Consumers are far more open to gene-edited foods when the benefits are personal, values-driven and clearly explained, according to recent research from The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) and FMI – The Food Industry Association.
For CPG brands the findings offer a framework for how to communicate emerging tech in ways that build trust rather than backlash, according to Charlie Arnot, CEO at CFI.
“If the benefits are perceived to be meaningful enough” then “the technology is simply a means to that end,” he said.
“If we start talking about the technology, then people are interested in the technology. But when we can talk about removing a devastating virus … or high GABA tomatoes, which lower blood pressure … those are all benefits that people perceive to have value,” Arnot explained.
Why benefits – not technology – drive acceptance
Historically, consumer resistance to food science technologies like GMOs centered around two things: lack of transparency and lack of direct consumer benefit. Gene editing is shaping up differently, Arnot said.
He noted that across pork, eggs, tomatoes and bananas, consumers responded positively once they understood the outcome the technology delivers.
For pork, the benefit was strong animal health and major reductions in antibiotic use.
“People like the idea that we’re going to use fewer antibiotics in animal agriculture, they like the idea that fewer animals are going to be sick and fewer animals are going to suffer” and “those benefits obviously carried enough weight with consumers that they said, we support this,” he explained.
For tomatoes, the high-GABA application resonated because it ties directly to wellness.
“My health can be benefited by consuming this tomato,” Arnot said, noting it is already “flying off the shelves” in Japan.
Bananas and eggs tapped into very practical concerns: food waste, supply stability and price volatility – all consumer pain points that CPG companies know well.
Arnot added: “Science is always essential, but it’s never sufficient. If we lead with science, we’re missing the opportunity to have a conversation about values and benefits.”
What the findings mean for CPG brands
The window for CPG companies to prepare is open, Arnot urged.
“Right now there are more than 500 gene-edited applications in food coming to market, and most people in the food system are not aware that it’s that prevalent,” he said.
His advice: Start developing internal policies before deciding on individual applications.
“Start thinking about how you’re going to develop a policy to decide which gene editing applications are going to fit the brands that you bring to market. And then how are you going to integrate those into your supply chain and communicate them.”
For CPG brands, the research highlights the importance of leading with benefits rather than technology. Shoppers respond to clear value like less waste, better nutrition, stable prices or healthier animals. As Arnot said, consumers “focus on what the technology can do” in addition to “the benefits that it will deliver.”
Transparency is key. Consumers want to know when a product includes a gene-edited ingredient and have the option to learn more.
Third-party oversight reassures shoppers. “People still want there to be some oversight of the technology. It can be FDA approval, it can be USDA approval” but “there needs to be some third party oversight,” he said.
Where early CPG adoption may happen first
Arnot pointed to produce and specialty ingredients as likely early movers, such as leafy greens, corn, wheat, canola, rice, yams or watermelon.
Pairwise’s seedless blackberries were one example, along with high-GABA tomatoes and longer-lasting produce varieties that directly address shrink – a top-and bottom-line concern for retailers and brands, Arnot added.
Avoiding a ‘whack-a-mole’ approach
The biggest risk Arnot sees isn’t consumer rejection - it’s industry fragmentation.
“The bigger risk is that we end up with haphazard approaches to acceptance, where it just becomes a whack-a-mole approach,” he said.
To prevent that, he urged companies to create technology-wide frameworks rather than evaluating gene-edited products one at a time.
“How are we going to think about this technology collectively” and “how do we make decisions then about which specific applications are most valuable to us?” he said.
