Introduction

As the global population continues to grow, the urgent need to feed the world has never been more prevelent1,2. The application of conventional chemical pesticides has risen significantly from 1.8 million metric tons in 1990 to 3.53 million metric tons in 20213. However, pesticide resistance is becoming more widespread, limiting effective crop protection options for farmers4,5. The introduction of RNAi-based pesticides based on topical application of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) presents a game-changing opportunity to meet this challenge6,7. RNAi is a conserved intrinsic regulatory mechanism in eukaryotes and has proved to be a powerful strategy to engineer genetically modified disease resistance against viruses, viroids, nematodes, insect pests and fungi in plants8,9. In brief, a gene sequence obtained from the pest or pathogen of interest is integrated into the host genome to express pathogen-specific dsRNA. The plant recognises the introduced dsRNA as a foreign molecule and processes it into small RNAs (sRNAs). These sRNAs silence a critical target gene that the pests/pathogens need to multiply, thereby rendering the GM plant resistant. A promising alternative to this approach is the topical application of dsRNA targeting essential pest or pathogen genes without the need for genetic modification9,10.

RNAi-based biopesticides are considered a sustainable alternative to conventional pesticides due to: not involving genetic modification of the host2,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, their potential specificity in targeting pests and pathogens without impact on beneficial organisms2,9,12,16,17, degradability9,12, preservation

of local environmental conditions11,14,18, and very low probability of adverse effects on humans2,10, whilst being cost-effective9,10,19,20 and potentially enabling increased productivity14. Despite these benefits, topical application of dsRNA remains predominantly unknown beyond the scientific community. While this is not surprising given its early stages of development for many targets10,12,15,16,21,22, there are lessons to be learned from previous failed transfers of technology, including the genetically modified food debate16,23,24,25.

Understanding the factors required to enable greater acceptance and social licence to operate (SLO) for RNAi-based biopesticides remains a critical component of the development and commercialisation process, particularly if the technology is to be deployed at scale. SLO encompasses public acceptance of an industry’s activities, including technology implementation, sustainable performance, and responsibility for social, environmental, economic, and/or cultural considerations26. SLO has been applied in the agricultural and biotechnology sectors to gain public approval27. However, developing an SLO is highly influenced by the public’s perception of an industry’s activities upon which knowledge about the technology, procedural and distributive fairness, and trust play critical roles in determining positive or negative attitudes towards the technology28. In this regard, the scientific values underpinning technology development and its associated policies must align with societal perceptions and values. Understanding public perceptions of a technology, including their concerns, can help identify the necessary communication and engagement strategies for developing an SLO. To our knowledge, no systematic literature review on public perceptions of RNAi-based biopesticides and how they relate to SLO has been conducted to date.

This review article identifies the current understanding of public perceptions toward RNAi-based biopesticides and how they relate to developing an SLO for the ongoing application and widespread deployment of the technology. It highlights the main concerns around the technology that affect public perception and discusses strategies for building trust, disseminating and communicating information about the technology, and engaging with the public to develop an SLO.

Results

Public perception of RNAi-based biopesticides and acceptance

RNAi-based biopesticides are gene-related, raising potential concerns about their use and effects on crops and, consequently, on consumers’ acceptance of the technology, including growers and the general public. Early work has suggested there is a strong likelihood that public misunderstanding about RNAi-based biopesticides being a genetically modified (GM) technology will affect their acceptance10. However, multiple authors2,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 argue that RNAi-based biopesticides are non-transgenic and do not produce a permanent change in genotype and thus should not be considered as resulting in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).

Genetic modification of crops to express dsRNA involves genomic integration, resulting in heritable modifications and continuous expression of dsRNA25. Topical application of dsRNA, on the other hand, works as a biological pesticide on a wide range of agricultural crops as a transient system29. RNA-based biopesticides with specificity and biodegradability features resonate with sustainable crop protection, reducing health and environmental risks associated with pesticide exposure during application and consumption of treated produce29 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: RNAi-based biopesticides based on topical application of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), an alternative to chemical pesticides and genetic modification.
figure 1

RNA sprays, or topically applying dsRNA, induce RNA interference (RNAi) in target pests and pathogens (viruses, insects, fungi, nematodes and more) without the need for genetic modification of crops and have the potential to reduce the use of chemicals pesticides for integrated pest and disease management. This figure was generated using Adobe Illustrator.

