Page 53 - Breeding Edge ebook

hand, he said, “with food, as soon as they start putting something into their bodies, it relates much
closer to some of the findings that we’ve had” in research on human genetics.

Some factors emerge as important when people consider what is acceptable in any kind of genetic
modification, whether gene edited or transgenic manipulations, Scheufele said. One is the respondents’
“religiosity,” which is offended when the scientist is seen as “blurring the lines between God and man.”
People also commonly oppose genetic alterations they see as “unnatural,” he said.

Along with those sort of root moral and ethical criteria, the flow of information from news, internet

communications, family and friends tends to shape views of biotechnology, Scheufele said. The
consumer’s view of GMOs “is what popular discourse looks like,” he said. If popular discourse is
dominated by references to a certain meat product as “pink slime” or a biotech strain of fast-growing
salmon as “Frankenfood,” then “that is going to determine my decisions about GMO or GE products,”

he said.

However, what do people familiar with biotech issues think about CRISPR and other gene editing
laboratory tools?

Last summer’s CRISPRcon conference featured some instant polling of such a biotech-savvy crowd. Its
more than 300 participants came from the life sciences, food and agriculture sectors, environmental and
wildlife organizations, or were science news writers and so forth.

Given a multiple choice, 43 percent of participants who responded agreed that gene editing is “a
tremendous tool to benefit mankind.” But they could select more than one answer, and 47 percent
agreed that gene editing is all three of these things: “a tremendous tool . . . a technology that is
poorly understood and needs more research . . . (and) a dangerous tool that could easily be used to
the detriment of mankind.”

Not surprisingly, many big farm groups, food makers and retailers believe gene editing holds a lot of
promise. In late 2016, several groups who were already members of the Center for Food Integrity (CFI)
formed the Coalition for Responsible Gene Editing in Agriculture to promote gene editing to Americans
as a smart direction toward efficient food production, healthy eating
and environment. The coalition puts a premium on earning the trust
of consumers for any gene editing process or products, said Roxi
Beck, CFI’s consumer engagement director.

Traditionally, said CFI Chief Executive Charlie Arnot, “the

assumption has been, if the science is sound and the regulatory
process is valid, there will be social acceptance” of new biotech
products. “But we know from experiences with GMOs that isn’t
the way it works in today’s environment.”

CFI’s research on consumer attitudes, Beck said, found that, although CFI Chief Executive Charlie Arnot
it’s still a priority in the coalition’s guidelines for biotech developers

to present the facts around their discoveries clearly and honestly,
“you don’t change (consumers’) ethics and beliefs with science and
facts alone.”

In fact, she said, CFI’s research shows that “the facts are three to five times less important than
connecting (with consumers) through shared values.” So, she said, biotech developers and food

www.Agri-Pulse.com 51