Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Public acceptance for genetic engineering techniques: the role of food values-based information
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 03 February 2026

Public acceptance for genetic engineering techniques: the role of food values-based information

  • Roberta Selvaggi1,
  • Kohei Yagi2,
  • Gioacchino Pappalardo1 &
  • …
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr3,4 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Mathematics and computing
  • Science, technology and society

Abstract

Genetic engineering techniques are emerging as crucial tools for addressing global food challenges. Consumer resistance however remains a major barrier to their adoption. This study explores whether framing genetical engineered foods around specific food values can increase consumers’ acceptance and willingness to pay. Using a random effects interval regression model to analyze data from 1,000 Italian consumers across five staple foods, we find that food value-based messaging significantly influences attitudes and willingness to pay. This study presents an innovative approach to reducing resistance to genetic engineering techniques, highlighting the strategic role of food values in science communication and policy-making.

Data availability

The dataset analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Kumar, N. (Ed.). (2022). Biotechnology and Crop Improvement: Tissue Culture and Transgenic Approaches (1st ed.). CRC Press.

  2. Wan, X., Hou, Q. & McConnell, L. L. Advances in genome editing for sustainable agriculture. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2(2), 165–166 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang, H., Mittal, N., Leamy, L. J., Barazani, O. & Song, B. H. Back into the wild-Apply untapped genetic diversity of wild relatives for crop improvement. Evol. Appl. 10(1), 5–24 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schouten, H. J., Krens, F. A. & Jacobsen, E. Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: international regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO Report 7(8), 750–753 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oladosu, Y. et al. Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: a review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 30(1), 1–16 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang, Y., Massel, K., Godwin, I. D. & Gao, C. Applications and potential of genome editing in crop improvement. Genome Biol. 19(1), 210 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Qaim, M. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 42(2), 129–150 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Podevin, N., Davies, H. V., Hartung, F., Nogué, F. & Casacuberta, J. M. Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding. Trends Biotechnol. 31(6), 375–383 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  9. FAO. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. EFSA. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease 3 and other site-directed nucleases with similar function. EFSA J. 10(10), 2943 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eckerstorfer, M. F. et al. An EU perspective on biosafety considerations for plants developed by genome editing and other new genetic modification techniques (nGMs). Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 5(7), 31 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lassoued, R., Phillips, P. W. B., Macall, D. M., Hesseln, H. & Smyth, S. J. Expert opinions on the regulation of plant genome editing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 19(6), 1104–1109 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon, D. R. et al. Responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment. Nat. Biotechnol. 39(9), 1055–1057 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pakseresht, A., McFadden, B. R. & Lagerkvist, C. J. Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44(5), 757–780 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Spök, A., Sprink, T., Allan, A. C., Yamaguchi, T. & Dayé, C. Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Front Genome Ed. Augut 31(4), 899331 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  16. European Commission, (2021). Study on the status of new genomic techniques under Union law and in light of the Court of Justice ruling in Case C-528/16. Brussels. https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5135278b-3098-4011-a286-a316209c01cd_en?filename=gmo_mod-bio_ngt_eu-study.pdf

  17. Runge, K. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Rose, K. M. & Larson, B. J. Attitudes about Food and Food-Related Biotechnology. Public Opin. Q. 81(2), 577–596 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mielby, H., Sandøe, P. & Lassen, J. The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Underst. Sci. 22(2), 155–168 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lusk, J. L., McFadden, B. R. & Wilson, N. Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?. Food Policy 78, 81–90 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ortega, D. L., Lin, W. & Ward, P. S. Consumer acceptance of gene-edited food products in China. Food Qual. Prefer. 95, 104374 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bearth, A., Otten C.D., Segrè Cohen, A. (2024). Consumers’ perceptions and acceptance of genome editing in agriculture: Insights from the United States of America and Switzerland. Food Research International, 178.

  22. Yamaguchi, T., Ezaki, K. & Ito, K. Exploring the landscape of public attitudes towards gene-edited foods in Japan. Breed. Sci. 74(1), 11–21 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oh, S. D. & Lee, K. Analysis of the public perception and acceptance of gene-editing technology and gene-edited agricultural products in South Korea. GM Crops & Food 16(1), 795–810 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Costa-Font, M. & Gil, J. M. Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross-country study. Food Qual. Prefer. 20(6), 399–409 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pappalardo, G., D’Amico, M. & Lusk, J. L. Comparing the views of the Italian general public and scientists on GMOs. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 56(7), 3641–3650 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bredahl, L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—results of a cross-national survey. J. Consum. Policy 24, 23–61 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Costa-Font, M. & Gil, J. M. Meta-attitudes and the local formation of consumer judgments towards genetically modified food. Br. Food J. 114(10), 1463–1485 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Frewer, L. J. et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 30(2), 142–152 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  29. de Jonge, J., van Trijp, H., Renes, R. J. & Frewer, L. Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: its two-dimensional structure and determinants. Risk Anal. 27(3), 729–740 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Siegrist, M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19(11), 603–608 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Castellini, G., Vezzoli, M., Carfora, V., Graffigna, G. & Catellani, P. Psychosocial predictors and framing effects in the acceptance of new genomic techniques-treated cheese: Evidence from a representative Italian sample. Food Qual. Prefer. 134, 105675 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bearth, A. & Siegrist, M. The social amplification of risk framework: a normative perspective on trust?. Risk Anal. 42(7), 1381–1392 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wunderlich, S. & Gatto, K. A. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Adv. Nutr. 6(6), 842–851 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marris, C. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public?. EMBO Rep. 2(7), 545–548 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Siegrist, M. & Hartmann, C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food 1, 343–350 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste—extent, causes and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

  37. Gaskell, G. et al. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal. 24(1), 185–194 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V. & Lusk, J. L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?. Food Policy 95, 101931 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Marette, S., Disdier, A. & Beghin, J. C. A comparison of EU and US consumers’ willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples. Appetite 159, 105064 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values (Free Press, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lusk, J. L. & Briggeman, B. C. Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91(1), 184–196 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bazzani, C., Gustavsen, G. W., Nayga, R. M. & Rickertsen, K. A comparative study of food values between the United States and Norway. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 45(2), 239–272 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cerroni, S., Nayga, R. M. Jr., Pappalardo, G. & Yang, W. Malleability of food values amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 49(2), 472–498 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Uddin, A., Gallardo, R. K., Rickard, B., Alston, J. & Sambucci, O. Consumer acceptance of new plant-breeding technologies: An application to the use of gene editing in fresh table grapes. PLoS ONE 17(12), e0270792 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hwang, H. & Nam, S. The influence of consumers’ knowledge on their responses to genetically modified foods. GM Crops Food 12(1), 146–157 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marangon, F., Troiano, S., Carzedda, M. & Nassivera, F. Consumers’ acceptance of genome edited food and the role of information. Italian Rev. Agric. Econ. 76(3), 5–21 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  47. European Commission, (2022). Legislation for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques. Public Consultation Factual Summary Report. Ref. Ares (2022)6392169. Available the link https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13119-Legislation-for-plants-produced-by-certain-new-genomic-techniques/public-consultation_en

  48. European Commission, (2022). Farm to Fork Strategy: Public consultation on new genomic techniques. Report available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-04/sc_modif-genet_pub-cons-factsheet.pdf

  49. EFSA Contam Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain). Scientific opinion onacrylamide in food. EFSA J. 13(6), 4104 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wassmann, R., Jagadish, S.V.K., Heuer, S., Ismail, A., Redona, E., Serraj, R., Singh, R.K., Howell, G., Pathak, H., Sumfleth, K. (2009). Chapter 2 Climate Change Affecting Rice Production: The Physiological and Agronomic Basis for Possible Adaptation Strategies. Editor(s): Donald L. Sparks, Advances in Agronomy, Academic Press, Vol. 101, pp. 59–122.

  51. Fischer, G., Shah, M., Tubiello, F. N. & van Velhuizen, H. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture: an integrated assessment, 1990–2080. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 29, 360 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T. H. & Oldewage-Theron, W. Consumers’ environmental and ethical consciousness and the use of the related food products information: The role of perceived consumer effectiveness. Appetite 107, 311–322 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lusk, J. L. & Schroeder, T. C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2), 467–482 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  54. StataCorp, (2025). Stata 19 Base Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

  55. Penn, J. M. & Hu, W. Understanding hypothetical bias: An enhanced meta-analysis. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 100(4), 1186–1206 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Siegrist, M. Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Anal. 41(3), 480–490 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lancaster, K. J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74(2), 132–157 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nelson, P. Information and consumer behaviour. J. Polit. Econ. 78(2), 311–329 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Darby, M. R. & Karni, E. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J. Law Econ. 16(1), 67–88 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S. & Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44, 177–189 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Grant, K. R., Gallardo, R. K. & McCluskey, J. J. Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies. Agribusiness 37(4), 764–781 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lähteenmäki, L. et al. Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative. Food Qual. Prefer. 13(7–8), 523–533 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was carried out within the Agritech National Research Center and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR)—MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4—D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022). This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be considered responsible for them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia N. 98-100, 95123, Catania, Italy

    Roberta Selvaggi & Gioacchino Pappalardo

  2. Kobe University, 1-1 Rokkodai-Cho, Nada, Kobe, Japan

    Kohei Yagi

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr

  4. Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

    Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr

Authors
  1. Roberta Selvaggi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kohei Yagi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gioacchino Pappalardo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.S. and G.P. wrote the main manuscript text. K.Y. performed statistical analysis. R.N. validated the experimental design and the entire study. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Selvaggi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical statements

All procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (e.g., Italian GDPR 2016/679 and Declaration of Helsinki). Approval to conduct this study was granted by the departmental Ethical Committee of the Catania University. They confirmed that for economic stated-preference research formal ethical approval was not required, as the study involved no risks or monetary transactions. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Selvaggi, R., Yagi, K., Pappalardo, G. et al. Public acceptance for genetic engineering techniques: the role of food values-based information. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37892-2

Download citation

  • Received: 29 July 2025

  • Accepted: 27 January 2026

  • Published: 03 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37892-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Food values
  • Biotechnology
  • Acceptance
  • Willingness to pay
  • European union
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics