Acatech. 2017. Innovationspotenziale der Biotechnologie [Innovation potentials of biotechnology]. Munich, DE: Herbert Utz Verlag.
Google Scholar
Asioli, D., J. Aschemann-Witzel, V. Caputo, R. Vecchio, A. Annunziata, T. Næs, and P. Varely. 2017. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: a review of consumer food choice behaviour and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International 1: 58–71.
Google Scholar
Augoustinos, M., S. Crabb, and R. Shepherd. 2010. Genetically modified food in the news: media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 19: 98–114.
Google Scholar
Augustin, M. A., M. Riley, R. Stockmann, A. Bennett, T. Kahl, M. Lockett, P. Osmond, W. Sanguansri, W. Stonehouse, I. Zajac, and L. Cobiac. 2016. Role of food processing in food and nutrition security. Trends in Food Science & Technology 56: 115–125.
Google Scholar
Banning, S. A., and K. D. Sweetser. 2007. How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly 55: 451–466.
Google Scholar
Bearth, A., R. Saleh, and M. Siegrist. 2019. Lay-people’s knowledge about toxicology and its principles in eight European countries. Food and Chemical Toxicology 131: 110560.
Google Scholar
Bearth, A., and M. Siegrist. 2016. Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: a meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 49: 14–12.
Google Scholar
Beghin, J. C., and C. R. Gustafson. 2021. Consumer Valuation of and attitudes towards novel foods produced with new plant engineering techniques: a review. Sustainability 13 (20): 11348.
Google Scholar
Brossard, D. 2019. Biotechnology, communication and the public: keys to delve into the social perception of science. Mètode Revista De Difusió De La Investigació 9: 39–45.
Google Scholar
Busch, G., E. Ryan, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2021. Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose. Agriculture and Human Values 1: 1–14.
Google Scholar
Connor, M., and M. Siegrist. 2010. Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: the role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication 32: 514–538.
Google Scholar
Connor, M., and M. Siegrist. 2011. The power of association: its impact on willingness to buy GM food. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an international journal 17: 1142–1155.
Google Scholar
Costa-Font, M., J. M. Gil, and W. B. Traill. 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33: 99–111.
Google Scholar
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Press Office. 2020. Agriculture Bill moves another step forwards. GOV.UK Blog. https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/29/agriculture-bill-moves-another-step-forward/. Accessed 7 February 2022.
Delwaide, A. C., L. L. Nalley, B. L. Dixon, D. M. Danforth, R. M. Nayga Jr., E. J. Van Loo, and W. Verbeke. 2015. Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice? PLOS ONE 10: e0126060.
Google Scholar
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2021. The regulation of genetic technologies. Gene editing consultation. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/agri-food-chain-directorate/the-regulation-of-genetic-technologies/. Accessed 7 February 2022.
Edenbrandt, A. K., L. A. House, Z. Gao, M. Olmstead, and D. Gray. 2018. Consumer acceptance of cisgenic food and the impact of information and status quo. Food Quality and Preference 69: 44–52.
Google Scholar
Egolf, A., C. Hartmann, and M. Siegrist. 2019. When evolution works against the future: disgust’s contributions to the acceptance of new food technologies. Risk Analysis 39: 1546–1559.
Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority. 2019. Special Eurobarometer: food safety in the EU. Parma, IT: European Food Safety Authority.
Google Scholar
Federal Office for the Environment. 2020. Neue Pflanzenzüchtungsverfahren: Grosse Diskussionen um einen kleinen Schnitt [New plant breeding methods: Big discussions about a small cut]. Federal Office for the Environment. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/biotechnologie/dossiers/magazin2019-2-dossier/grosse-diskussionen-um-einen-kleinen-schnitt.html. Accessed 7 February 2022.
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: 1–17.
Google Scholar
Frewer, L. J., K. Bergmann, M. Brennan, R. Lion, R. Meertens, G. Rowe, M. Siegrist, and C. Vereiijken. 2011. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22: 442–456.
Google Scholar
Gaskell, G., A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, P. Castro, Y. Esmer, C. Fischler, J. Jackson, N. Kronberger, J. Hampel, N. Mejlgaard, A. Quintanilha, A. Rammer, G. Revuelta, S. Stares, H. Torgersen, and W. Wager. 2011. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 29: 113–114.