Full size image

An emerging trend is that consumers’ preferences for non-GM products will favour the development of RNAi-based biopesticides. In 2017, an online survey study conducted across the United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia, France, and Belgium comprising 2077 participants used a Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) scenario to identify consumers’ valuation of hypothetical GM and non-GM topically applied RNAi rice compared to conventionally produced rice15. In this instance, the rice would be produced by either conventional methods, the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein toxin expressed via genetic modification, or a topical RNAi spray (non-GM) to provide insect control.

The results showed that consumer preferences were stronger for the conventional product followed by the non-GM topically applied RNAi product15, and that age was the most significant demographic predictor. That is, older people ( > 50) indicated a willingness to pay more for topical RNAi insect control than younger respondents. However, overall, consumers in the USA, Canada, Australia, and France required a discount for rice produced with the topical RNAi spray compared to conventional products, suggesting a preference to maintain the status quo with products they are more familiar with. The USA participants required the most significant discount, suggesting they are more reluctant to accept non-GM topically applied RNAi rice than other country respondents15. However, consumers also required a discount when buying GM rice compared to non-GM topically applied RNAi rice.

Across all countries, the discount required to consume GM rice compared to conventionally produced rice was greater than that required to buy non-GM topically applied RNAi rice. This suggests that, overall, the public is unaware of the detrimental environmental, health and pesticide resistance issues associated with conventional crop production relative to GM or non-GM topically applied RNAi rice, and that traditional crops are likely to be threatened if communication of this issue is not increased15.

The authors concluded that consumers prefer topical RNAi application to GMO-based insecticidal properties for insect control. The study also showed that around 50-70% of the participants were willing to pay for products derived from the combined use of both technologies, and a smaller percentage would consume only products derived from topical RNAi technology or Bt technology. This result demonstrates how dichotomous public opinion towards RNAi-based biopesticides can be. However, it also highlights that some consumers do differentiate between proposed biotechnology solutions and are attentive to the technology involved in producing the food they consume15. According to the authors, non-GM RNAi tends to be more marketable than traditional GM technologies and more palatable to sceptical consumers15.

Nevertheless, the limitation of hypothetical studies on public perception and WTP of emerging technologies, that have yet to be commercialised, indicates the need for future validation of results particularly to understand the likely effects on a product’s commercialisation30. For example, a review study on modern techniques to manage the Colorado Potato Beetle in the USA21 stated that spray-induced gene silencing is highly efficient and, therefore, tends to be more acceptable by the public than plant-incorporated protectants (transgenic plants), despite the latter likely being more cost-effective21,31. Exogenous or topical application approaches have also been suggested as an alternative to the host-induced gene silencing (HIGS) RNAi (transgene) approach as having more acceptability among the public and biosafety authorities19.

Another study comparing RNAi-based and gene drive pesticides to control pests such as wasps in Aotearoa New Zealand, including Māori participants, found that understanding how the technologies work and differ is unclear. This was thought to be an issue and a key factor for enabling any decision about acceptance and differentiation between such technological approaches32,33. The responses also highlight how public understanding of such technology may vary regionally and depend on people’s needs, knowledge, ways of living and cultural backgrounds. It also confirms the need to understand public perception on an inclusive, case-by-case basis to support technology development, implementation and the associate policy requirements33,34.

As RNAi-based biopesticides may also involve particle or carrier-based delivery systems to improve the stability and efficacy of dsRNAs2,13,35,36,37, the identification of public perception and acceptance of food produced using these technologies in pesticides38,39 is also fundamental for their deployment from the laboratory to the field2. Future research on public acceptance of new agricultural techniques, in particular targeting growers and other food producers, will be necessary16 to help foster the technology’s successful development, implementation and policy30. This will be particularly important locally, wherever their use is proposed.

