Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) is a nascent development with few products and is unfamiliar among the wider US public. GEAF has garnered significant praise for its potential to solve for a variety of agronomic problems but has also evoked controversy regarding safety and ethical standards of development and application. Given the wake of other agribiotechnology debates including GMOs (genetically modified organisms), this study made use of 36 in-depth key interviews to build the first U.S. based typology of proponent and critic priorities for shaping public trust in GEAF actors and objects. Key organizational actors provide early and foundational messaging, which is likely to contribute heavily to public salience, comprehension, and decision-making as potential consumers reflect upon their experiences, envision future outcomes, and consider the reputation of those trying to influence them. As is documented in our results, the trust-building priorities of these groups often stand in opposition to one another and are influenced by distinct motivations for how the public will come to trust or distrust GEAF actors and objects as more products are developed and enter the market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdallah, N. A., C. S. Prakash, and A. G. McHughen. 2015. Genome editing for crop improvement: Challenges and opportunities. GM Crops & Food 6 (4): 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahteensuu, M. 2012. Assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking: ignorance, attitudes, and science communication in the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3): 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, S., B. van Dyck, A. Argumedo, and T. Wakeford. 2019. Choreographed consensus: The stifling of dissent at CRISPRCON 2019. Steps Centre online. https://steps-centre.org/blog/choreographed-consensus-the-stifling-of-dissent-at-crisprcon-2019/ Accessed 18 June 2019.

  • Bain, C., and T. Dandachi. 2014. Governing GMOs: the (counter) movement for mandatory and voluntary non-GMO labels. Sustainability 6 (12): 9456–9476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, C., S. Lindberg, and T. Selfa. 2020. Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D., B. Faber, D. Scheufele, C. Cummings, G. Gardner, M. S. Martin, and N. M. Temple. 2010. Communicating risk in the 21st century: The case of nanotechnology National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, United States Government, Arlington, VA. https://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/berube_risk_white_paper_feb_2010.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Blaikie, N. 2010. Designing social research. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T., M. C. Nisbet, R. Borchelt, F. Brunger, and C. Critchley, et al. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27 (6): 514–518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, G., E. Ryan, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary. 2022. Citizen views on genome editing: Effects of species and purpose. Agriculture and Human Values 39: 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. 2005. The environmental and post-environmental politics of genetically modified crops and foods. Environmental Politics 14: 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2021. Gains foregone by going GMO free: Potential impacts on consumers, the environment, and agricultural producers. https://www.cast-science.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/QTA2021-2-GMO-Free-1.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2018. Genome editing in agriculture: Methods, applications, and governance. Issue Paper No. 60. https://www.cast-science.org/publication/genome-editing-in-agriculture-methods-applications-and-governance/ Accessed 01 August 2018.

  • Chen, K., Y. Wang, R. Zhang, H. Zhang, and C. Gao. 2019. CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture. Annual Review of Plant Biology 70 (1): 667–697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, K. A., and B. Clancy. 2016. Growing monstrous organisms: the construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 33 (3): 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J. 2018. Mega-mergers on the menu: corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Global Environmental Politics 18 (2): 12–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, L. 1999. Mission improbable: using fantasy documents to tame disaster. University of Chicago Press.

  • Cotterrell, R. 1999. Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values 3 (4): 414–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSAPH (Council on Science and Public Health). 2012. Report 2-A-12: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. American Medical Association House of Delegates Annual Meeting. https://ag.utah.gov/documents/AMA-BioengineeredFoods.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Cummings, C. L., and D. J. Peters. 2022a. Who trusts in gene-edited foods? Analysis of a representative survey study predicting willingness-to-eat and purposeful avoidance of gene edited foods in the United States. Frontiers in Food Science and Technology 2.

  • Cummings, C. L., and D. J. Peters. 2022b. Gene-edited foods and the public: The first representative survey study of the United States. Environmental Communication (Online first): 1–10.

  • Cummings, C. L. 2017. Comprehension of products and messages. In Consumer perceptions of product risks and benefits, ed. G. Emilien, R. Weitkunat, and F. Luedicke, 153–173. Springer eBook.

  • Cummings, C. L., A. S. F. Chuah, and S. S. Ho. 2018. Protection motivation and communication through nanofood labels: improving predictive capabilities of attitudes and purchase intentions toward nanofoods. Science Technology & Human Values 43 (5): 888–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M., Z. Wang, S. Lindberg, K. Opfer, and C. Cummings. 2022. The media’s taste for gene-edited food: Comparing media portrayals within US and European regulatory environments. Science, Technology, & Human Values (Online first): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221108537.

  • Devaney, L. 2016. Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in irish food risk governance. Food Policy 62 (July): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. 2013. Bringing Values and Deliberation to Science Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Supplement 3): 14081. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110.

  • Friedrichs, S., Y. Takasu, P. Kearns, B. Dagallier, R. Oshima, J. Schofield, and C. Moreddu. 2019. Policy considerations regarding genome editing. Trends in Biotechnology 37 (10): 1029–1032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Georges, F., and H. Ray. 2017. Genome editing of crops: a renewed opportunity for food security. GM Crops & Food 8 (1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Given, L., ed. 2008. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.

  • Glenna, L., and R. Jussaume. 2010. Social equity and the genetically engineered crops controversy. Choices 25 (2): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halcomb, E., and P. M. Davidson. 2006. Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Applied Nursing Research 19 (1): 38–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen, L., A. Dijkstra, S. Sleenhoff, L. Frewer, and J. Gutteling. 2018. Revisiting public debate on genetic modification and genetically modified organisms. Explanations for contemporary dutch public attitudes. Journal of Science Communication 17 (04): A01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haque, E., H. Taniguchi, M. M. Hassan, P. Bhowmik, and M. R. Karim, et al. 2018. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology for the improvement of crops cultivated in tropical climates: recent progress, prospects, and challenges. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 617.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Paul. 2013. Monsanto sued small famers to protect seed patents, report says. The Guardian, 12 February 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Helliwell, Richard, Sarah Hartley, and Warren Pearce. 2019. NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4): 779–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., T. E. Jensen, and K. E. Jones. 2013. The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 43 (1): 118–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, G., and J. Kuzma. 2021. New bioengineered (aka GM) food disclosure law: Useful information or consumer confusion? Food and Drug Law Institute Summer 2021. https://www.fdli.org/2021/04/new-bioengineered-aka-gm-food-disclosure-law-useful-information-or-consumer-confusion/. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Jasanoff, S., B. Hurlbut, and K. Saha. 2015. CRISPR democracy: gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology XXXII(1).

  • Kelam, I. 2017. GMO 2.0: new name – same problem. Socijalna Ekologija 26 (1–2): 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L., and A. J. Kinchy. 2007. Against the neoliberal steamroller? The biosafety protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnologies. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (2): 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofler, N., J. P. Collins, J. Kuzma, E. Marris, and K. Esvelt, et al. 2018. Editing nature: local roots of global governance. Science 362 (6414): 527.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz, M. 2014. Is it possible to overcome the GMO controversy? Some elements for a philosophical perspective. In Plant Biotechnology: Experience and Future Prospects, edited by A. Ricroch, S. Chopra, and S. J. Fleischer, 107–11. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3.

  • Kuzma, J., and A. Kokotovich. 2011. Renegotiating GM crop regulation. EMBO Reports 12 (9): 883–888.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. T., and W. K. Hallman. 2005. Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis 25 (5): 1241–1252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., and J. Y. Q. Li. 2021. The role of communication transparency and organizational trust in publics’ perceptions, attitudes, and social distancing behaviour: a case study of the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 29 (4): 368–384.

    Article  ADS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, S., D. J. Peters, and C. L. Cummings. 2023. Gene edited food adoption intentions and institutional trust in the United States: Benefits, acceptance, and labeling. Rural Sociology (pre-print). https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12480.

