Do consumers accept gene-edited foods? Sharing health and environmental benefits does not soften resistance, research finds
Do consumers accept gene-edited foods? Sharing health and environmental benefits does not soften resistance, research finds


The commercial success of gene-editing technology depends on the public’s acceptance of its foods. This study used data from a national survey of United States consumers to identify the determinants of consumer acceptance of gene-edited foods and compared them with those of genetically modified foods.
Our study shows that consumer awareness and knowledge of gene-edited foods are almost half those of genetically modified foods. In the study, we classified survey respondents in three clusters based on their attitudes toward food technologies and corporate distrust: technology-loving, neutral, and technology-averse.
The technology-averse cluster has the greatest share of individuals who indicated being aware of and knowledgeable about gene-edited foods, and the largest share of respondents who stated having negative views toward agricultural biotechnology. Technology-loving individuals have more positive perceptions about agricultural biotechnology and are more likely to consume genetically modified and gene-edited foods in the future than neutral and technology-averse individuals.
Findings indicate that providing information on the technology and its health and environmental benefits did not affect consumers’ willingness to consume genetically modified and gene-edited foods. Prior perceptions of agricultural biotechnology, beliefs about safety, benefits, labeling, and the type of technology developer are important determinants of anticipated future consumption of genetically modified and gene-edited foods.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta