Although Canadian regulatory bodies have established separate guidelines for GMOs and CRISPR crops, it remains unclear whether the public can effectively distinguish between these technologies. Given the historical opposition to GMOs, it is important to consider how past experiences may shape public attitudes toward CRISPR crops and impact their acceptance. In a national survey of 1049 Canadians, Charlebois et al. found that 52% of respondents were uncertain about consuming genetically engineered foods, with participants expressing greater comfort toward genetically modified (GM) fruits and vegetables than with animal-based products. Similarly, Williams et al. reported that Canadians have limited knowledge of modern plant breeding techniques and often express uncertainty about the benefits of GM crops. This lack of understanding is further illustrated by a 2016 Health Canada study, which found that although Canadians generally trust the national food safety system, most were unable to define the term “GMO.” This points to a broader issue of limited scientific literacy regarding genetic technologies.
More recently, attention has shifted toward public attitudes regarding new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as CRISPR-Cas9. Two large-scale online surveys examining perceptions of both GMOs and NBTs revealed a notable paradox: while many Canadians continue to express trust in food safety oversight, they remain skeptical of the benefits of the products resulting from these technologies. This tension between institutional trust and technological skepticism poses a significant challenge for the acceptance and integration of genetically engineered and edited products into Canada’s food system. Furthermore, it raises questions about the mechanisms that citizens have at their disposal to escalate valid concerns and the lack of forums for citizens to be active agents in any dialogue on the future of food-systems and health in Canada.
Internationally, several studies have examined consumer perceptions of CRISPR crops. A recent South Korean study examined public perceptions and acceptance of gene-editing technology and agricultural products. Using a national survey, Oh and Lee found uneven awareness of scientific terminology: familiar terms such as “gene scissors” were widely recognized, whereas CRISPR had low awareness. Willingness to purchase gene-edited products was higher than previously reported for GMOs, reaching 70%, and safety was identified as the most important factor in increasing social acceptance of genome-edited crops.Focusing on Costa Rica, Gatica-Arias et al. found that while understanding of CRISPR was low, over 80% of participants (n = 1,018) supported its use for nature conservation, disease treatment, and crop improvement. Similarly, Shew et al. conducted a multi-country study on willingness to pay (WTP) for hypothetical CRISPR rice versus GM rice, revealing that 51% of participants (n = 2,315) from the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, and Australia were open to consuming both. The study also highlighted that familiarity with GM technology positively influenced willingness to consume, with safety perceptions and environmental attitudes emerging as key factors, underscoring the complex relationship between public attitudes toward GMOs and CRISPR. Despite this previous literature, research regarding the public awareness and perception of CRISPR crops in Canada remains limited. While several studies have assessed attitudes toward GMOs and NBTs more generally, empirical data specifically addressing CRISPR crops and their comparative perception to GMOs is scarce. This knowledge gap is significant, especially given the differing regulatory frameworks for these technologies. Understanding consumer perceptions of CRISPR crops in relation to GMOs is essential for developing effective communication strategies. Additionally, the potential for misinformation as CRISPR becomes more integrated into food systems could lead to consumers conflating GMOs with CRISPR crops, (mis)shaping public communications, perceptions and ultimately acceptance.
Specifically, this study sought to understand the current awareness, understanding, and perception of these biotechnologies, the factors influencing WTP for CRISPR crops in the region, and based on stakeholder perspectives the potential challenges CRISPR crops may face in their adoption by consumers. The findings reveal that the populace still holds a negative perception of GMOs, while CRISPR crops were more associated with a neutral or slightly positive stance. Additionally, our data suggests that the public would need to see added nutritional benefits and/or lower costs to consider buying CRISPR crops over conventional crops. Lastly, stakeholders identified both challenges and opportunities for future media trends regarding CRISPR crops. These included systemic issues within the science communication industry, the difficulties and importance of engaging the public in an empathetic and transparent manner, the dichotomy of social media as both removing barriers and increasing challenges, the impact of consumer behavior on food choices, and the potential risks associated with positioning CRISPR crops as superior to GMOs.
Poornima Goudar is a Masters of Public Health student in Epidemiology at the University of Toronto with a focus on health equity, evidence-based policy, and improving community and population health outcomes. Find Poornima on LinkedIn
Share this article
Alexander Hall is an Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Science at McMaster University and science communication expert whose work explores the history of science in popular media. Find Alexander on X @Green_Gambit
This is an excerpt of a study originally posted at GM Crops & Food – Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain and is reposted here under fair use guidelines. Any reposting should credit the original study. Find GM Crops & Food on X @GMCrops