Google Scholar
Greszki, R., M. Meyer, and H. Schoen. 2014. The impact of speeding on data quality in nonprobability and freshly recruited probability-based online panels. In Online Panel Research, eds. M. Callegaro, J. Baker, A. S. Bethlehem, J. A. Göritz, J. A. Krosnick, and P. J. Lavrakas, 238–262. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Google Scholar
Guenther, L., J. Bischoff, A. Loewe, H. Marzinkowski, and M. Voigt. 2019. Scientific Evidence and Science Journalism. Journalism Studies 20: 40–59.
Google Scholar
Gunter, B., V. Campbell, M. Touri, and R. K. Gibson. 2009. Blogs, news and credibility. Aslib Proceedings, 61: 185–204.
Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. J. Frewer, P. Robinson, and P. Sandøe. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41: 111–121.
Google Scholar
Helliwell, R., S. Hartley, and W. Pearce. 2019. NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4): 779–791.
Google Scholar
Hendriks, F., D. Kienhues, and R. Bromme. 2016. Evoking vigilance: would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog? Public Understanding of Science 25: 992–1008.
Google Scholar
IBM Corp. 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 25.0. Armonk. NY: IBM Corp.
Google Scholar
Johnson, T. J., and B. K. Kayne. 2009. In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior 25: 175–182.
Google Scholar
Kaptan, G., A. R. H. Fischer, and L. J. Frewer. 2018. Extrapoling understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases. Journal of Risk Research 21: 996–1018.
Google Scholar
Kawall, K., J. Cotter, and C. Then. 2020. Broadening the GMO risk assessment in the EU for genome editing technologies in agriculture. Environmental Sciences Europe 32: 1–24.
Google Scholar
Kessler, S. H. 2016. Das ist doch evident! Eine Analyse dargestellter Evidenzframes und deren Wirkung am Beispiel von TV-Wissenschaftsbeiträgen [It’s evident! Identifying frames of evidence as used in science TV programs and testing their effects on beliefs]. Baden-Baden, DE: Nomos.
Google Scholar
Kraus, N., T. Malmfors, and P. Slovic. 1992. Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks. Risk Analysis 12: 215–232.
Google Scholar
Kronberger, N., W. Wagner, and M. Nagata. 2013. How Natural Is “More Natural”? The Role of Method, Type of Transfer, and Familiarity for Public Perceptions of Cisgenic and Transgenic Modification. Science Communication 36: 106–130.
Google Scholar
Kwak, D., Y. Kim, and M. H. Zimmerman. 2010. User- versus mainstream-media-generated content: media source, message valence, and team identification and sport consumers’ response. International Journal of Sport Communication 3: 402–421.
Google Scholar
Lang, A., A. Spök, M. Gruber, D. Harrer, C. Hammer, F. Winkler, L. Kaelin, H. Hönigmayer, A. Sommer, M. Wuketich, M. Fuchs, and E. Griessler. 2019. Genome editing - Interdisziplinäre Technikfolgenabschätzung [Interdisciplinary technology assessment]. Zurich, CH: vdf Hochschulverlag.
Google Scholar
Ledford, H. 2021. New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier. In New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01572-0 Accessed 7 February 2022.
Lilleholt, L. 2019. Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis. Judgment and Decision Making 14: 234–279.
Google Scholar
Lofgren, J. 2013. Food blogging and food-related media convergence. M/C Journal 16 (3): 1–2.
Google Scholar
Mackay, J. B., and W. H. Lowrey. 2007. The credibility divide: reader trust of online newspapers and blogs. Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. San Francisco, CA.
Marris, C. 2001. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO reports 2: 545–548.
Google Scholar
Marschall, J., L. Otto, M. Rahnke, and M. Maier. 2011. Perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence. Landau, DE: Unpublished instrument.
Google Scholar
McCaughey, T., D. M. Budden, P. G. Sanfilippo, G. E. Gooden, L. Fan, E. Fenwick, G. Rees, C. MacGregor, L. Si, C. Chen, H. H. Liang, A. Pebay, T. Baldwin, and A. W. Hewitt. 2019. A Need for Better Understanding Is the Major Determinant for Public Perceptions of Human Gene Editing. Human Gene Therapy 30: 36–43.
Google Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 2022. Postnote: Genome-Edited Food Crops. UK Parliament Post 663: 1–10.
Google Scholar
Peters, H. P., and S. Dunwoody. 2016. Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue. Public Understanding of Science 25: 893–908.
