Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 471–480 | Cite as

Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?

  • Henrik MielbyEmail author
  • Peter Sandøe
  • Jesper Lassen


In Europe the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food production has so far failed to gain wide public approval. Ordinary people are concerned about issues not covered by the existing regulation, including usefulness and unnaturalness. In response, particularly to worries about unnaturalness, biotechnologists have suggested that inserted genes should derive only from the plant itself, or from close relatives. This paper examines public perceptions of these so-called ‘cisgenic crops’ and asks whether the public shares the idea that they are less unnatural and thus more acceptable than transgenic plants. Using five focus group interviews, we identified five lines of argument about naturalness with a bearing on the assessment of cisgenic crops as well as GM crops in general. The paper concludes that, depending on perceptions of naturalness, some people would agree that cisgenic crops are more acceptable than their transgenic counterparts. The finding that ordinary people value different aspects of naturalness may be relevant to a broader audience than just those interested in gene technology. It cautions against a simplistic interpretation of what counts as ‘natural’.


Naturalness Public attitudes GMOs Cisgenesis Focus groups 



This work was funded by the Danish Food Industry Agency.


  1. Conner, A.J. 2007. Intragenic vectors for gene transfer without foreign DNA. Euphytica 154(3): 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Cock, B.T., E.T. Lammerts van Bueren, M.A. Haring, H.C. de Vriend, and P.C. Struik. 2006. ‘Cisgenic’ as a product designation. Nature Biotechnology 24(11): 1329–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deckers, J. 2005. Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(5): 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission. 2010. Proposal for amending directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory—COM(2010) 375 final.Google Scholar
  5. Finucane, M.L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S.M. Johnson. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaskell, G., S. Stares, A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, P. Castro, Y. Esmer, C. Fischler, J. Jackson, N. Kronberger, J. Hampel, N. Mejlgaard, A. Quintanilha, A. Rammer, G. Revuelta, P. Stoneman, H. Torgersen, and W. Wagner. 2010. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? Report for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.Google Scholar
  7. Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. Bauer, J. Durant, A. Allansdottir, H. Bonfadelli, D. Boy, S. de Chevigné, B. Fjastad, J.M. Guttling, J. Hampel, E. Jelsøe, J.C. Jesuino, M. Kohring, N. Kronberger, C. Midden, T.H. Nielsen, A. Przestalski, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, H. Torgersen, T. Twardowski, and W. Wagner. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18(9): 935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giddings, L.V. 2006. ‘Cisgenic’ as a product designation. Nature Biotechnology 24(11): 1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lassen, J., and A. Jamison. 2006. Genetic technologies meet the public: The discourses of concern. Science, Technology and Human Values 31(1): 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Madsen, K.H., P.B. Holm, J. Lassen, and P. Sandøe. 2002. Ranking genetically modified plants according to familiarity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(3): 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Myskja, B.K. 2006. The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(3): 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nickson, T.E., and M.J. Horak. 2006. Assessing familiarity: The role of plant characterization. In Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms, ed. A. Roberts, 76–80. Saskatoon, Canada: International Society for Biosafety Research.Google Scholar
  13. Nielsen, K.M. 2003. Transgenic organisms—Time for conceptual diversification? Nature Biotechnology 21(3): 227–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nielsen, A.P., J. Lassen, and P. Sandøe. 2005. Involving the public: Participatory methods and democratic ideals. In Biotechnology ethics: An introduction, ed. L. Landeweerd, L.M. Houdebine, and R. Termeulen, 315–325. Firenze: IAAS-EDAP.Google Scholar
  15. Ridder, B. 2007. An exploration of the value of naturalness and wild nature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20(2): 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robert, J.S., and F. Baylis. 2003. Crossing species boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rommens, C.M., M.A. Haring, K. Swords, H.V. Davies, and W.R. Belknap. 2007. The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science 12(9): 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Russell, W., and R. Sparrow. 2008. The case for regulating intragenic GMOs. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21(2): 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schouten, H.J., and E. Jacobsen. 2008. Cisgenesis and intragenesis, sisters in innovative plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science 13(6): 260–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schouten, H.J., F.A. Krens, and E. Jacobsen. 2006. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO Reports 7(8): 750–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaw, A. 2002. “It just goes against the grain”. Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 11(3): 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siipi, H. 2008. Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13(1): 72–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Streiffer, R., and T. Hedemann. 2005. The political import of intrinsic objections to genetically engineered food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Torgersen, H., J. Hampel, M. von Bergmann-Wienberg, E. Bridgeman, J. Durant, E. Einsiedel, B. Fjæstad, G. Gaskell, P. Grabner, P. Hieber, E. Jelsøe, J. Lassen, A. Marouda-Chathoulis, T.H. Nielsen, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, F. Seifert, C. Smink, T. Twardowski, and M. Kamara. 2002. Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, ed. M.W. Bauer, and G. Gaskell, 21–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Toulmin, S.E. 2003. The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human NutritionUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations