120 Gene editing: From the general public perspective

Abstract The public controversy around genetically engineered (GE) products, aka genetically modified organisms (GMO), has been ongoing for almost 40 yr fueled in part by well-funded misinformation campaigns disseminated by activist organizations. Polls reveal that public perception of GE animals is generally negative, with biomedical applications being more positively perceived than agricultural applications. Opposition to GE animals is often conflated with opposition to use of animals in research in general, as well as opposition to aspects of intensive animal agriculture. In general, concerns about animal biotechnology are influenced by views around the moral status of animals, the boundary between “natural” and “unnatural,” and perceived risks and benefits of GE animals to health and the environment (personal and cultural characteristics); the purpose of the application (e.g., disease resistance > fast growth), the method(s) being used, and the motivation of the research group making the genetic modification (public or private); and the species being modified (animal characteristics). There were three factors that aggravated opposition to GE products including 1) a lengthy and expensive regulatory step uniquely associated with commercializing products developed using that breeding method, 2) competing business interests (e.g., organic, non-GMO project) that were able to monetarize fear around the method to extract value (rent seeking) and selling their value-added (more expensive) product that avoided the use of GE, and 3) there is a mandatory labeling requirement to track/differentiate products produced with (or without) that breeding method to enable value-added marketing. Even so, when GE products that people wanted were allowed to reach the market (e.g., Impossible Burger with GE heme, GloFish, AquAdvantage salmon), they met with commercial acceptance. Now it has been suggested that the public will similarly reject animal products derived from gene edited (GnEd) animals, but that idea has only recently been put to the test as such food products were not previously available. A 2022 Japanese paper noted that with regard to GnEd food (gene knock-out tomatoes and fish) there was a “gap between anticipated and actual public response”. They noted that “even though there were some petitions against the use of genome-editing made by consumer groups; they did not develop into a mass mobilization, and media coverage was mostly positive.” These GnEd food products were developed by startups from Japanese universities, required no unique regulatory step before commercialization or mandatory labeling with Japanese regulatory agencies transparently sharing a summary of the information and notification on their websites, and businesses were encouraged to share information on products to respect The right of consumers to know. Successful commercialization of GnEd animal products has so far occurred in countries (e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Japan) where regulations treat simple GnEd products with no “foreign DNA” to be “non-GMO” and analogous to conventional breeding.