b'Will the Public Accept Gene-Edited Foods?A Social Science Perspective.AS A SOCIOLOGISTwho studies food and agricul- where all arguments, including non-scientific argu-ture, Im frequently asked whether the public is goingments, are treated seriously. Without such dialogues, to accept gene-edited foods. Gene editing techniques,proponents of gene editing may simply end up provid-such as CRISPR, are being lauded as powerful newing answers to questions the public are not asking and tools that can quickly, cheaply and precisely createignoring the most relevant questions. novel agricultural and food products with a varietyThe GMO debate taught us that consumers seek of beneficial traits for consumers, producers and thegreater transparency and autonomy in their food environment. However, these disruptive technologieschoices. Yet, there has been little effort to engage in are emerging in a context of ongoing social contro- dialogues about how transparency and choice will be versy and public debate over GMOs. provided to consumers. The National Bioengineered CARMEN BAINProponents of gene editing are anxious to avoidFood Disclosure Standard requires foods contain-is a professor ofa repeat of the GMO controversy. I dont know if theing GMO ingredients to be labeled starting in 2020; sociology at Iowapublic will accept gene editing. Instead, I want to reflecthowever, it excludes gene-edited foods. While many State University,on several lessons from the GMO debate that focus onproponents of gene editing repeat arguments from the where she stud- building public trust rather than public acceptance.GMO debate (that food labels are costly, misinform, ies the politicalThe GMO debate taught us that public perceptionsstigmatize and are unscientific), recent studies find that economy of food andof gene editing technologies will be shaped by whetherGMO food labels do not stigmatize GMO foods and act agricultural systems;the organizations and experts involved are viewedto increase consumer trust. Meanwhile, proponents pin gender, agricultureas credible and trustworthy. Since the public cannottheir hopes on companies creating food products that and internationalobserve or experience gene editing directly, theirdeliver traits consumers want.development; andunderstanding and perceptions of the technologiesTo build trust, companies need to respect those the social dimen- will be shaped by whether they trust those who arewho may not share the same value propositions and sions of GM foodsdirectly involved. For example, the public may consider:wish to, for whatever reason, opt out.and crops. Are the companies, scientists or regulators taking myOne effort by proponents to win public acceptance, interests and welfare into account in their decision- and reject the lessons laid out above, is the argument Howmaking? Do they appear knowledgeable about thethat gene editing is no different than traditional plant effects of gene editing? How organizations and expertsbreeding. The underlying intent is to convey to the organizationsinvolved in gene editing communicate with the publicpublic that there is nothing to see here since we have and expertswill be fundamental to building trust. been engaged safely in plant breeding for millennia. If The GMO debate taught us that the informationthe public can understand the science of plant breed-involved indeficit model of communication doesnt work. Thising, then they will accept gene editing! This framing of gene editingmodel assumes that public concerns, skepticism andgene editing is both an oversimplification and mis-mistrust of novel technologies is caused by a deficit ofleading representation of the science and is unlikely communicateknowledge, and if we simply educate people about theto enhance efforts to build trustworthiness. It instead with thefacts, they will come to accept the technology. Yet, thedelegitimizes any scientific and nonscientific concerns public will bepublic consider social, political and ethical concernsthe public might have. from who controls the technology to how the benefitsWe need to avoid reducing the debate to whether fundamentaland risks are distributed and from whether we shouldthe public will accept gene editing and instead reflect to buildingmodify nature to how it should be donecannot beon lessons from the GMO debate to consider what fac-answered through science alone. tors may enhance or impede public trust. This will be trust. To build trust, we need to engage in dialoguescritical to building the credibility and trustworthiness of where space is provided for people who disagree andthe organizations and experts involved. SW 88/ SEEDWORLD.COMJANUARY 2020'