Policy considerations for RNAi-based biopesticide and acceptance

Policy and regulation around RNAi-based biopesticides are still in the early stages of development16. Barriers to effective topical applications of RNAi (including technical ones), along with appropriate policy, are being increasingly discussed12. Given the learnings from the GMO debate, it is well known that ensuring policies and regulations are able to address the complexities of emerging technologies will be necessary for the acquisition of an SLO40. Just as authors argue that topical RNAi-based products are distinct from GM ones, so too should the biosafety and regulatory frameworks. It has been suggested that an alternative bespoke regulatory proposal needs to be developed to complement the conventional frameworks41.

However, despite the highly developed RNAi technology research in Europe, its regulation does not yet reflect the specificities and differentiation of RNAi-based biopesticides20. Based on the rationale that these products follow different formulation and manufacturing processes16, the 2019 OECD Conference on RNAi-based biopesticide concluded that, as it is not considered a GM technology, it is

not covered by the gene technology regulations from certain OECD countries10, nor by existing chemical and biological pesticide regulations. RNAi-based biopesticides in the EU are evaluated according to the use (or not) of GMOs (relating to the production of dsRNA) in the product’s manufacturing or the inactivation of possibly used GMOs, establishing whether the product will fall under the GM classification or not42. It is highly likely that countries intending to export topical RNAi-based biopesticide products to the EU will be influenced by these policies and regulations when formulating their legislative framework, in order to maintain access to this market43. The same is true for other significant world markets. However, there are already examples, such as in Malaysia and India, of RNAi-based biopesticide policy and regulations being referred to GM regulatory models based on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety41.

In the USA, RNAi-based biopesticides are considered biochemical pesticides36,42 and require evaluation by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and individual states for approval42. The EPA uses the following evaluative criteria: data must be submitted showing RNAi-based biopesticides ‘do not interfere with people or other fauna and flora genetic messaging’ and that food containing RNAi-based biopesticides is safe for humans (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration). In Canada, RNAi-based biopesticides also do not fall under the existing assessment framework for conventional biopesticides36. According to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) data requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis, although no product application for approval and registration has been received to date44. In New Zealand, Brazil16 and Australia12 topically-applied RNAi technologies are considered non-GM33. In Australia, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority consider these technologies as agricultural chemical products which are not regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator12,36,42. Accordingly, such technologies are required to go through a rigorous approval process when considered as novel products, which involves evaluation of chemical process manufacturing, risk assessment for human health and safety, environmental fate and toxicity, efficacy of application, crop safety, and commercialisation12.

Given the large number of RNAi-based biopesticide patent applications worldwide17, fit-for-purpose frameworks to regulate product development, production, use and commercialisation are fundamental. Despite progress, further and proper guidelines will need to be developed9,17,45,46. The scientific community, regulators, industries, and policymakers are foundational in clarifying aspects of the technology that should underpin policies for RNAI-based products. This should help to minimise controversies that may promote misconceptions and technology misunderstandings among the public whilst being able to respond to the public’s concerns34, and potentially developing public trust and, ultimately, acceptance.

Factors influencing public perceptions and SLO

Despite the multiple benefits of topically applying RNAi-based biopesticides, some concerns regarding this technology still need to be addressed. Ensuring it is safe, minimises environmental and human health risks, is cost-effective, and follows ethical and cultural considerations will be essential to foster its overall acceptance and SLO, and to inform adequate policy responses.

Safety

Safety is a critical consideration both for developing policies to regulate technologies used in agriculture to avoid potential risks to human health and environmental impacts and for acquiring an SLO12,47. Global sustainability policies flag that replacing conventional pesticides with safer alternatives is necessary to tackle food security48. According to risk assessment frameworks based on each product’s features, biosafety studies are used to accurately inform product safety, whether for humans, animals, or plants49. The material used in the product fabrication and the manufacturing process not only influences the product’s performance but also its regulatory processes. For example, Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) materials, biologically derived from nature, are usually considered under a less strict regulatory process2. The scientific community working in this field recognise that the risk assessment of both RNAi and carriers will be imperative for accurate biosafety control and for ensuring its social licence2,9,10,20. Testing the active ingredients and formulations previously and after technology commercialisation will be key, along with establishing testing requirements shaped by appropriate policies and regulations10, whilst being cautious about overburdened regulatory requirements and testing regimes that are likely unnecessary.

Off-target impacts

Discussions around unintended environmental impacts of RNAi-based biopesticides involve the potential to suppress non-target genes9,12,50, whose occurrence in real life is still unknown but cannot be discarded33. While the technology is stated to be non-toxic to non-target organisms (NTOs)51, there are knowledge gaps to affirm this on a case-by-case basis19,52, with concerns raised around whether species that are genetically closely related to the target species are potentially at risk due to their genetic similarity12. Also, retention of formulated dsRNA inside NTOs that might be overexposed to the product may be a consideration45. Bioinformatics has been identified as an important tool for product design and selecting and limiting possible impacts on NTOs. However, it has some limitations due to the availability of genetic data and variability of the organism’s environmental conditions and exposure10,12.

Degradability, protection window and resistance

Despite topically applied dsRNA being unstable and therefore unable to reside in the environment (soils and water bodies) for extended periods, this issue still raises concern among some in the scientific community15,51,53. RNAi-based biopesticides are being developed with the use of delivery systems to improve the efficacy of dsRNAs36. When dsRNA is not associated with carriers for better performance (e.g., absorption and stability)10,12,29,54, bioaccumulation is unlikely to occur due to its labile nature2. However, being a degradable product raises concerns about the protection window it can offer and whether it can effectively combat crop pests without the need for multiple applications, thereby decreasing its cost-effectiveness10. Design and optimisation of delivery systems, therefore, represent a trade-off between product effectiveness and the potential for accumulation. The use of, for example, biodegradable layered double hydroxide (LDH) as a carrier has increased the longevity of dsRNA on leaves without being washed off, consequently broadening the protection window16,19,29,55. Another question is the development of resistance to dsRNA, which is linked to its persistence in a target organism, and has been deemed to require further research21,56. Thus, issues around the product degradability in the environment, resistance to RNA, and the offered protection window need further accurate assessment.

Toxicity

Due to natural barriers in higher organisms and because RNAi-based biopesticides are designed to specifically impact target species, their toxicity to humans, animals and other plants is expected to be low2,10. Experiments have indicated that environmental dsRNA does not cause adverse effects to humans when exposed via ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact, as it is either degraded or processed in a non-specific manner10,12,15,52,57,58. dsRNA has also been shown to be non-toxic in mammalian models such as mice but impacts on many invertebrates have yet to be determined empirically, though the likelihood is that there will be minimal impacts without significant sequence homology10. While non-toxicity claims have been derived from multiple studies, ecological risk assessment on NTOs has been put forward by scientists, regulators and industry to measure and confirm lower toxicity relative to traditional pesticides without additional regulatory burdens10.

Production and application costs

Cost-effectiveness will be critical for ensuring the commercial viability and successful deployment of RNAi-based biopesticides. This means minimising production, application, and reapplication costs while ensuring its effectiveness as a crop protection agent. While the development of RNAi-based biopesticides is leading to a promising sustainable alternative at an attractive cost-benefit ratio2, there are still some concerns remaining. Delivery agents can lower treatment costs by reducing the amount of dsRNA required, whose cost is currently deemed to be high, albeit sharply reducing over time2,14,16,19,51. The efficacy of combining RNAi with low-cost delivery agents in inhibiting pathogens or insects that interfere with plant development denotes a high technology readiness level (TRL) that seems promising for reducing overall application costs2. Using sources, such as bacteria and yeast, for in vivo dsRNA production is also an option for cost reduction19,20,31. The cost of in vitro production of dsRNA has been quoted to be as low as 0.50 cents/gram35 with 2–10 g required per hectare31. However, RNAi-based biopesticides are likely to be comparable to conventional pesticides in cost as research progresses to provide them as an economically viable solution for farmers, and competitive commercialisation concerning conventional products may rely on the product target approach and its biosafety innovations9. Achieving an attractive cost-benefit ratio will also be necessary for acceptance and uptake from growers.

