Gene editing isn’t just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups

Abstract

In the United States, adult public perception of genetic modification has been well documented in the domain of agriculture and food; however, recent international news on gene editing in medical applications may present new challenges for science communicators who seek to proactively share benefits of emerging gene editing technology. While research traditionally considers perceptions of agricultural and medical applications separately, gene editing may bridge the gap between the two domains. We find that when asked about thoughts regarding gene editing, adult focus groups discussed medical applications more frequently and extensively than agricultural applications. Although, when examining the length of discussion about specific topics, designer babies, cures for disease, and food were discussed at similar lengths. Understanding audiences' current perceptions of the technology is the first step in shaping strategic communication efforts to inform public opinion. A proper understanding of the benefits and risks of new technology is central to its application.

Divergence and convergence in international regulatory policies regarding genome-edited food: How to find a middle ground

“…First, the lack of major negative responses of genome-edited food is related to the fact that genome-editing has been used for multiple purposes, in particular, for medical applications and, as a result, has attracted much attention in the medical field. For example, while the birth of genome-edited babies in China ( Wang et al., 2019 ) led to an instant increase in social recognition of this technology, its application to agriculture and food products has not attracted comparable social attention ( Shew et al., 2018 ; Gatica-Arias et al., 2019 ; McFadden et al., 2021 ). In addition, in countries where commercial release has already begun, the following measures are also presumably linked to the result that awareness among general consumers is not high ( Kato-Nitta et al., 2021 ).…”

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

“…However, public acceptance of gene editing compared to transgenic technology may differ due to some familiarity with gene editing for medical purposes. When participants in U.S. focus groups were asked what they thought about when hearing the words gene editing, the medical field was discussed more frequently and extensively than agriculture (McFadden et al, 2021a). The announcement of gene-edited twins in China increased public awareness of medical applications, as there was a surge in online searches for gene editing following the announcement (McFadden et al, 2021b).…”

“…Other recent research has examined differences in acceptance across agricultural commodities gene-edited for disease resistance (animal vs. plant) and acceptance for gene editing a host or vector (tree vs. insect) to reduce disease pressure (McFadden et al, 2021a;Bush et al, 2022). Respondents were more accepting of gene-editing plants than trees (Bush et al, 2022), and there were similar acceptance levels for trees and insects (McFadden et al, 2021b).…”

Gene‐Edited Food Adoption Intentions and Institutional Trust in the United States: Benefits, Acceptance, and Labeling☆

“…The potential introduction of gene edited foods (GEFs) into agrifood systems has reinvigorated discussions about the role of biotechnologies in agriculture and food systems in the United States and around the globe (McFadden et al 2021). Proponents of GEFs claim that such techniques will revolutionize food systems (Hall 2016) by improving food nutrition, taste, appearance, and shelf life, as well as providing agronomic benefits such as resilience against drought, diseases, and pests (CAST 2018).…”