Sonja A. Lindberg, David J. Peters, Christopher L. Cummings
{"title":"Gene-Edited Food Adoption Intentions and Institutional Trust in the United States: Benefits, Acceptance, and Labeling☆","authors":"Sonja A. Lindberg, David J. Peters, Christopher L. Cummings","doi":"10.1111/ruso.12480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"New gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, have created the potential for rapid development of new gene-edited food (GEF) products. Unlike genetically modified organism foods, there is limited research and literature on U.S. public opinions about GEFs. We address this knowledge gap by examining how crop-based GEF adoption is linked to public trust in institutions and values using the Theory of Planned Behavior. We employ ordinal regression models to predict adoption intentions (direct benefits, acceptability, willingness to eat, and labeling) using a unique and nationally representative survey of <i>n</i> = 2,000 adults in the United States. We find that adoption hinges on public trust in institutions overseeing GEF development, especially trust in university scientists. The 29 percent of Americans likely to adopt GEFs highly trust government food regulators and the biotech industry. A nearly equal number of likely non-adopters distrust current regulatory systems in favor of consumer and environmental advocacy groups. However, most Americans (41 percent) are uncertain about GEF adoption and whom to trust. Although 75 percent of Americans want GEFs labeled, few trust government agencies who have authority to issue labels. Our findings suggest public trust in GEFs and labels can only be obtained by tripartite oversight by universities, advocacy groups, and government food regulators.","PeriodicalId":47924,"journal":{"name":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RURAL SOCIOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12480","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
New gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, have created the potential for rapid development of new gene-edited food (GEF) products. Unlike genetically modified organism foods, there is limited research and literature on U.S. public opinions about GEFs. We address this knowledge gap by examining how crop-based GEF adoption is linked to public trust in institutions and values using the Theory of Planned Behavior. We employ ordinal regression models to predict adoption intentions (direct benefits, acceptability, willingness to eat, and labeling) using a unique and nationally representative survey of n = 2,000 adults in the United States. We find that adoption hinges on public trust in institutions overseeing GEF development, especially trust in university scientists. The 29 percent of Americans likely to adopt GEFs highly trust government food regulators and the biotech industry. A nearly equal number of likely non-adopters distrust current regulatory systems in favor of consumer and environmental advocacy groups. However, most Americans (41 percent) are uncertain about GEF adoption and whom to trust. Although 75 percent of Americans want GEFs labeled, few trust government agencies who have authority to issue labels. Our findings suggest public trust in GEFs and labels can only be obtained by tripartite oversight by universities, advocacy groups, and government food regulators.
期刊介绍:
A forum for cutting-edge research, Rural Sociology explores sociological and interdisciplinary approaches to emerging social issues and new approaches to recurring social issues affecting rural people and places. The journal is particularly interested in advancing sociological theory and welcomes the use of a wide range of social science methodologies. Manuscripts that use a sociological perspective to address the effects of local and global systems on rural people and places, rural community revitalization, rural demographic changes, rural poverty, natural resource allocations, the environment, food and agricultural systems, and related topics from all regions of the world are welcome. Rural Sociology also accepts papers that significantly advance the measurement of key sociological concepts or provide well-documented critical analysis of one or more theories as these measures and analyses are related to rural sociology.