IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v41y2024i1d10.1007_s10460-023-10465-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Cummings

    (United States Army Corp of Engineers
    Iowa State University
    Genetic Engineering and Society Center)

  • Theresa Selfa

    (State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry)

  • Sonja Lindberg

    (Iowa State University)

  • Carmen Bain

    (Iowa State University)

Abstract

Gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) is a nascent development with few products and is unfamiliar among the wider US public. GEAF has garnered significant praise for its potential to solve for a variety of agronomic problems but has also evoked controversy regarding safety and ethical standards of development and application. Given the wake of other agribiotechnology debates including GMOs (genetically modified organisms), this study made use of 36 in-depth key interviews to build the first U.S. based typology of proponent and critic priorities for shaping public trust in GEAF actors and objects. Key organizational actors provide early and foundational messaging, which is likely to contribute heavily to public salience, comprehension, and decision-making as potential consumers reflect upon their experiences, envision future outcomes, and consider the reputation of those trying to influence them. As is documented in our results, the trust-building priorities of these groups often stand in opposition to one another and are influenced by distinct motivations for how the public will come to trust or distrust GEAF actors and objects as more products are developed and enter the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Cummings & Theresa Selfa & Sonja Lindberg & Carmen Bain, 2024. "Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(1), pages 47-60, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10465-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-023-10465-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Jennifer Clapp, 2018. "Mega-Mergers on the Menu: Corporate Concentration and the Politics of Sustainability in the Global Food System," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 18(2), pages 12-33, May.
    3. Carmen Bain & Sonja Lindberg & Theresa Selfa, 2020. "Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    5. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    7. Michael Lipton, 2001. "Reviving global poverty reduction: what role for genetically modified plants?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 823-846.
    8. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    9. Devaney, Laura, 2016. "Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-10.
    10. 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.
    11. Glenna, Leland L. & Jussaume, Raymond A., Jr., 2010. "Social Equity and the Genetically Engineered Crops Controversy," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-11.
    12. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    13. Carmen Bain & Tamera Dandachi, 2014. "Governing GMOs: The (Counter) Movement for Mandatory and Voluntary Non-GMO Labels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-21, December.
    14. Daniel Kleinman & Abby Kinchy, 2007. "Against the neoliberal steamroller? The Biosafety Protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(2), pages 195-206, June.
    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. Katie Henderson & Bodo Lang & Joya Kemper & Denise Conroy, 2024. "Exploring diverse food system actor perspectives on gene editing: a systematic review of socio-cultural factors influencing acceptability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(2), pages 883-907, June.
    2. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    3. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    6. Tim Dassler & Anne I. Myhr & Carina R. Lalyer & Johannes L. Frieß & Armin Spök & Wolfgang Liebert & Kristin Hagen & Margret Engelhard & Bernd Giese, 2024. "Structured analysis of broader GMO impacts inspired by technology assessment to inform policy decisions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(2), pages 449-458, June.
    7. Azusa Uji & Sijeong Lim & Jaehyun Song, 2024. "From plastic to peace: Overcoming public antipathy through environmental cooperation," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(2), pages 279-293, March.
    8. Jennifer Clapp & Sarah-Louise Ruder, 2020. "Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-EditedCrops, and the Politics of Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 49-69, August.
    9. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    10. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    12. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2008. "Trust and Risk Communication in High‐Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 141-149, February.
    13. Andereggen, Stefan & Vischer, Moritz & Boutellier, Roman, 2012. "Honest but broke: The dilemma of universities acting as honest brokers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 118-126.
    14. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    15. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    16. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2009. "Improving occupational safety: using a trusted information source to communicate about risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 13-25, January.
    17. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    19. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:41:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10465-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.