Public opinion can affect the adoption of genome editing technologies. In food production, genome editing can be applied to a wide range of applications, in different species and with different purposes. This study analyzed how the public responds to five different applications of genome editing, varying the species involved and the proposed purpose of the modification. Three of the applications described the introduction of disease resistance within different species, and two targeted product quality and quantity in cattle. Online surveys in (...) Canada, the US, Austria, Germany and Italy were carried out with a total sample size of 3698 participants. Using a between-subject design, participants were confronted with one of the five applications and asked to decide whether they considered it right or wrong. Perceived risks, benefits, and the perception of the technology as tampering with nature were surveyed and were complemented with socio-demographics and a measure of the participants’ moral foundations. In all countries, participants evaluated the application of disease resistance in humans as most right to do, followed by disease resistance in plants, and then in animals, and considered changes in product quality and quantity in cattle as least right to do. However, US and Italian participants were generally more positive toward all scenarios, and German and Austrian participants more negative. Cluster analyses identified four groups of participants: ‘strong supporters’ who saw only benefits and little risks, ‘slight supporters’ who perceived risks and valued benefits, ‘neutrals’ who showed no pronounced opinion, and ‘opponents’ who perceived higher risks and lower benefits. This research contributes to understanding public response to applications of genome editing, revealing differences that can help guide decisions related to adoption of these technologies. (shrink)

The use of traditional chicken breeds with a dual purpose has become a relevant topic in Germany mainly due to animal welfare concerns and the importance of conserving genetic variability in poultry farming. However, consumers have little knowledge about the different chicken breeds used in the industry; making it challenging to communicate traditional breeds and their advantages to consumers. Hence, this study takes the approach to look at consumers’ perceptions of different breeds. We analyze consumers’ evaluations of pictures showing four (...) dual-purpose chicken breeds. First, an eye-tracking study and think-aloud protocols were used to obtain open associations consumers make with each breed. Based on the results, an online survey was conducted to quantify consumers associations with different breeds and consumers’ interest in meat products with animal pictures on the packaging. Results show that consumers’ attention to pictures of chickens is mostly focused on their body and head, particularly with the Vorwerkhuhn. Consumers associate white breeds to white egg and meat production, while brown breeds are associated to brown egg production. Only a smaller segment of consumers, who are more engaged to animal welfare, accept pictures of animals on meat packages. We conclude that the marketing of meat products of traditional chicken breeds by using pictures is not a useful approach for the mass market. However, within smaller market concepts, such pictures can be used to communicate an alternative chicken meat production system that may lead to purchases of traditional dual-purpose breeds. (shrink)

Consumers’ actual knowledge about modern food production is limited, and their judgment is often guided by assumptions or associations that are not necessarily in line with reality. Consumers’ rather unrealistic idea of livestock farming is driven by beautiful and romanticized pictures in advertising. If confronted with the reality of modern livestock farming, consumers’ responses are mainly negative. So far, dairy farming still has a more positive image and thus is less affected by public criticism. However, if made public, some of (...) the current production practices in dairy farming have the potential to reduce consumer acceptance which in turn can have a tremendous effect on farmers. A particularly urgent topic is the handling of male dairy calves. Such calves are often treated as surplus animals due to their low genetic merits for meat, with the risk of resulting in the deprivation of animal welfare. To maintain consumer acceptance of dairy products and find socially accepted alternatives for the handling of male calves, insights into consumer perception of current and future production practices in dairy farming are needed. Thus, the aim of this study is to analyze how consumers evaluate the current situation of male dairy calves and alternatives in male calf management. A quantitative online survey, representative for the German population in terms of gender, age, education, region, and income, was carried out with 1 194 participants in February 2022. Overall, 60% of participants were not aware of the fact that male dairy calves are less appropriate for fattening purposes. Respondents saw a clear need for alternative methods for handling male calves from dairy production. More, our results show that the use of sexed semen encounters consumer resistance, while other alternatives that were evaluated as more natural were more accepted. A cluster analysis identified 3 distinct consumer segments labelled “sexed semen opponents” (31.6%), “undecided” (30.4%), and “proponents of all alternatives” (38.0%) that differed in their acceptance of alternative handling practices of male dairy calves. The results emphasize the gap between consumers’ expectations and reality on farms and the importance of considering consumer preferences when developing future pathways for dairy farming. (shrink)