  • Lipton, M. 2001. Reviving global poverty reduction: what role for genetically modified plants? Journal of International Development 13 (7): 823–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, J., and B. Dowd-Uribe. 2020. Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso. World Development 136: 105127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, B., T. Ralabate, and N. Frangul. 1999. A case study of bioengineering in America: profits, risks, and standards of value in the commercialization of Monsanto Company’s Newleaf potato. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review 1 (2): 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meghani, Z., and J. Kuzma. 2011. The ‘revolving door’ between regulatory agencies and industry: a problem that requires reconceptualizing objectivity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6): 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NASEM (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine). 2016. Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASEM (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine). 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. 2015. Qualitative research and evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. St. Paul, MN: SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirscher, F., B. Bartkowski, I. Theesfeld, and J. Timaeus. 2018. Nature-identical outcomes, artificial processes: Governance of CRISPR/Cas genome editing as an ethical challenge. In Ethical tensions from new technology: the case of agricultural biotechnology, ed. H. S. James Jr., 137–150. Boston, MA: CABI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poort, L. M., J. A. A. Swart, R. Mampuys, A. J. Waarlo, and P. C. Struik, et al. 2022. Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques. Agriculture and Human Values 39: 1207–1216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., and N. F. Pidgeon. 2004. Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis 24 (6): 1475–1486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., M. Reimann, and K. S. Cook. 2021. Trust in social relations. Annual Review of Sociology 47 (1): 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schurman, R., and W. A. Munro. 2010. Fighting for the future of food. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selfa, T., S. Lindberg, and C. Bain. 2021. Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the US: tensions, contestations and realignments. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 9 (1): 00153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V., D. Barker, and C. Lokhart. 2011. The GMO emperor has no clothes: A global citizens report on the state of GMOs - false promises, failed technologies. Synthesis Report. Navdanya International. https://navdanyainternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Synthesis_Report_Rapporto_sintesi.pdf. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Shukla-Jones, A., S. Friedrichs, and D. E. Winickoff. 2018. Gene editing in an international context: Scientific, economic and social issues across sectors. OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Working Papers No. 2018/04. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/38a54acb-en. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13 (6): 675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. SAGE Publications Inc.

  • Sturgis, P., and N. Allum. 2004. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13 (1): 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA. 2018. Press Release 0070.18. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation. Accessed 15 February 2023.

  • Viennese Doctors’ Chamber. 2013. Genetically modified maize: Doctors’ chamber warns of unpredictable results to humans. PR Newswire, November 11. https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/genetically-modified-maize-doctors-chamber-warns-of-unpredictable-results-to-humans-231410601.html. Accessed 01 December 2022.

  • Will, S., N. Vangheluwe, D. Krause, A. R. H. Fisher, and P. Jorasch, et al. 2022. Communicating about plant breeding and genome editing in plants: Assessment of European stakeholders, sources, channels, and content. Food and Energy Security 12 (1): e415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. 1991. Public understanding of science. Science Technology & Human Values 16 (1): 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Agricultural and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Foundational Program, Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities, Grant No. 2018-67023-27679.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect their respective host institutions or the USDA. Address correspondences to Christopher Cummings [christopherlcummings@gmail.com]).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United States Army Corp of Engineers, 696 Virginia Rd, Concord, MA, 01742, USA

    Christopher Cummings

  2. Gene Edited Foods Project, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Christopher Cummings

  3. Genetic Engineering and Society Center, 1070 Partners Way, 5th floor, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7565, USA

    Christopher Cummings

  4. Department of Environmental Studies, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

    Theresa Selfa

  5. Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Sonja Lindberg

  6. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Carmen Bain

Authors
  1. Christopher Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Selfa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonja Lindberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carmen Bain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Cummings.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

We have no competing interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cummings, C., Selfa, T., Lindberg, S. et al. Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food. Agric Hum Values 41, 47–60 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation