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.
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.
26 pages., via online journal., This paper employs the patent data of four major genetically modified (GM) crops, soybeans, cotton, maize and rapeseed, to illustratee how the innovation of GM crop technology diffused and distributed globally over time. Data collected from the Derwent Innovation Index, were employed to construct country patent citation networks, from 1984 to 2015, and the results revealed that developed countries were early adopters, and the primary actors in the innovation of GM crop technology. Only seven developing countries appeared in the country citation network. Most developed countries were reluctant to apply GM crop technology for commercial cultivation. Private businesses stood out in the patent citation network. The early adoption and better performance of developed countries can be explained by the activities of large established private companies.
USA: International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10555
Notes:
3 pages., via website, International Food Information Council Foundation., Topics like sustainability, plant-based diets and clean eating seem to permeate news about food, but it turns out they’re not just buzzwords or “flavors of the week.” IFIC Foundation’s 2019 Food and Health Survey shows genuine and growing interest in these and other trends.
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.
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.
