At a time when agriculture is under pressure to produce more with fewer resources, gene editing has emerged as a promising tool. Technologies like CRISPR allow scientists to make precise changes in plants and animals — improving taste, reducing inputs, and even addressing animal welfare concerns. Yet the success of these innovations ultimately depends on one factor that is often less predictable than science itself: how consumers respond.
What we observe across several studies is that consumers are not reacting to gene editing in a vacuum. Instead, they evaluate it through the lens of everyday food choices.
When people purchase fresh products such as fruit, their decisions are driven primarily by eating experience — flavor, texture, and overall quality. Whether those traits are achieved through conventional breeding or newer technologies tends to be secondary. In fact, when differences in willingness to pay are measured, the penalty applied to gene-edited products is typically small and, in many cases, not economically meaningful. This suggests that, in practical terms, consumers are not uniformly rejecting the technology. Rather, they are prioritizing outcomes they can directly experience.
That said, acceptance is not uniform across the population. Some consumers remain skeptical, often viewing gene editing as indistinguishable from older forms of genetic modification. For this group, concerns are less about the specific product and more about broader perceptions — whether the technology is natural, safe, or ethically acceptable. At the same time, other consumers are more open, particularly when the technology delivers clear benefits. This variation highlights an important point: public perception is not fixed, and it does not move in a single direction.
One of the most consistent findings in this research is the role of information. When consumers are presented with concrete, relevant benefits, their responses change. For example, in the case of processed fruit products like cranberry juice, gene editing can be used to reduce sugar content while maintaining flavor. When these health-related attributes are made explicit, consumers tend to focus more on the benefit — such as lower sugar — than on the breeding method itself. In some cases, the perceived advantage outweighs initial hesitation toward the technology.
A similar pattern emerges when considering environmental and production-related outcomes. As awareness increases around issues like pesticide use, climate stress, or resource constraints, consumers become more receptive to innovations that address these challenges. This is particularly relevant in specialty crops, where production risks are high and quality attributes are closely tied to environmental conditions. When gene editing is framed as part of a broader effort to improve sustainability, resistance tends to soften.
However, there are limits to this shift. When the benefits are less visible or less directly tied to the consumer experience, skepticism can persist. Research on dairy products illustrates this tension. Even when gene editing is used to improve animal welfare — such as preventing painful practices in livestock — consumers may still discount these products, especially when the production method is explicitly labeled. In these cases, the presence of the label itself can trigger concern, regardless of the underlying benefit.
Overall, the issue is not simply whether people accept or reject gene editing. Rather, acceptance depends on how the technology connects to outcomes that consumers value, how information is communicated, and how much trust they place in the sources providing that information.
Importantly, the studies referenced here evaluated hypothetical products presented in survey settings; CRISPR gene-edited table grapes, cranberry products and milk from gene-edited cows are not currently commercially available.
For researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers, this has practical implications. Efforts to promote new technologies are more likely to succeed when they focus on tangible benefits — improved taste, better nutrition, reduced environmental impact — rather than on the technical details of how those benefits are achieved. At the same time, clear and transparent communication remains critical, particularly in addressing lingering concerns and misconceptions.
In the end, changing public perception of biotechnology is not about persuading consumers to embrace science for its own sake. It is about aligning innovation with the values and priorities that shape everyday food choices.
• R. Karina Gallardo is a professor and extension specialist in the School of Economic Sciences at Washington State University, based at the Puyallup Research and Extension Center.