Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing
One of the major problems regarding consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the possibility that their transgenes could have adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. Genome editing, represented by the CRISPR/Cas9 system, can efficiently achieve transgene-free gene modifications and is anticipated to generate a wide spectrum of plants. However, the public attitude against GMOs suggests that people will initially be unlikely to accept these plants. We herein explored the bottlenecks of consumer acceptance of transgene-free food crops developed by genome editing and made some recommendations. People should not pursue a zero-risk bias regarding such crops. Developers are encouraged to produce cultivars with a trait that would satisfy consumer needs. Moreover, they should carefully investigate off-target mutations in resultant plants and initially refrain from agricultural use of multiplex genome editing for better risk–benefit communication. The government must consider their regulatory status and establish appropriate regulations if necessary. The government also should foster communication between the public and developers. If people are informed of the benefits of genome editing-mediated plant breeding and trust in the relevant regulations, and if careful risk–benefit communication and sincere considerations for the right to know approach are guaranteed, then such transgene-free crops could gradually be integrated into society.
KeywordsGenome editing Crop Food GMO Consumer CRISPR/Cas9
This work was supported by a Hokkaido University faculty grant to TI.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Brookes G, Barfoot P (2012) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2010. PG Economics Ltd., UKGoogle Scholar
- Center_for_Food_Safety (2015) Environmental, Farmer, and Consumer Groups Demand Higher Standards for Genetically Engineered (GE) Crop Regulations. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3967/environmental-farmer-and-consumer-groups-demand-higher-standards-for-genetically-engineered-ge-crop-regulations. Accessed 19 Feb 2016
- Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S, Demorest ZL, Li J, Cedrone F, Tibebu R, Davison S, Ray EE, Daulhac A, Coffman A, Yabandith A, Retterath A, Haun W, Baltes NJ, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F (2015) Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol J 14:169–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- EFSA_GMO_Panel_Working_Group_on_Animal_Feeding_Trials (2008) Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem Toxicol 46:S2–S70Google Scholar
- European_Academies’_Science_Advisory_Council (2015) Statement: New breeding techniques. http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Easac_14_NBT.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
- European_Plant_Science_Organisation (2015) Statement: Crop Genetic Improvement Technologies. http://www.epsoweb.org/file/2147. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
- European_Seed_Association (2015) Regulatory approaches to modern plant breeding - the case of mutagenesis and new gene editing technologies. https://www.euroseeds.eu/system/files/publications/files/esa_15.0543_0.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2015
- GM_Freeze (2016) The case for regulating Gene Edited crops. http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/266/. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
- GMWATCH (2014) “Genome editing”: GM by another name. http://www.gmwatch.org/news/archive/2014/15546-genome-editing-gm-by-another-name. Accessed 19 Feb 2016
- Green_Peace (2015) Policy briefing Gene-editing of plants—GM through the back door? http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2015/Greenpeace_Gene-editing_30112015%20-%202.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2016
- IFOAM_EU (2015) New Plant Breeding Techniques Position paper. http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_policy_npbts_position_final_20151210.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2016
- The_Convention_on_Biological_Diversity (2016) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
- The_New_Zealand_Environmental_Protection_Authority (2015) Consultation on wording of ‘organisms not genetically modified’ regulations in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. http://www.epa.govt.nz/consultations/new-organisms/Pages/consultation-organisms-not-genetically-modified-regulations.aspx. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
- The_US_Library_of_Congress (2014a) Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: New Zealand. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/new-zealand.php. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
- The_US_Library_of_Congress (2014b ) Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: Japan. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/japan.php. Accessed 19 Jan 2016