IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i15p6795-d1710424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the Hype: Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering for Sustainable Food Production

Author

Listed:
  • Madison D. Horgan

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Christopher L. Cummings

    (Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Jennifer Kuzma

    (Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Michael Dahlstrom

    (Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011, USA)

  • Ilaria Cimadori

    (Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA)

  • Maude Cuchiara

    (North Carolina Plant Science Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Colin Larter

    (Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011, USA)

  • Nick Loschin

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    North Carolina Plant Science Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA)

  • Khara D. Grieger

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    North Carolina Plant Science Initiative, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA)

Abstract

Ensuring sustainable food systems is an urgent global priority as populations grow and environmental pressures mount. Technological innovations such as genetic engineering (GE) and nanotechnology (nano) have been promoted as promising pathways for achieving greater sustainability in agriculture and food production. Yet, the sustainability of these technologies is not defined by technical performance alone; it hinges on how they are perceived by key stakeholders and how well they align with broader societal values. This study addresses the critical question of how expert stakeholders evaluate the sustainability of GE and nano-based food and agriculture (agrifood) products. Using a multi-method online platform, we engaged 42 experts across academia, government, industry, and NGOs in the United States to assess six real-world case studies—three using GE and three using nano—across ten different dimensions of sustainability. We show that nano-based products were consistently rated more favorably than their GE counterparts in terms of environmental, economic, and social sustainability, as well as across ethical and societal dimensions. Like prior studies, our results reveal that stakeholders see meaningful distinctions between nanotechnology and biotechnology, likely due to underlying value-based concerns about animal welfare, perceived naturalness, or corporate control of agrifood systems. The fruit coating and flu vaccine—both nano-enabled—received the most positive ratings, while GE mustard greens and salmon were the most polarizing. These results underscore the importance of incorporating stakeholder perspectives in technology assessment and innovation governance. These results also suggest that responsible innovation efforts in agrifood systems should prioritize communication, addressing meaningful societal needs, and the contextual understanding of societal values to build trust and legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Madison D. Horgan & Christopher L. Cummings & Jennifer Kuzma & Michael Dahlstrom & Ilaria Cimadori & Maude Cuchiara & Colin Larter & Nick Loschin & Khara D. Grieger, 2025. "Beyond the Hype: Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering for Sustainable Food Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6795-:d:1710424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6795/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6795/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    2. Lusk, Jayson L. & Jamal, Mustafa & Kurlander, Lauren & Roucan, Maud & Taulman, Lesley, 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(01), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Douglas Guelfi & Ana Paula Pereira Nunes & Leonardo Fernandes Sarkis & Damiany Pádua Oliveira, 2022. "Innovative Phosphate Fertilizer Technologies to Improve Phosphorus Use Efficiency in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Robert H. W. Boyer & Nicole D. Peterson & Poonam Arora & Kevin Caldwell, 2016. "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Pamela K. Robinson, 2009. "Responsible retailing: Regulating fair and ethical trade," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(7), pages 1015-1026.
    6. Henrik Mielby & Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen, 2013. "Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(3), pages 471-480, September.
    7. Maria Cristina Yunes & Zimbábwe Osório-Santos & Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk & Maria José Hötzel, 2021. "Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    4. Gesa Busch & Erin Ryan & Marina A. G. Keyserlingk & Daniel M. Weary, 2022. "Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 151-164, March.
    5. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    6. H. Eggert & M. Greaker, 2011. "Trade, GMOs and Environmental Risk: Are Current Policies Likely to Improve Welfare?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 587-608, April.
    7. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Sawssan Boufous & Darren Hudson & Carlos Carpio, 2023. "Farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices: A meta-analysis," PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, January.
    9. Stéphan Marette & John Beghin & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Eliza Mojduszka, 2023. "Can foods produced with new plant engineering techniques succeed in the marketplace? A case study of apples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 414-435, March.
    10. Agnieszka Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska & Anna Kłoczko-Gajewska & Piotr Sulewski, 2019. "Between the Social and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability in Rural Areas—In Search of Farmers’ Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    11. Berning, Joshua & Campbell, Ben, "undated". "Consumer Preference and Market Simulations of Food and Non-Food GMO Introductions," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252733, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Bakucs, Lajos Zoltan & Ferto, Imre, 2010. "Expected Impacts Of Biotechnology On Food Safety In Central And Eastern European Countries," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187980, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    13. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    14. D. B. Hashini Indrachapa Bandara & Avantha Prasad & K. D. Anushka Dulanjana & Pradeep Wishwanath Samarasekere, 2025. "Dual-Purpose Utilization of Sri Lankan Apatite for Rare Earth Recovery Integrated into Sustainable Nitrophosphate Fertilizer Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    16. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    17. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    18. Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James & Towe, Charles & Tselepidakis, Elina, 2015. "An Examination of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local Products," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1-22, December.
    19. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    20. Uttaran Dutta, 2019. "Design Engagements at the Margins of the Global South: De-Centering the “Expert” Within Me," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6795-:d:1710424. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.