consumers with the
information to make informed purchasing decisions.
Consumer acceptance is necessary for the technology to maximize impact on both
production and human health [MacFie, 2007]. American adults have reported GET
has initial support in the context of research into direct human genetic modification
in a therapeutic or preventative context [Weisberg, Badgio & Chatterjee, 2017], and
a Twitter analysis from 2018–19 indicated high engagement and general positivity
toward gene editing in agriculture, suggesting positive attitudes among those users
[Hill, Meyers, Li, Doerfert & Mendu, 2022]. We can learn from U.S. public
opposition to current genetic engineering technology, a broader category that
includes GET, to improve communication and education that will positively
influence consumer perception. We know from consumer studies with multiple
technologies and issues that simply providing scientific information about safety is
not sufficient to win public trust or motivate action [e.g. Bolderdijk, Gorsira, Keizer
& Steg, 2013; Bultitude, Rodari & Weitkamp, 2012; Chazdon, Horntvedt & Templin,
2016; Kraft, Lodge & Taber, 2015; Lundgren et al., 2019]. As such, this study
explores the components of effective science communication to improve public
perception as one of the principal factors that may increase public engagement
with science and promote consumer acceptance by establishing mutual good faith
among scientists and public audiences.
In this study, we sought to understand U.S. consumer sentiment toward and
concerns about GET, specifically. This research aims to gain insight into the
motivations behind consumer decisions and examine consumer attitudes regarding
food ingredients from crops enhanced with GET. The study also sought to identify
factors that shape the perception of GET from the lens of U.S. adults, thereby
highlighting areas of priority for future educational strategies. Our research is part
of a larger effort to design programs and communication to help these consumers
weigh the relative risks and benefits of GET, both for themselves and in broad
application. Equipped with this understanding, we hope consumers will
contribute to larger ethical discussions about technology use in food with more
scientifically-aligned information.