What's the beef with gene editing? An investigation of factors influencing U.S. consumers’ acceptance of beef from gene-edited cattle

• Knowledge, social norms, and perceived benefits positively influenced attitudes. • Perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced attitudes. • Social norms, perceived benefits, and attitudes positively influenced intentions. • Perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced intentions. • Attitudes acted as a partial mediator between predictors and intentions. Gene-editing technology provides promising opportunities for livestock industries by enabling precise genetic modifications that enhance desirable traits such as increased disease resistance, heat tolerance, and nutritional quality. With gene-edited beef products entering the market soon, understanding consumers’ acceptance is critical. Using structural equation modeling, the study aimed to determine how key psychological and social factors influence U.S. consumers’ attitudes toward gene editing and their behavioral intentions toward ground beef from gene-edited cattle. Results indicate that knowledge, subjective social norms, and perceived benefits positively influenced attitudes, while perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced attitudes. Subjective social norms, perceived benefits, and attitudes positively influenced behavioral intentions, while perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced intentions. Attitudes acted as a partial mediator, significantly mediating the effects of subjective social norms, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and food technology neophobia on behavioral intentions. Improving consumers’ behavioral intentions toward ground beef from gene-edited cattle hinges on cultivating more favorable attitudes toward the technology. Thus, collaborative efforts by scientists, producers, policymakers, extension agents, and agricultural communicators should seek to increase consumers’ perceived benefits and improve subjective social norms, as these factors were most influential.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Future Foods
Published
2024-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100454
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Animal Genetics and Reproduction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.50
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What's the beef with gene editing? An investigation of factors influencing U.S. consumers’ acceptance of beef from gene-edited cattle

Jean A. Parrella, Matt Baker, Holli R. Leggette, Gary Wingenbach et al.
10 citations
Future Foods
Animal Genetics and Reproduction
5.50
article

What's the beef with gene editing? An investigation of factors influencing U.S. consumers’ acceptance of beef from gene-edited cattle

Jean A. Parrella, Matt Baker, Holli R. Leggette, Gary Wingenbach, Peng Lu, Elsa A. Murano
article en
10 citations

Abstract

• Knowledge, social norms, and perceived benefits positively influenced attitudes. • Perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced attitudes. • Social norms, perceived benefits, and attitudes positively influenced intentions. • Perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced intentions. • Attitudes acted as a partial mediator between predictors and intentions. Gene-editing technology provides promising opportunities for livestock industries by enabling precise genetic modifications that enhance desirable traits such as increased disease resistance, heat tolerance, and nutritional quality. With gene-edited beef products entering the market soon, understanding consumers’ acceptance is critical. Using structural equation modeling, the study aimed to determine how key psychological and social factors influence U.S. consumers’ attitudes toward gene editing and their behavioral intentions toward ground beef from gene-edited cattle. Results indicate that knowledge, subjective social norms, and perceived benefits positively influenced attitudes, while perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced attitudes. Subjective social norms, perceived benefits, and attitudes positively influenced behavioral intentions, while perceived risks and food technology neophobia negatively influenced intentions. Attitudes acted as a partial mediator, significantly mediating the effects of subjective social norms, perceived benefits, perceived risks, and food technology neophobia on behavioral intentions. Improving consumers’ behavioral intentions toward ground beef from gene-edited cattle hinges on cultivating more favorable attitudes toward the technology. Thus, collaborative efforts by scientists, producers, policymakers, extension agents, and agricultural communicators should seek to increase consumers’ perceived benefits and improve subjective social norms, as these factors were most influential.

Future FoodsVol. 10
Texas College (US), Texas A&M University (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Animal Genetics and Reproduction
5.50
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.