15 pages, Bioeconomy is deemed to be an ambiguous term with multiple facets: new products from biomass, circular and cascading resource systems, developments of new and more resilient plants, or synthetic biology for molecular biotechnology, to name a few. Accordingly, the term is interpreted just as diversely by involved stakeholders and the broader public. Enabling a clear and constructive dialog on bioeconomy strategies with and among society requires a profound understanding of these perceptions. To address this issue, a representative survey was conducted among the German population in order to scrutinize the general public's understanding of the term bioeconomy, citizens’ knowledge, fears, and expectations, as well as factors explaining their attitudes toward the bioeconomy. Our results indicate that, so far, German citizens are not very familiar with the concept. Its underlying ideas, however, are vastly appreciated. Support for a sustainable bioeconomy is thus strong and connected to high expectations in terms of environmental and economic benefits, which needs to be taken into account both in the implementation and communication of bioeconomy strategies. Support for the bioeconomy is furthermore connected to beliefs that reflect environmental concern and to pro-environmental behavior. While most measures and principles related to the bioeconomy (e.g., the use of biogas, biofuels, renewable materials for everyday products or buildings, or the cascading and circular use of resources) are strongly appreciated, the use of genetic engineering, for example, is opposed, mainly with regard to its applications in agriculture and industry, to a lesser extent in medicine.
15 pgs, 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.
15pgs, Research has suggested to not solely include cognitive processes but also affective processes in economic choice modeling. Studying Medjool dates, we conducted a laboratory experiment combining choice experiments and eye-tracking to account for cognitive processes. In addition, participants indicated their level of worry related to production practices to account for affective processes. Our results show that consumers worry more about pesticide residues than genetic modification in foods. They also pay more attention to labels related to these production practices compared to other labels; and the production practice labels received the highest willingness to pay (WTP). Results from linear regressions show that both cognitive and affective processes are associated with WTP. Especially in the full model for WTP for pesticide-free labeling an increase of attention by 1 s increases WTP on average by $0.10 and an increase of the level of worry from one category to the next increases WTP on average by $0.17. Overall, results show that including both cognitive and affective processes as explanatory variables is important when determining factors associated with WTP.
9 pages, Humans have improved plants for their utility through selective self-pollination, crossing, and progeny selection for >10,000 years, largely based on physical characteristics. Less than 200 years ago, the genetic basis of heritability in selection was revealed, enabling breeders to accelerate genetic gain. Breakthroughs in genomics and molecular markers for the past century have enabled breeders to locate and select genomic regions affecting desirable traits, improving breeding precision. Transgenesis has enabled crop insertion of desirable exogenous genes, enabling de novo functionality. These technologies, along with agronomic practices, have generated more than sixfold yield improvements in crops such as corn in the past century. Gene editing, with its unique ability to precisely edit, change expression, and move genes within a crop's genome, has the potential to be the next breakthrough technology. For this to come to fruition, it is critical to take a holistic view considering perspectives of scientists, farmers, regulators, and consumers.
10 pages, Biotechnology use in food production has been a polarizing topic that has encountered resistance from some consumers. The discovery of genome editing biotechnology, in which no foreign genetic material is introduced into the host organism while making accurate and efficient changes in genomes, has the potential to revolutionize food biotechnology in a more socially acceptable and less polarizing fashion. The success and adoption of gene-edited foods, however, ultimately depends on consumer acceptance. This study reports the results of a geographically disperse Chinese consumer acceptance study (n = 835) in which individuals evaluated rice and pork products that were bio-engineered to address two significant hazards that have recently garnered international attention: cadmium contamination in rice and African swine fever. We explore the role that food technology neophobia has on consumer acceptance and assess how information on the differences between transgenic and gene editing technologies affects consumer preferences. While averse to the use of biotechnology in food products, consumers were considerably more accepting of products that have undergone genome editing rather than transgenic modification. We find differential impacts of information provision on preferences between pork and rice products and on preferences for product provenance. Our analysis indicates that a reduction in consumers’ fear of novel food technologies can substantially increase consumer valuation and market acceptance of bioengineered food products and reinforces the need to consider attitudes in measuring acceptance of novel food products.
21pgs, Gene-editing provides an opportunity to address the significant challenges of population growth and climate change that impact food production. Given the important role of gene-editing in our food system, exploring opportunities to persuade public acceptance of the technology is needed. The purpose of this study was to investigate persuasive effects of metaphorical concepts regarding gene-editing in agriculture. The Elaboration Likelihood Model was used as the conceptual framework. Metaphors stand to influence public acceptance because metaphors encourage issue-relevant thinking and enhance persuasion. A quantitative, randomized, between-subjects, experimental research design was delivered via an online survey to a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents. The manipulation was four mock news articles differentiated by metaphorical concept for gene-editing in agriculture (creation versus text editor versus tool versus control). Even when controlling for confounding variables, the results indicated no significant differences between the treatments on issue-relevant thinking or willingness to share the article on social media. Future research should explore the impact of metaphorical concepts on attitude and other behavioral outcomes associated with elaboration.
6 pages., Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.
12 pages, To date, there has been an increase in genome modification biotechnologies that improve production and food security but the process has not been accompanied by the delivery of information about them intended for citizens. This is essential considering that to achieve better health, food security and sustainability these biotechnologies need to be incorporated into production systems. This study aimed to explore perceptions and attitudes of Chilean citizens towards the use of genome modifications with an emphasis on transgenes and genome editing (CRISPR). An electronic questionnaire was applied, and afterwards the results were analysed through descriptive statistics, GLM, Spearman’s correlation and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. A total of 702 questionnaires were analysed. High awareness of concepts such as transgenic and cloning was reported with CRISPR being the least known term. Most respondents perceived negative effects on health regarding the consumption of genetically modified products, with women having a significantly more negative attitude. Still, a high willingness to use CRISPR for improving animal and human health was reported. When comparing vegetable and animal products that underwent CRISPR or transgenes, the willingness to consume these products was higher for vegetables. The results show that changes in perception can be achieved after providing the definition of CRISPR and transgenic, therefore, consumer education seems to be essential. Science communication focused on making information about genome modification biotechnologies available to citizens could promote more positive attitudes and perceptions and facilitate their future implementation in the country.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D12108
Notes:
Online from Radio Free. 3 pages., Author reports on helping the U.S. Senate draft and pass the Physician Payments Sunshine Act a decade ago. It requires companies to report monies and gifts they give physicians, which are known to influence what doctors prescribe or promote. "We need a 'sunshine law' for science that would expose all sorts of conflicts of interest and industry manipulation that skew research on food, synthetical chemicals, pesticides, air pollution, genetic technology, and the climate."
16 pages, via Online Journal, Crop genetic resources constitute a ‘new’ global commons, characterized by multiple layers of activities of farmers, genebanks, public and private research and development organizations, and regulatory agencies operating from local to global levels. This paper presents sui generis biocultural community protocols that were developed by four communities in Benin and Madagascar to improve their ability to contribute to, and benefit from, the crop commons. The communities were motivated in part by the fact that their national governments’ had recently ratified the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol, which make commitments to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and farmers, without being prescriptive as to how Contracting Parties should implement those commitments. The communities identified the protocols as useful means to advance their interests and/or rights under both the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol to be recognized as managers of local socio-ecological systems, to access genetic resources from outside the communities, and to control others’ access to resources managed by the community.
