While the number of studies on this topic is limited, they generally align in indicating that genome-edited plants are more appealing to the public than GMOs. Supporting this assertion is an analysis set to be published in the June issue of Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Hans De Steur and his colleagues at the University of Ghent in Belgium conducted a review of data collected from various countries worldwide, including Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

As illustrated in the figure above, several dimensions need to be considered (awareness, knowledge, attitude, perception of safety, willingness to pay, preferences). Adding complexity to the issue is the fact that each product merits individual evaluation, accounting for its purpose (e.g., whether it is a commodity or a specialty product) and the intended impact of genetic intervention (e.g., whether it benefits producers, consumers, and/or the environment).

A particular Italian study suggests that more consumers would be willing to pay a premium for fungus-resistant edited grapes if adequately informed about the benefits. Overall, the collective results tend to affirm that new technologies (which do not entail the insertion of foreign DNA into final products, unlike conventional GMOs) are somewhat less polarizing and hence more socially acceptable.

However, one caveat is essential: public awareness of these issues remains relatively low, with most people possessing scant knowledge about editing and other New Genomic Techniques. It remains to be seen, therefore, how public perception will evolve as the debate escalates with the approval of new EU regulations and the introduction of the first edited products into the market.