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

• Published in: Rural sociology 2023-06, Vol.88 (2), p.392-425
• Main Authors: Lindberg, Sonja A., Peters, David J., Cummings, Christopher L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acceptability; Advocacy; Attitudes; Biotechnology industry; CRISPR; Editing; Food; Genetic modification; Genetically engineered organisms; Genetically modified organisms; Genome editing; Government (Administrative Body); Government agencies; Labeling; Labels; Public Opinion; Regression analysis; Regression models; Theory of planned behavior; Trust
• ISSN: 0036-0112; 1549-0831
• DOI: 10.1111/ruso.12480

New gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR‐Cas9, have created the potential for rapid development of new gene‐edited food (GEF) products. Unlike genetically modified organism foods, there is limited research and literature on U.S. public opinions about GEFs. We address this knowledge gap by examining how crop‐based GEF adoption is linked to public trust in institutions and values using the Theory of Planned Behavior. We employ ordinal regression models to predict adoption intentions (direct benefits, acceptability, willingness to eat, and labeling) using a unique and nationally representative survey of n = 2,000 adults in the United States. We find that adoption hinges on public trust in institutions overseeing GEF development, especially trust in university scientists. The 29 percent of Americans likely to adopt GEFs highly trust government food regulators and the biotech industry. A nearly equal number of likely non‐adopters distrust current regulatory systems in favor of consumer and environmental advocacy groups. However, most Americans (41 percent) are uncertain about GEF adoption and whom to trust. Although 75 percent of Americans want GEFs labeled, few trust government agencies who have authority to issue labels. Our findings suggest public trust in GEFs and labels can only be obtained by tripartite oversight by universities, advocacy groups, and government food regulators.