Inclusive and ethical considerations

Inclusive access to the technology for smallholder farmers, including cost considerations, will be crucial for developing countries, where the conditions of technological development are much poorer51. Conversely, generating sufficient genomic data to target diverse pests or pathogens threatening crops at a global level may encourage its acceptance by a larger public. Beyond commercialisation outcomes, technology scalability can also help to facilitate more inclusive accessibility to RNA technologies2,9,17,33,59. Responsible agribusinesses, start-ups and government initiatives that communicate about the research will play a key role in fostering the technology’s early progress in making it more accessible2,9,17. Ethical governance must also be central to any conversation around RNAi-based biopesticides. This means incorporating the views of a diverse range of publics, including marginalised groups, into discussions about the technology and its application. At the local level, this involves understanding how communities’ social and ethical values are considered in the deployment of the technology and will need to go beyond risk assessments and technical expert opinions33,34. Ensuring such an inclusive approach to deployment should encourage a more comprehensive understanding of the technology and its potential benefits.

Cultural values and practices

As a novel technology, RNAi-based biopesticides have the potential to engage with local cultural values, which may encourage public acceptability32,33. In response to native biodiversity loss and the increasing occurrence of invasive species, it may be possible to apply RNAi-based biopesticides across large ecosystem areas33. Despite potential challenges with scalability33, there is potential that RNAi-based biopesticides might also help protect native ecosystems of high biocultural significance against invasive pests, thereby ensuring environmental well-being alongside the traditional cultural practices of First Nations People around the world33. The effectiveness of topical RNAi in controlling myrtle rust, a highly invasive fungal disease, is a concrete example of development in this area60,61. It is likely that organic and traditional agricultural practices will also have the potential to benefit from RNAi-based biopesticides using biodegradable carriers associated with traditional techniques, which could be important in their ongoing preservation9,51.

Discussion and Conclusion

Understanding public perceptions of RNAi-based biopesticides and acceptance, along with the current controversies within the policy landscape and the factors influencing public perception and the acquisition of an SLO, allow for identifying strategies for transparently communicating and engaging with the public about RNAi-based biopesticides, which should help gain and ensure an ongoing social licence for these products. Drawing on well-developed social science literature, we discuss strategies to help achieve an SLO for RNAi-based biopesticides to enhance food’s safe and effective production. Those strategies can be summarised as follows: building trust, enabling knowledge and awareness of technology, using effective methods of communication and education, and ensuring early engagement and dialogue.

Trust plays a foundational role in public acceptance of technology28, and it is fundamental to achieve an SLO62. This includes trust in institutions, experts and policymakers28. Considering that we live in a ‘post-truth’ era where the public constantly scrutinises technology and science, building trust is the first step in creating opportunities for transparently communicating and engaging with the public on this topic33. Perceived conflicts of interest among stakeholders and the lack of recognition of scientific knowledge limits may affect public perception and generate mistrust concerning the use of RNAi-based biopesticides34. Trust in the government’s capacity to manage risks, and in the integrity and competency of the industries involved, is more likely to lead to increased acceptance of such novel technologies39.

Enabling knowledge and awareness of the technology is also key. Despite some GMOs being successfully used today, the opposition witnessed in response to GMO food, highlights the need to approach RNAi-based biopesticides cautiously and through its advancements as a non-GM technology based on accurate research results2. Knowledge and awareness of the technology must be spread among the public to allow for a comprehensive understanding, and governments and scientists can play an essential role in informing this9,16,24,33,39,43,45,48,49,63,64,65,66,67. Familiarity with food-related technology may also positively influence its acceptance39. Despite being paramount for its feasibility and acceptability, knowledge and awareness about novel technologies are usually neglected issues in the biotechnology sector9,68,69.

Using effective methods of communication and education can help transparency and build trust. Communication with growers and food consumers with clear messages will be vital in enhancing social trust in the use of the RNAi based biopesticides39,45,70. Using media and developing workshops, lectures and training programs for farmers are considered effective ways to communicate in the agricultural technology sector2,24,34,39. Labelling is also raised as a desired initiative to be included in governments’ regulations to inform the public about the properties of novel food technology and the products it generates25,30,39,71.

Finally, ensuring early engagement and dialogue allows addressing the public’s diversity and related concerns in acquiring an SLO. As a novel technology, early engagement with diverse stakeholders on the product’s attributes and applications can help identify any stakeholder concerns regarding the product’s safety and what would constitute adequate policy and regulations informed by the science9,34. Engaging with diverse stakeholders who hold different values will also influence the interpretation of product risks to help inform a more transparent decision-making process34. Preparedness to respond to public concerns plays a crucial role in ensuring science accountability34. Considering cultural values and ways to equitably address engagement to ensure just power imbalances are addressed in the decision-making process can also help in the acquisition of an SLO27,32,33.

This set of strategies offers valuable advice on understanding the public perception of the technology and simultaneously communicating scientific and technical advancements to enhance public trust and support acceptability. Early communication of the technology advancements as a sustainable tool among all stakeholders—policymakers, industry, and the public, specifically farmers/growers and consumers—may avoid technology misconceptions and support appropriate policy while transparently informing active acceptance towards scientifically proven safe food consumption. Enabling an informed decision-making process is fundamental to developing an SLO to implement such a transformative tool for more sustainable food production.

Methods

Scope of the review

This systematic literature review focused on a qualitative analysis of public perceptions of RNAi-based biopesticides and how they relate to SLO. The Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement 202072 was followed (see PRISMA 2020 Checklist in Supplementary Table 1 and PRISMA Protocol in Supplementary Note 1). Studies reporting on public perceptions, public engagement, SLO, and policy and regulation were included. Studies that focused solely on the technical aspects of RNA technology or were irrelevant to the discussion on public perception were excluded. A meta-analysis and a thematic analysis were carried out to explore the main topics raised by the papers and related to the review’s objective. Based on the motivations for this review, the papers were grouped into six categories: case studies, public and stakeholder perceptions, communication and engagement, SLO, policy and regulation, and concerns around the technology. It is worth highlighting that one article may have been classified into more than one category. This review was not registered.

Data and code source

A detailed search of the existing literature was conducted, ensuring the inclusion of relevant work and any associated documents. A relatively broad search term, for example, ’RNA’ instead of ‘dsRNA’, was used to ensure more comprehensive coverage of documents for screening, identifying important studies for inclusion in the review. Due diligence was done to read the entire manuscript to avoid missing important information. To ensure we did not miss essential papers, after applying the exclusion criteria, the reference list of all eligible papers was checked to certify the review captured the most significant studies. Studies considered relevant but not yet on our list were included. Based on the above, we are confident that we considered the relevant literature within the databases using the procedure we followed.

Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were used for the search, completed on 20th November 2023. Both databases were searched for titles, abstracts and keywords. The keywords used encompass (“Ribonucleic acid” OR RNA OR RNAi OR “RNA interference” OR RNAi-interference) and (“genetically modified” OR transgenic OR “gen* editing” OR “gen* technology” OR “gen* silencing”) and (spray OR plant OR crop) and (public OR social OR stakeholder OR local* OR *owner OR consumer OR societ* OR community OR resident* OR farm* OR indigenous) and (perception OR awareness OR attitude OR willingness OR support OR acceptance OR tolerance OR opposition OR resistance OR policy OR regulat* OR legislat* OR “social licence to operate” OR licen* OR communication OR engagement OR outreach OR participation OR consultation) and (environm* OR econom* OR soci* OR cultur* AND benefit OR impact OR risk OR cost OR safety). No proximity search function was used as it would significantly reduce the number of papers. The word “spray” broadened the spectrum of searched papers more than the use of the word “biopesticide”, which supported a more comprehensive understanding of the technology.

For Indigenous stakeholder considerations, only Indigenous was used for the search term, as we found that keywords such as “First Nations” or “Custodian” did not change the search outcome. We did not include the terms industry or suppliers, as these words directed more towards technical issues than public perceptions. No filter by discipline/subject area was applied. Papers published in technical journals may also include social considerations. Patent and data were excluded, and only peer-reviewed journal papers in English were considered.

The final WoS string was (((((TS = (“Ribonucleic acid” OR RNA OR RNAi OR “RNA interference” OR RNAi-interference)) AND TS = (“genetically modified” OR transgenic OR “gen* editing” OR “gen* technology” OR “gen* silencing”)) AND TS = (spray OR plant OR crop)) AND TS = (public OR social OR stakeholder OR local* OR *owner OR consumer OR societ* OR community OR resident* OR farm* OR indigenous)) AND TS = (perception OR awareness OR attitude OR willingness OR support OR acceptance OR tolerance OR opposition OR resistance OR policy OR regulat* OR legislat* OR “social licence to operate” OR licen* OR communication OR engagement OR outreach OR participation OR consultation)) AND TS = (environm* OR econom* OR soci* OR cultur* AND benefit OR impact OR risk OR cost OR safety) and Article or Review Article (Document Types) and English (Languages).

