Survey: Younger consumers open to trying foods crafted by gene editing

Credit: epicimages/iStock
Credit: epicimages/iStock

Consumers under age 30 and consumers with incomes above $125,000 a year are less likely to avoid gene-edited foods, meaning foods created through technologies such as CRISPR, according to a study involving researchers from North Carolina State University, Iowa State University and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Those who view science and technology positively, trust agricultural biotech companies, and possess a good understanding of gene editing technology also are less likely to avoid gene-edited foods.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

About 60% of women said they would be unwilling to eat gene-edited foods. About 40% of consumers over age 60 said they would avoid eating and buying gene-edited foods, which compared to 22% among millennials and Gen Z. Among consumers earning $40,000 to $45,000 annually, 25% said they would be willing to eat gene-edited foods, which compared to 42% for those earning between $125,000 and $149,000 and nearly 70% among those making over $250,000.

“This study highlights a need for better consumer-focused communication and offers a scientific baseline of current US public opinion regarding people’s willingness to eat, and purposeful avoidance of, GE foods,” the study’s authors concluded. “Moving forward, we expect that the US public’s willingness to eat and purposeful avoidance of gene edited food will change as they are engaged more readily on the developmental process and products in this area.”

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Credit: ACSH
Viewpoint: Who and what’s to blame for the surge in vaccine-preventable diseases?
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-12_56_54-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccines' non-specific effects? The ‘shoddy’ Danish couple whose 'research’ inspires RFK, Jr.’s health delusion
Organic-Produce
Viewpoint: Why you should ignore organic food advocates’ advice to avoid ‘pesticide soaked’ conventional fruits and vegetables
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
ChatGPT Image Jun 3, 2026, 03_14_43 PM
Viewpoint: How Earthjustice became the poster child for the abuse of special interest activist funding
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-11.05.51-AM
Can vaping lead to cancer? New ‘association study’ raises questions of “links"
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-3.30.20-PM
Republican lawmakers spread misinformation claiming solar farms permanently destroy potato farms
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-5-2026-01_17_48-PM
GLP-1 weight-loss drugs may reshape our desires and emotions
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-10.19.30-AM
‘Natural’ wellness supplements linked to liver injury
edb7f6d7-2370-418f-9578-74e29678e35c
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Nicotine vaping—public health miracle, or risk to children? Professor Cliff Douglas
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-5-2026-02_48_23-PM
Viewpoint: How Dr.TikTok (falsely) convinced me that cortisol was running my health
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.