Google Scholar
Ranger, M., and K. Bultitude. 2014. ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitement. Public Understanding of Science 25: 361–378.
Google Scholar
Retzbach, J., L. Otto, and M. Maier. 2016. Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science 25: 638–655.
Google Scholar
Roberts, C. 2010. Correlations among variables in message and messenger credibility scales. American Behavioral Scientist 54: 43–56.
Google Scholar
Rose, K. M., E. L. Howell, L.Y.-F. Su, M. A. Xenos, D. Brossard, and D. A. Scheufele. 2019. Distinguishing scientific knowledge: The impact of different measures of knowledge on genetically modified food attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 28: 449–467.
Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, L. 2019. The future of gene editing - toward scientific and social consensus. The New England Journal of Medicine 380: 971–975.
Google Scholar
Runge, K. K., D. Brossard, D. A. Scheufele, K. M. Rose, and B. J. Larson. 2017. Attitudes about Food and Food-Related Biotechnology. Public Opinion Quarterly 81: 577–596.
Google Scholar
Saleh, R., A. Bearth, and M. Siegrist. 2019. “Chemophobia” today: consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of chemicals. Risk Analysis 39: 2668–2682.
Google Scholar
Shew, A. M., L. L. Nalley, H. A. Snell, R. M. Nayga, and B. L. Dion. 2018. CRISPR versus GMOs: public acceptance and valuation. Global Food Security 19: 71–80.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19: 603–608.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. 2019. Trust and risk perception: a critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis 41 (3): 480–490.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., and C. Hartmann. 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food 1: 343–350.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. 2021. Trust and risk perception: a critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis 41: 480–490.
Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20: 353–362.
Google Scholar
Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311–322.
Google Scholar
Stirling, A. 2007. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports 8: 309–315.
Google Scholar
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. 2018. Swiss Academies Factsheet 13: New approaches for protecting potatoes against late blight. Berne, CH: Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.
Google Scholar
Swiss Parliament. 2021a. Nationalrat verlängert Gentech-Moratorium bis Ende 2025 [National Council extends GMO moratorium until the end of 2025]. Swiss Parliament. https://www.parlament.ch/de/services/news/Seiten/2021/20210923102414698194158159038_bsd058.aspx Accessed 7 February 2022.
Swiss Parliament. 2021b. Staenderat nimmt Genom-Editierung von Gentech-Moratorium aus [State Council exempts genome editing from GM moratorium]. Swiss Parliament. https://www.parlament.ch/de/services/news/Seiten/2021/20211202135625294194158159038_bsd110.aspx Accessed 8 February 2022.
The Federal Council of Switzerland. 2020. GVO-Anbau: Bundesrat verabschiedet Botschaft zur Verlängerung des Moratoriums [GMO cultivation: Federal Council decides on prolongation of the moratorium]. The Federal Council of Switzerland. https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-84232.html Accessed 7 February 2022.
United Nations. 2019. World Population Prospects. United Nations. https://population.un.org/wpp/ Accessed 7 February 2022.
Walker, B., and J. Malson. 2020. Science, God, and Nature: A Textual and Frequency Analysis of Facebook Comments on News Articles About Agricultural and Environmental Gene Editing. Environmental Communication 14 (7): 1004–1016.
Google Scholar
Weisberg, S. M., D. Badgio, and A. Chatterjee. 2017. A CRISPR new world: attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Frontiers in Public Health 5: 1–9.
Google Scholar
Winkler, F., H. Hoenigmayer, A. Lang, and E. Griessler. 2019. Ökonomische Implikationen von Genome Editing: eine explorative Unternehmensbefragung [Economic implications of genome editing: an explorative company survey]. In Genome Editing - Interdisziplinäre Technikfolgeabschätzung [Interdisciplinary technology assessment], 361–373. Zurich, CH: vdf Hochschulverlag: ed. TA-SWISS.
Google Scholar
Wohlfender-Bühler, D., E. Feusthuber, R. Wäger, S. Mann, and S. J. Aubry. 2016. Genetically modified crops in Switzerland: implications for agrosystem sustainability evidenced by multi-criteria model. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36 (33): 1–16.
Google Scholar
Zahry, N. R., and J. C. Besley. 2019. Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: does the term matter? Journal of Risk Research 22: 16–31.
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., K. Massel, I. D. Godwin, and C. Gao. 2018. Applications and potential of genome editing in crop improvement. Genome Biology 19: 210.
Google Scholar