Cell precision

The UK government is on the road to potentially easing restrictions on gene-editing farm animals and plants.

At some point we could see legislation that will support the efforts of scientists to develop future foods and overcome the global challenges around food security and the climate emergency.

Consumer backing is necessary to make this an eventuality so a recent research project by the FSA and FSS helps shine a light on where public thinking is (currently) on precision bred food.

Titled ‘Survey of public attitudes towards precision breeding’, the first phase of the report is part of wider efforts to increase the FSA and FSS’s evidence base in the field of genetic technologies.

With such research, it’s interesting to note the extent of consumers’ knowledge of gene editing, and the tools the legislation covers, that will allow researchers to make precise changes to the genomes of plants, for example, to give them beneficial traits or characteristics.

Key takeaways

• Awareness of precision breeding is very low, something which should be borne in mind when considering the FSA’s findings. The data reveal that there is a general openness to trying precision bred foods across the UK, with more people anticipating benefits than disbenefits from the use of precision breeding.
• Somewhat unsurprisingly, there is a large degree of uncertainty about what impact precision bred foods may have on the different parts of the food system. This is reflected in the relatively large proportions of people taking a neutral stance or indicating they do not know enough to answer survey questions and in the strong appetite expressed for information about precision breeding to be provided.
• Respondents are more divided over whether precision breeding of animals is acceptable (35% acceptable, 33% unacceptable). Men are twice as likely as women to say precision breeding of animals is acceptable (46% vs. 23%).
• Nearing four in five (77%) respondents say it would be important to know if a food item they were buying had been precision bred. Those who claimed to be aware of precision breeding and to know what it was were more likely than those who were not aware of it to say it would be important to know if a food item was precision bred (86% vs 76% of those who had not heard of it).
• Similarly, around eight in ten consistently say it would be important to have a range of information about precision bred food (across all the information types tested), particularly about allergies, pregnancy and other health conditions (which 84% say would be important). Vegetarians and people who are concerned about the impact the food they eat has on the environment or concerned about animal welfare are consistently more likely to say each of the different types of information tested would be important.

What comes next?

As an industry, part of our mission is to deliver healthier lives through innovation in food and drink. Although the legislation provides keys to unlock that innovation, it is clear a tremendous amount of work needs to be done imparting information to consumers about the whole process – and make it as transparent as possible.

For precision breeding to make significant inroads, those advocating its progress have to convince those in the middle that the technology will not create unintended consequences.

Consumers will expect regulators to keep food and drink safe. Insufficient communication will lead to a misunderstanding of the science rather than it being explained in a considered way.

What is important is an explanation of what science is trying to achieve and the type of products we’re able to make – why they will be beneficial, both to health and the environment.

Ultimately, it will depend on the consumer experience.

• Rodney Jack, editor, Food & Drink Technology.
  Keep in touch via email: [email protected] Twitter: @foodanddrinktec or LinkedIn: Food & Drink Technology magazine.