IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2023i1p51-d1308590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Evaluations of and Attitudes towards New Genome Editing Techniques: An Italian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Simona Romeo Lironcurti

    (CREA—Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Federica Demaria

    (CREA—Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Raffaele D’Annolfo

    (CREA—Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Roberta Sardone

    (CREA—Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The ever-increasing development of assisted evolution technologies (AETs) in agriculture has boosted crop improvement. The commercialization of improved biotech crops can be promoted by modern gene editing instead of conventional genetic modification, which is a cheaper and faster approach that can help address future agriculture challenges, such as food security, environmental sustainability, and climate change. However, the use of these technologies is still sensitive and debated in many countries. Each region promotes a different approach, depending on regulatory policies, and adopting these technologies requires knowledge of consumer views and stakeholder acceptance. For this purpose, we conducted a survey of 564 Italians regarding their knowledge of genetic techniques, informational tools, purchase preferences, environmental sustainability, and food safety issues. The research aims are twofold: (a) to assess the level of knowledge and (b) to determine how consumer background, including social and demographic characteristics, affects their level of knowledge. Our findings emphasize the importance of communication and dissemination activities, in which clarity and a broad appeal are key.

Suggested Citation

  • Simona Romeo Lironcurti & Federica Demaria & Raffaele D’Annolfo & Roberta Sardone, 2023. "Consumer Evaluations of and Attitudes towards New Genome Editing Techniques: An Italian Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:51-:d:1308590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/51/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/1/51/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matin Qaim, 2020. "Role of New Plant Breeding Technologies for Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 129-150, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    4. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Elisa De Marchi & Alessia Cavaliere & Alessandro Banterle, 2021. "Consumers' Choice Behavior for Cisgenic Food: Exploring the Role of Time Preferences," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 866-891, June.
    6. Wolf, Marianne McGarry & Bertolini, Paola & Shikama, Izumi & Berger, Alain, 2012. "A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Food and Biotechnology in the U.S., Japan, and Italy," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 43(01), pages 1-10, March.
    7. Ian M. Sheldon, 2002. "Regulation of biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(1), pages 155-176, March.
    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. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    2. Stéphan Marette & Anne‐Célia Disdier & Anastasia Bodnar & John Beghin, 2023. "New plant engineering techniques, R&D investment and international trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 349-368, June.
    3. Stephan S. Marette & Anne-Célia Disdier & John C Beghin, 2020. "A Comparison of EU and US consumers' willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples," PSE Working Papers halshs-02872222, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    7. Aras Türkoğlu & Kamil Haliloğlu & Metin Tosun & Piotr Szulc & Fatih Demirel & Barış Eren & Henryk Bujak & Halit Karagöz & Marek Selwet & Güller Özkan & Gniewko Niedbała, 2023. "Sodium Azide as a Chemical Mutagen in Wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.): Patterns of the Genetic and Epigenetic Effects with iPBS and CRED-iPBS Techniques," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Mengjie Tian & Mingyong Hong & Ji Wang, 2023. "Land resources, market-oriented reform and high-quality agricultural development," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4165-4197, December.
    9. Jayson Beckman & Maros Ivanic & Jeremy Jelliffe, 2022. "Market impacts of Farm to Fork: Reducing agricultural input usage," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1995-2013, December.
    10. Rafał Nowak & Małgorzata Szczepanek & Joanna Kobus-Cisowska & Kinga Stuper-Szablewska & Radomir Graczyk & Karolina Błaszczyk, 2024. "Relationships Between Photosynthetic Efficiency and Grain Antioxidant Content of Barley Genotypes Under Increasing Nitrogen Rates," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Colson, Gregory, 2009. "Improving nutrient content through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for intragenic foods," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001872, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Hochachka, Gail, 2023. "Climate change and the transformative potential of value chains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    13. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    14. Shahida Anusha Siddiqui & Zarnab Asif & Misbah Murid & Ito Fernando & Danung Nur Adli & Andrey Vladimirovich Blinov & Alexey Borisovich Golik & Widya Satya Nugraha & Salam A. Ibrahim & Seid Mahdi Jafa, 2022. "Consumer Social and Psychological Factors Influencing the Use of Genetically Modified Foods—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, November.
    15. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    16. Martina Occelli & Jorge Sellare & Kauê De Sousa & Matteo Dell'Acqua & Leida Mercado & Saul Paredes & Juan Robalino & Juan Carlos Rosas & Jacob van Etten, 2024. "Group‐based and citizen science on‐farm variety selection approaches for bean growers in Central America," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 270-295, March.
    17. Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.
    18. Stetter, Christian & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Agroforestry Adoption in the Face of Regional Weather Extremes," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321173, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    19. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2024. "Can gene-editing accelerate the protein shift? Consumer acceptance of an upcycled meat-substitute," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, 2004. "Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues for Biosafety Governance in Asian Countries," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 2004-13, United Nations University - INTECH.

    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:jagris:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:51-:d:1308590. 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.