The rapid development of new genetic breeding techniques is accompanied by a polarized debate around their risks. Research on the public perception of these techniques lags behind scientific developments. This study tests a method for revealing laypeople’s perceptions and attitudes about different genetic techniques. The objectives are to enable laypeople to understand the key principles of new genetic breeding techniques and to permit a comparison of their modes of classification with those of scientific experts. The combined method of a free sorting task and focus groups showed that the participants distinguished the techniques that did not induce any change in DNA sequence, and applied two different logics to classify the other breeding techniques: a Cartesian logic and a naturalistic logic with a distinct set of values. The lay categorization differed substantially from current scientific categorizations of genetic breeding techniques. These findings have implications for food innovation policy and genetically modified organism legislation.
AndersenMMLandesXXiangWAnyshchenkoAFalhofJØsterbergJT, et al. (2015) Feasibility of new breeding techniques for organic farming. Trends in Plant Science20(7): 426–434.
2.
ArakiMIshiiT (2015) Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends in Plant Science20(3): 145–149.
3.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHLEnckJW (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
4.
CliceriDDinnellaCDeperzayLMorizetDGiboreauAAppletonKM, et al. (2017) Exploring salient dimensions in a free sorting task: A cross-country study within the elderly population. Food Quality and Preference60: 19–30.
5.
ColsonGJHuffmanWERousuMC (2011) Improving the nutrient content of food with genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics36: 343–364.
6.
CourcouxPFayePQannariEM (2014) Determination of the consensus partition and cluster analysis of subjects in a free sorting task experiment. Food Quality and Preference32: 107–112.
7.
DannenbergA (2009) The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics68: 2182–2192.
8.
DawsonE (2018) Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 772–786.
9.
DebucquetG (2011) Considérer les normes sociales et culturelles pour une meilleure acceptation des innovations technologiques en alimentation: les leçons du rejet des aliments génétiquement modifiés (OGM). Management International15(4): 49–68.
10.
DierkesMVon GroteC (eds) (2000) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
11.
EFSA (2012) GMO panel of the European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal10: 2943.
12.
FayePBrémaudDDurand DaubinMCourcouxPGiboreauANicodH (2004) Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: An alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Quality and Preference15(7): 781–791.
13.
FrewerLJvan der LansIAFischerARReindersMJMenozziDZhangX, et al. (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification —A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology30(2): 142–152.
14.
GaskellGSatresSAllansdottirAAllumNCastroPEsmerY, et al. (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change? A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research on the Eurobarometer 73.1 on Biotechnology, FP7 project. Sensitive Technologies and European Public Ethics’(STEPE).
15.
GreenwaldAGLaiCK (2020) Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology71: 419–445.
16.
GreenwaldAGMcGheeDESchwartzJLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74: 1464–1480.
17.
GrunertKGLähteenmäkiLNielsenNAPoulsenJBUelandOÅströmA (2001) Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification. Results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference12(8): 527–542.
18.
GrygorczykAJenkinsADeymanKBowenAJTurecekJ (2017) Applying appeal ratings and CATA for making word choices in messaging about food technology. Food Quality and Preference62: 237–245.
19.
HagemannKSScholdererJ (2009) Hot Potato: Expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food. Risk Analysis29(7): 1041–1055.
20.
HCB (2016) New Plant Breeding Techniques. General Introduction: First Stage of High Council for Biotechnology Deliberations. Paris: HCB.
21.
IrwinAWynneB (eds) (2003) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
JinekMChylinskiKFonfaraIHauerMDoudnaJACharpentierE (2012) A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337; 6096: 816–821.
23.
LuchtJM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM Crops. Viruses7: 4254–4281.
24.
LuskJLRozanA (2006) Consumer acceptance of ingenic foods. Biotechnology Journal1(12): 1433–1434.
25.
LuskJLMcFaddenBRWilsonN (2018) Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?Food Policy78: 81–90.
26.
LusserMParisiCPlanDRodríguez-CerezoE (2012) Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nature Biotechnology30(3): 231–239.
MalyskaABollaRTwardowskiT (2016) The role of public opinion in shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology34(7): 530–534.
29.
MarrisCWynneBWeldonSSimmonsP (2001) Public attitudes to agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. PABE, final project report, EU FP6. Brussels: D-G Research, FAIR programme.
30.
MayerS (2003) Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK. Science and Public Policy30(3): 177–181.
31.
MenozziDKostovKSogariGArpaiaSMoyankovaDMoraC (2017) A stakeholder engagement approach for identifying future research directions in the evaluation of current and emerging applications of GMOs. Bio-Based and Applied Economics6(1): 57.
32.
MielbyHSandøePLassenJ (2013) Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: Are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?Agriculture and Human Values30(3): 471–480.
33.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
34.
MilesSFrewerLJ (2001) Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference12(1): 47–61.
35.
NguyenSPMurphyGL (2003) An apple is more than just a fruit: Cross classification in children’s concepts. Child Development74: 1783–1806.
36.
PacificoDParisR (2016) Effect of organic potato farming on human and environmental health and benefits from new plant breeding techniques. Is it only a matter of public acceptance?Sustainability8(10): 1054.
37.
PalmgrenMGEdenbrandtAKVedelSEAndersenMMLandesXØsterbergJT, et al. (2015) Are we ready for back-to-nature crop breeding?Trends in Plant Science20(3): 155–164.
38.
PollockCJ (2016) How should risk-based regulation reflect current public opinion?Trends in Biotechnology34(8): 604–605.
39.
PopekSHalagardaM (2017) Genetically modified foods: Consumer awareness, opinions and attitudes in selected EU countries. International Journal of Consumer Studies41: 325–332.
40.
RandW (1971) Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association66: 846–850.
41.
RennO (1998) The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management. Risk, Decision and Policy3(1): 5–30.
42.
RosenbergSOlshanK (1970) Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology16(4): 619–626.
43.
SchaartJGvan de WielCCLotzLASmuldersMJ (2016) Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques. Trends in Plant Science21(5): 438–449.
44.
SiegristMSütterlinB (2016) People’s reliance on the affect heuristic may result in a biased perception of gene technology. Food Quality and Preference54: 137–140.
45.
SiipiH (2008) Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment13(1): 71–103.
46.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
47.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
48.
VarelaPAresG (2012) Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International48: 893–908.
49.
VarelaPSavadorA (2014) Structured sorting using pictures as a way to study nutritional and hedonic perception in children. Food Quality and Preference37: 27–34.
50.
WynneB (2007) Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal1(1): 99–110.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
