Consumer opposition to genetic modification and genetically modified (GM) foods is well documented in many studies. Whether consumer perceptions and attitudes toward CRISPR applications in the agri-food sector will mirror those toward GMOs will likely depend on the nature of the application and the perceived benefits and risks of the use of CRISPR technology.
The research aims to assess consumer preferences and attitudes toward CRISPR applications in the food sector and estimate consumer willingness to pay for a food product developed using CRISPR technology to enhance food safety and confer health benefits. Additionally, the research assesses the impact of information provision on perceptions, attitudes and willingness to pay. Specifically, we consider the potential effect of both the nature of information provided (i.e., whether it emphasizes the differences between GM and CRISPR technology or not) and the delivery format (i.e., text versus video) used to present content-equivalent information.
…
[T]hree-fourths of participants had heard little or nothing at all about CRISPR technology, despite its recent publicity in human health applications. Similarly, three-fourths of participants reported knowing very little or nothing at all about the difference between CRISPR and GM technology. … Among respondents with high subjective and objective knowledge, 71% believed that the benefits of CRISPR gene-editing outweigh its risks, compared to only 33% of those with low subjective and objective knowledge. Results also reveal that use of CRISPR and GM technology in crop production was more acceptable to participants than its use in animals or humans. Furthermore, approximately 45% of participants believed that food crops and animals modified using CRISPR gene-editing technology were safe for consumption.Related on the SLP
However, 42% of the participants stated that they were not willing to pay more for food produced using CRISPR gene-edited technologies and this was particularly true for respondents with low subjective and objective knowledge. Participants most commonly cited concerns regarding the potential harm of CRISPR gene editing technology on animal health and the possibility that ownership rights might restrict its use, with these concerns being more pronounced among those with low subjective and objective knowledge. In addition to these concerns, respondents with high subjective and objective knowledge were also concerned about unintended negative impacts of CRISPR gene editing technology on traditional farming practices.