The final Scopus string was (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Ribonucleic acid” OR rna OR rnai OR “rnai interference” OR rnai-interference) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“genetically modified” OR transgenic OR “gen* editing” OR “gen* technology” OR “gen* silencing”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (spray OR plant OR crop) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (public OR social OR stakeholder OR local* OR *owner OR consumer OR societ* OR community OR resident* OR farm* OR indigenous) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (perception OR awareness OR attitude OR willingness OR support OR acceptance OR tolerance OR opposition OR resistance OR policy OR regulat* OR legislat* OR “social licence to operate” OR licen* OR communication OR engagement OR outreach OR participation OR consultation) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (environm* OR econom* OR soci* OR cultur* AND benefit OR impact OR risk OR cost OR safety) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)).

Paper screening

The citations imported into EndNote resulted in 328 articles from WoS and 111 articles from SCOPUS. Duplicated papers were removed (n = 48), using the “Find Duplicate” function of EndNote. After this, all 391 titles and abstracts were screened and assessed for eligibility. Papers focused solely on technical aspects of RNA technology or other topics that were irrelevant to this review were excluded (n = 345). Full texts were retrieved (n = 46), and papers with no related PDFs were removed (n = 3), resulting in 43 articles deemed suitable for inclusion in the review. The analysis of those articles resulted in new reports from previous studies through the references (n = 15) considered appropriate to be included in this review. Any previous literature reviews were included in this study as we considered those studies’ original inputs as contributions to advancing and consolidating the body of knowledge on public perceptions of the technology. One researcher conducted the papers’ screening according to the criteria set above. Undecided papers were discussed with another researcher. The final result was 58 peer-reviewed journal articles from 2010–2023 contemplated for the systematic literature review (see PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of studies included in the systematic literature review in Supplementary Fig. 1, and paper’s characteristics in Supplementary Figs. 2– 6).

Data collection and synthesis

We conducted a thematic analysis of the papers using coding logic on NVivo 2020 (version 20) software, designed to analyse qualitative data and texts. We also utilised Rayyan.ai to conduct a meta-analysis of the papers. The data collected was used according to the research objectives and methodological and conceptual framework without prioritising one study over another.

On NVivo, we extracted data from papers using codes according to the study’s objectives. Firstly, the codes were extracted using the more recurrent themes in the literature – “factor influencing” OR determinant OR “associated with” OR values OR trust OR “social context” OR “perceived impacts”; “perceived cost”; risks; benefits; “reason for support” OR acceptance OR reject OR positive OR negative; “future research” OR gap OR “way forward” OR “need to investigate”; “stakeholder engagement” OR communication OR education OR engagement OR dialogue OR awareness OR knowledge OR misconceptions; “social licence to operate” OR SLO OR Policy OR Regulation; safety OR “public health”–. From this, the codes evolved inductively, adding more to the previous ones during the coding process. Concomitantly, we read papers and extracted more data, complementing the NVivo queries. Rayyan.ai facilitated the labelling of each paper, enabling us to explore information such as journal name, year of publication, technology focus, addressed topics, and methods. The coded material was tabulated, providing resources for data synthesis and analysis considering overlaps, similarities and differences among studies’ findings and conclusions, as well as limitations and omissions concerning the raised topics. All papers regarding public perceptions of the technology and the development of an SLO and their approaches were considered for the synthesis, without exclusions.

Limitations of the research

As RNAi-based biopesticides are in the early stages of development, a limited number of studies consider the public perception of the technology and the development of an SLO. Future reviews on SLOs for similar technologies could provide insights and lessons for RNAi-based biopesticides. In addition, in-depth reviews of the technical data underpinning RNAi-based biopesticide safety and efficacy, and how this feeds into SLO, would be beneficial. Since the study focused on RNAi-based biopesticides, considering public perceptions and how they may inform the acquisition of an SLO, the literature search focused on RNAi technology. Related technologies, such as nanotechnology, were considered only if they came up in studies associated with or mentioning RNAi technology.