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.
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.
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.
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.
21 pages, Metaphors have been crucial in making genetics and genomics public, from the code and the book of life to genetic scissors and gene surgery. A new field is emerging called “gene drive” – a range of controversial technologies that can potentially be used for the eradication or conservation of animal species. At the same time, metaphors are emerging to talk about the promises and dangers of “gene drive”. In this article we use thematic analysis to examine thirty interviews with gene drive science and communication experts, and stakeholders, focusing on how they talk about their lived experience of metaphor use in the context of gene drive communication, including their struggle to remember salient metaphors and their reflections on which metaphors to use and which to avoid. We discuss the significance of our findings for research and practice of responsible science communication.
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.
12 pages., Because of concerns about human health, the environment, and animal welfare, meat is a highly contentious food. Accordingly, a broad range of alternative, small-scale practices for raising livestock and producing non-industrial meat are in the spotlight. While scholars have examined consumer perspectives on “ethical” meat, less is known about producers' perceptions of how small-scale meat production fits into the broader food system, and how their perceptions relate to broader sustainability debates surrounding meat. We explore producer perspectives on small-scale “ethical” meat production and its role in a sustainable food system. We do so through interviews and site visits with 74 people working within alternative meat production in four Canadian provinces, a sample that includes farmers, ranchers, butchers, and meat-focussed chefs. We find that, in the face of practical challenges linked to small-scale production, producers are passionately committed to the project of small-scale animal rearing that they regard as humane and sustainable. Despite these similarities, producers have radically different ideas about the purpose and potential of ethical meat. We observed major differences among producers' cultural imagination of meat, exemplifying varied ideas for fitting meat into a sustainable food system. Our findings underscore the importance of charting not only producers’ practices, but also their cultural orientations.
