Survey: Younger consumers open to trying foods crafted by gene editing
Survey: Younger consumers open to trying foods crafted by gene editing


Consumers under age 30 and consumers with incomes above $125,000 a year are less likely to avoid gene-edited foods, meaning foods created through technologies such as CRISPR, according to a study involving researchers from North Carolina State University, Iowa State University and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Those who view science and technology positively, trust agricultural biotech companies, and possess a good understanding of gene editing technology also are less likely to avoid gene-edited foods.
About 60% of women said they would be unwilling to eat gene-edited foods. About 40% of consumers over age 60 said they would avoid eating and buying gene-edited foods, which compared to 22% among millennials and Gen Z. Among consumers earning $40,000 to $45,000 annually, 25% said they would be willing to eat gene-edited foods, which compared to 42% for those earning between $125,000 and $149,000 and nearly 70% among those making over $250,000.
“This study highlights a need for better consumer-focused communication and offers a scientific baseline of current US public opinion regarding people’s willingness to eat, and purposeful avoidance of, GE foods,” the study’s authors concluded. “Moving forward, we expect that the US public’s willingness to eat and purposeful avoidance of gene edited food will change as they are engaged more readily on the developmental process and products in this area.”
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