All Plant Breeding Technologies Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others: The Case of GM and Mutagenesis.

Luisa Batalha,Brian Joseph Jones,Francesco Foroni

doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.657133

Luisa Batalha, Brian Joseph Jones + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.657133

Copy DOI

Abstract

A pervasive opposition to genetically modified (GM) foods has developed from the notion that they pose a risk to human and environmental health. Other techniques for the genetic modification of plants, such as sexual crossing and mutagenesis breeding, have mostly remained unchallenged. This research aims to investigate public perception of plant breeding technologies. Specifically, sexual crossing, mutagenesis, transgenics (GM) and gene editing. It was expected that attitudes and intentions would be most positive and the perception of risk lowest for plant genetic modification through sexual crosses. Scores on these variables were expected to be similar between mutagenesis, GM and gene editing. It was also expected that attitudes, intentions and risk perception would change (becoming more positive) once participants learned about foods developed through these technologies. Participants reported their attitudes, intentions and risk perception at two points in time. At Time 2, they were presented with pictures of food items developed through sexual crossing, GM and mutagenesis. The results showed that mutagenesis stood out as the most negatively perceived technology, whereas genetic development via sexual crosses was generally perceived as positive. The results highlight the importance of messaging, framing in consumer attitudes.

Highlights

Humans have been purposefully modifying the genetics of plants to improve traits since at least the early 20th century
To test the hypotheses that attitudes, intention, and risk perception for sexual crossing was different from mutagenesis, genetically modified (GM), and gene-editing technologies (H1a, H2a, and H3a) but similar among the last three (H1b, H2b, and H3b) at baseline, we conducted a series of repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) testing these variables at T1
Attitudes were similar between GM and CRISPR, but these two technologies differed from mutagenesis

Summary

Introduction

Humans have been purposefully modifying the genetics of plants to improve traits since at least the early 20th century. Whilst scientists have argued that there is no more danger in GM methods than in traditional breeding (Agre et al, 2016; Roberts, 2018), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, contend that GM products pose potential dangers and should be GM and Mutagenesis banned or, at least, highly regulated because “there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health” (Greenpeace, n.d.). Techniques such as chemical or radiation-induced DNA mutagenesis have remained mostly unchallenged by NGOs and consumers As all of these techniques (i.e., gene editing, mutagenesis, GM) have broad support within the scientific community (Savadori et al, 2004; Agre et al, 2016; Fernbach et al, 2019), the basis of the variability in consumer attitudes and regulatory controls is unclear. A greater understanding of these factors could help in the development of communication strategies and decisionmaking related to the deployment of plant breeding technologies, both new and old

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion