Next Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Safe Driving: A Multimodal Fusion Method for Risk Level Recognition in Distracted Driving Status
Next Article in Special Issue
Implications of Food Culture and Practice on the Acceptance of Alternative Meat
Previous Article in Journal
Teaching about Climate-Efficient Buildings in the Context of Geographic Education for Sustainability
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Science, Noda 278-8510, Chiba, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662
Submission received: 26 April 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 15 June 2023 / Published: 16 June 2023

Abstract

:
Genome-edited (GE) food is recently being introduced into the market with the promise of efficient food production and food waste reduction. Genetic editing aims to accelerate genetic progress by replacing the germ cell lineage of commercial breeding animals with cells derived from genetically elite lines. At the present early stage of the GE food market in Japan, this study investigated consumer acceptance of GE foods and constructed a GE foods acceptance model. This model illustrated that awareness of GE technology is essential for the stimulation of consumer acceptance, which is mediated by information credibility and the perceived usefulness of GE foods. It suggests that Japanese consumers may demand more information about how GE foods are produced and what their benefits are. Further research on effective food technology education and on communication about GE foods is needed.

1. Introduction

Genome editing (GE) can be used to accelerate the rate of genetic progress by enabling the replacement of the germ cell lineage of commercial breeding animals with cells derived from genetically elite lines [1]. In 2019, GE technologies have been applied to more than 50 different plants [2]. Given its powerful applications in crop improvement, GE technology has made significant advancements in recent times [3]. Not only does GE technology revolutionize plant biology, but it also offers solutions to challenges pertaining to plant architecture, food security, nutrient content, environmental adaptation, disease resistance, and the production of plant-based materials. [4]. Thus, GE is an efficient method to produce foods and reduce food waste [5].
GE foods have gained global attention with regard to the need to address environmental and social risks. The British Parliament released a POSTnote on genome editing clarifying that the government is proposing that genome-edited crop plants are exempted from GMO regulations, provided that the genetic changes could occur naturally or via existing conventional breeding techniques [6]. Nigeria has authorized guidelines on gene editing through the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) [7]. Indonesia drafted a regulation on CRISPR-based GE and other GE techniques in early 2021 [8].
Japan is a step ahead of the others and has introduced GE food permits. Moreover, safety assessment and notification are not mandatory for GE foods in Japan [9]. This super-aging country is facing a declining birthrate along with its aging population. Accordingly, the agriculture sector is short of labor and the area that is farmland continues to decrease. It is feared that agriculture skills will not be inherited, and the production base will become even more fragile. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the production base and improve production efficiency [10]. Under these circumstances, GE foods have been envisioned as new risk-tolerant foods.
The acceptance of innovative and transformative technologies by consumers plays a crucial role in their implementation and in building the capacity to transform food systems. Given that Japanese consumers are conservative and wary of embracing new trends, they have also been cautious about novel foods [11,12]. Several studies have investigated factors affecting acceptance among Japanese consumers. Motoki et al. suggested that contexts (such as being in a pub or restaurant) would influence the willingness to try novel foods [13]. Others have suggested that scientific interest would be an important factor for alternative proteins [14,15]. However, there is limited empirical research exploring the impact of consumer attitudes and their acceptance of GE foods. GE foods are among the least recognized new foods and are possibly often confused with genetically modified organism (GMO) foods [16]. Accordingly, we assumed that information would be an important factor to influence consumers’ acceptance. We then designed hypotheses of influential factors of GE food acceptance in light of consumer perceptions of new technologies and benefits, and developed a consumer acceptance model for GE foods.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

We explored the literature of novel foods and their acceptance regarding awareness of food technology, information credibility, and usefulness. Before stating the hypotheses developed below, the main concepts are introduced as follows.
Awareness of food technology refers to perceived levels of GE technology knowledge. Information credibility refers to how much consumers are concerned about the reliability of the information source. Usefulness refers to consumers’ perceived interest in the contribution of GE foods to their nutritional issues, health promotion, and the sustainability of food industry sectors.

2.1. Effect of Technology Awareness and Information Credibility on Willingness to Buy

The food industry is undergoing major changes in response to changing social needs caused by environmental issues and population growth. In this regard, as farmers and manufacturers develop new technologies to respond to a rapidly changing environment, consumers face new foods, and they cannot adequately determine if these affect their health and promise to be beneficial. Previously, concern over the health and environmental burden resulting from the use of agricultural chemicals led to the revival of organic food, which does not involve editing the product as it is, but only replaces the chemicals that are detrimental for the environment with better ways that have a less adverse impact or none. Organic food successfully found a place in the market, with outstanding performances in both production and sales [17]. Meanwhile, social needs such as health promotion, high yields, lower environmental burden, animal welfare, and so on have stimulated technological innovation to develop foods in entirely different ways from the conventional amendments in cultivation or livestock raising. For example, GMO technology was developed in the 1980s and nine GMO crops are on the market at present. It is one of the plant biotechnology applications by which a plant is created by duplicating some of the preferred genes or genetic material of a plant or organism and inserting it into another plant or invalidating or transferring its existing genes. Although the safety of GMO foods is strictly controlled by governments [18], many consumers remain skeptical, which has led to discussions worldwide and suggests the need for effective communication strategies [19,20,21,22].
Many surveys have tried to determine the effective factors to communicate about new foods that consumers face. In particular, several studies have suggested that information seemingly plays an important role in moderating consumers’ attitudes [23,24]. Specially designed GMO labelling with information about its health-related and social usefulness enhanced consumers’ willingness to pay. Moreover, certified labelling reassures consumers to buy GMO foods [25], suggesting that information credibility is critical. These trends are also found for other novel foods. Global demand for meat is forecasted to increase rapidly as the world population grows [26], further raising concerns about the increasing environmental burden while maintaining a sufficient supply for health. Supermarkets carry plant-based meat packaged with an emphasis on green and sustainable production. It promotes the value of plant-based meat in terms of its contribution to the environment. Social responsibility is useful information for communicating with consumers and makes a product worth buying. Another proposed solution to decrease meat consumption from animals is cultured meat, which can be grown from animal cells without animal slaughter and would cause less harm to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and land and water use [27,28]. Consumer awareness surveys suggested that safety and nutritional information is important for communication with consumers for cultured meat [29,30,31]. Meanwhile, for alternative proteins such as insects and plant-based meat, scientific interest was an important factor influencing willingness to buy. The more interested a consumer is in scientific trends, the easier it is to access newly developed products. Knowing how they are produced would encourage consumers to try these newly introduced foods.
Regarding the importance of technology awareness, information credibility is of particular interest. There is a need for as much transparency as possible along the food production chain, to build and maintain consumer trust in food safety and regulations. Consumers wish to make an informed choice regarding their food product purchasing decisions. Consumers rely on credibility when buying a new food, and the higher the risk, the more people rely on the credibility of the product [32]. To reassure consumers and expand the market for novel foods, a certification system has been considered by many countries. National government authorities and scientific reports are rated as the most reliable sources of information [33,34], and disclosing credible information may have a significant impact on consumers’ acceptance. Therefore, we assumed that awareness of GE technology and concerns about the reliability of information regarding GE foods would affect willingness to buy.
H1. 
Awareness of GE technology positively affects concerns about information credibility.
H2. 
Concerns about information credibility positively affect willingness to buy.

2.2. Effect of Technology Awareness and Perceived Usefulness on Willingness to Buy

As new technologies emerge, their content, as well as their individual health-related and social usefulness, receive increased attention. Awareness of a technology naturally leads to exploring its benefits, and consumers become interested in the usefulness of novel food technologies. The lack of understanding of technologies can lead consumers to have doubts about their usefulness, such as the positive health effects of functional foods [35]. Usefulness is an important factor in consumers’ choices of foods. It is deemed that if a product solves as many issues and problems as possible and benefits as many people as possible, it will be more likely to be widely used. People tend to accept novel foods easier if they bring tangible consumer benefits [36]. Consumers who are sensitive to environmental and quality issues are willing to pay a premium for quality food; for example, organic wine with no added sulfites is required for effective price differentiation [37]. Animal welfare and environmentally enhanced cultured meat showed statistically significant positive effects for consumer attitude [38]. Environmental concerns and subjective norms have a significant positive effect on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards microalgae-based food [39]. At the same time, consumers look for certificates to reassure themselves about the information of the usefulness of foods. Pricing represents the reliability of the product when buying novel foods in a supermarket [32]. High-priced foods could be perceived as good quality foods by consumers. Consumers also care about the source of information of novel foods’ usefulness [40]. Nutritional or health issues of foods are often referred to by government authorities, scientific reports, or newspapers. Based on this background, we developed the following hypotheses.
H3. 
Awareness of GE technology positively affects interest in perceived usefulness.
H4. 
Interest in perceived usefulness positively affects willingness to buy.
H5. 
Concerns about information credibility positively affect interest in perceived usefulness.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

An anonymous survey was administered to 550 respondents in their twenties to seventies living in Japan in August 2021 (Table 1). The survey was conducted via the Internet. The online survey was exclusively conducted among respondents who provided their subjective consent. We provided an introductory explanation that included information about genome-edited (GE) food technology. Participants were classified into two categories based on subjective criteria of whether they understood or did not understand GE foods, and only the samples who indicated an understanding of GE foods proceeded to respond. Based on the regulations of the Research Ethics Committee of Tokyo University of Science for Medical and Biological Research Involving Human Subjects, this study is not subject to informed consent and ethical review, because it contained no questions that could cause psychological trauma. Questionnaire items were developed by referring to previous reports [41,42]. A 5-point scale was used for the questions on genome-edited foods.

3.2. Genome-Edited Foods Acceptability Model

A GE foods acceptability model was built by using structural equation modeling (SEM). The analysis was conducted using SPSS Amos17 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA were employed as goodness-of-fit indexes to confirm the accuracy of the model.

4. Results

Genome-Edited Foods Acceptance Model

An exploratory model of GE food acceptance was built by using each potential variable set (Table 2). Four latent variables were extracted: willingness to buy GE foods, perceived usefulness, information credibility, and awareness of GE technology, and these showed enough convergent validity based on Cronbach’s alpha (>0.81). The means and standard deviations ranged from 1.91 to 2.92, and 0.955 to 1.08, respectively, illustrating a relatively low awareness of GE technologies. In addition, we conducted an assessment of reliability and validity using measures such as average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and maximum shared variance (MSV) (Table 2), as well as examined the correlations between the latent variables (Table 3).
The model illustrated the relationship between the latent variables (Figure 1). Awareness of genome editing technology influenced information credibility (0.201, <0.001) but not perceived usefulness (0.055, p = 0.041). Perceived usefulness should closely be related with information credibility (0.821, <0.001). Information credibility (0.201, <0.001) and perceived usefulness (0.679, <0.001) significantly affected willingness to buy GE foods. In addition, we estimated Cronbach’s alpha for each latent variable as a way to examine the validity of the data in this study, and the standards for all latent variables were met (Table 4).
The goodness-of-fit indexes, that is, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), confirmed in this study were GFI = 0.987 (≥0.9), AGFI = 0.972 (≥0.9), and RMSEA = 0.015 (≤0.1) which satisfied the conditions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Genome-Edited Foods Acceptance

The acceptance model showed that the largest path coefficient for willingness to buy GE foods was information credibility, which also indirectly positively influenced willingness to buy GE foods through interest in perceived usefulness. There is also a significant indirect path from an awareness of GE technology to a willingness to buy GE foods through information credibility and perceived usefulness. Awareness of GE technology was found to be indirectly positively related to perceived usefulness through information credibility, but insignificantly related to it directly. As far as information disclosure of GE technology is concerned, these findings suggest that technology awareness might trigger concerns about information credibility, and that information credibility would play an important role in enhancing the acceptability of GE foods. Once consumers learn about the scientific context and theory behind GE technology, that is, the production process, the next question is whether the information is reliable or not. Moreover, without reliable information, the usefulness of GE foods is negligible, even with knowledge of GE technology.
The model suggested that technology awareness could be the driver to try a new product. There are concerns that consumers may confuse GMO foods and GE foods and could react negatively when buying or consuming GE foods [15]. The changes that occur in the DNA in genome editing are changes that can occur in nature or in conventional breeding [9], which is very different from what happens in GMO foods [43]. That allows one to bring in not only certification but also information about nutrition, health issues, and other issues along with scientific proof. Until now, nutrition education has been the focus of dietary education. However, in response to rapid technological advances in recent years, guidance on newly developed food technologies should be strengthened. Hence, the relationship between food technology education and food acceptance needs further empirical investigation.
Another important issue related to information is the source. Factors affecting the perception of information reliability have been investigated and their source appears to be important. According to previous research, perception of information reliability is highly influenced by the source; in particular, the amount of perceived information each source contains about food risks is an important factor, as is the degree of concern consumers believe that agencies have about protecting their health from food risks. For example, governmental agencies, educational institutions, or primary physicians could be good sources [44,45]. Perception of information credibility also affects food choice behavior. Previous studies have noted the importance of information credibility in helping consumers make healthier food choices [46,47]. Consumers can be reassured by trusted certificates on safety and health issues and then purchase them. Certified labelling has been used to communicate with consumers to reassure them of the source and its reliability. Food labels have shown their positive influence on consumers’ choices; for example, organic labels and functional food labels are effective in promoting those foods [48,49]. Regarding GE foods, a survey of Twitter posts in Japan also indicates a strong desire for mandatory labeling [50].
The path from perceived usefulness to willingness to purchase is also significant, indicating that promoting the usefulness of GE foods directly leads to a willingness to purchase. The findings were also true for new food services and new foods boosted by newly developed technologies. For example, perceived usefulness was found to be a major predictor of service adoption in drone delivery food services [51]. It is an important determinant of consumer intention to purchase traceable meat [52]. Consumers in Australia, Brazil, and Canada agree that GMO foods help solve environmental problems such as food security [15]. They show that the higher the level of agreement with the idea that GMO foods can help solve environmental problems such as food security, the higher the amount of willingness to consume the food.
Perceived usefulness is an important factor in consumer purchase intentions. Consumers are more willing to purchase a product if they are convinced of its health promotion capabilities [53]. As genome editing technology targets the process of conventional breeding, besides its nutrition-related benefits, knowledge of its contribution to the food industry would be a valuable piece of information. For example, tomatoes containing high levels of gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA), which has been found to lower blood pressure, went on sale in 2021 in Japan [54]. Inspired by beef cattle that are naturally occurring mutants of the myostatin gene with increased skeletal muscle mass, the red sea bream and tiger puffer fish were bred with disrupted myostatin. This resulted in the successful production of the fleshier red sea bream and tiger puffer fish, with 1.5 to 2 times the muscle mass [55]. Therefore, to disseminate such benefits, it would be effective to segment target groups.
Of note is the low average of responses to questions regarding GE foods. It suggests that respondents have a low level of awareness and a generally negative attitude towards GE foods. In light of these results, it is important to enhance purchase intention by delivering information about genome editing technology and its benefits, as proposed in this study. Additionally, conducting segmentation based on levels of purchase intention and extracting consumer characteristics and needs from each segment will allow for the development of tailored marketing strategies. It is crucial to formulate precise marketing strategies in order to address these specific consumer segments and enhance purchase intention. Amidst the diversification of communication channels, it is crucial to select channels based on consumer segments [56]. For instance, consumers who exhibit a high interest in new products and technologies are likely to be receptive to novel information, making digital marketing an effective approach. Particularly, the proposed model in this study indicates that the perception of usefulness, encompassing contributions to food supply stability and health promotion, has a positive impact on purchase intentions. This aligns with the current trend of heightened consumer interest in environmental considerations and sustainability in food products [57]. Emphasizing these aspects through effective marketing communication tools such as advertising and package’s label designs can prove to be effective in enhancing purchase intentions.

5.2. Limitations

This study explored the factors of GE foods’ acceptability in Japan and developed a relevant GE foods acceptability model. It emphasized that the knowledge of novel technologies and the credibility of such information are important to enhance the acceptance of GE foods. This offers practical implications on how to introduce novel foods to increase their acceptance. However, the study has some limitations. First, the analysis in this study is based on a survey conducted at a time when GE foods were not well-known in Japan. An examination of the average scores in Table 2 reveals that all responses exhibit low average scores. Therefore, there could possibly be a high degree of food neophobia. Thus, this model could reflect the partial opinion of those who have a relatively high level of interest in science. Additionally, in this study, participants are providing self-assessments of their understanding of GE foods, i.e., participants were classified into two categories based on subjective criteria of whether they understood or did not understand GE foods, and only the samples who indicated an understanding of GE foods proceeded to respond. When analyzing the purchasing intention for products that are unfamiliar to consumers, such as GE foods, it is necessary to assess participants’ knowledge of the specific product and use objective criteria to address any knowledge gaps. Therefore, in future research, it will be necessary to assess understandings of GE foods and include only those respondents who meet the criteria as data samples. We believe that it would be possible to construct a model that better reflects public opinion if the survey is conducted at a stage when the use of GE foods has become somewhat more widespread. It could present further perceptions. Second, care should be taken to avoid bias in respondent demographics. The survey in this study was conducted over the Internet and the respondents happened to be limited to Internet users. Thus, the characteristics of the respondents might be biased.
In order to achieve a sustainable food supply, the introduction of new technologies that ensure environmentally friendly production and high yields is essential. Within this context, new food products are continually being developed, and consumers are beginning to consider incorporating these new foods into their regular diets. However, due to a lack of awareness about new food products, many consumers hesitate to make purchases due to safety concerns and pricing considerations. Therefore, as indicated by the consumer demand for reliable information highlighted in this study, effective consumer communication is crucial prior to the introduction of new food products. It has been observed that information disclosure positively influences the acceptance of various food products [58,59]. Therefore, it is crucial for GE foods to carefully consider strategies for information disclosure, including prioritizing the content related to technology, safety, and nutritional benefits, as well as the methods and duration of information disclosure. Such efforts are expected to provide valuable insights that contribute to the realization of a sustainable agricultural and food industry in the future.

6. Conclusions

We analyzed the consumer acceptance of genome-edited (GE) foods in Japan. In this study, we formulated hypotheses, and constructed and verified an acceptability model. Based on the constructed GE food acceptability model, awareness of GE technology would be essential to encourage consumers’ acceptance, which is mediated by information credibility and perceived usefulness of GE foods. This suggests the need for effective information disclosure, including food technology education. These efforts would contribute to future food security and the sustainable development of the food industry.

Author Contributions

Design, Y.S.; formal analysis, R.S.; writing, R.S.; supervision, Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the dryad repository: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/eDDtaiI99C0e6iI6k_Sq-I1hBf75oDA8T2Lge569tws (reviewer URL) (accessed on 9 November 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bishop, T.F.; Van Eenennaam, A.L. Genome Editing Approaches to Augment Livestock Breeding Programs. J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb207159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Metje-Sprink, J.; Menz, J.; Modrzejewski, D.; Sprink, T. DNA-Free Genome Editing: Past, Present and Future. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gao, W.; Xu, W.T.; Huang, K.L.; Guo, M.Z.; Luo, Y.B. Risk Analysis for Genome Editing-Derived Food Safety in China. Food Control 2018, 84, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Miladinovic, D.; Antunes, D.; Yildirim, K.; Bakhsh, A.; Cvejić, S.; Kondić-Špika, A.; Jeromela, A.M.; Opsahl-Sorteberg, H.G.; Zambounis, A.; Hilioti, Z. Targeted Plant Improvement Through Genome Editing: From Laboratory to Field. Plant Cell Rep. 2021, 40, 935–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ricroch, A. Global Developments of Genome Editing in Agriculture. Transgenic Res. 2019, 28, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wentworth, J.; Rapley, D. Genome-Edited Food Crops. UK Parliament POSTnote, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 2022. Available online: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0663/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  7. Global Agricultural Information Network. Government of Nigeria Approved National Biosafety Guideline on Gene Editing. 2021. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/nigeria-government-nigeria-approved-national-biosafety-guideline-gene-editing (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  8. Sprink, T.; Wilhelm, R.; Hartung, F. Genome Editing Around the Globe: An Update on Policies and Perceptions. Plant Physiol. 2022, 190, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan. Foods Made With New Biotechnology. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11130500/000657810.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  10. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan. Information and Communications in Japan. 2020. Available online: https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2020/2020-index.html (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  11. Hibino, A.; Nakamura, F.; Furuhashi, M.; Takeuchi, S. How Can the Unnaturalness of Cellular Agricultural Products Be Familiarized?: Modelling Public Attitudes Toward Cultured Meats in Japan. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Motoki, K.; Park, J.; Spence, C.; Velasco, C. Contextual Acceptance of Novel and Unfamiliar Foods: Insects, Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and 3D Printed Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Motoki, K.; Ishikawa, S.I.; Spence, C.; Velasco, C. Contextual Acceptance of Insect-Based Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Takeda, K.F.; Yazawa, A.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Koizumi, N.; Shineha, R. Comparison of Public Attitudes Toward Five Alternative Proteins in Japan. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 105, 104787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sato, K.; Ishizuka, N. Japanese Attitude Toward Insects as Food: The Role of Tradition. Appetite 2023, 180, 106341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shew, A.M.; Nalley, L.L.; Snell, H.A.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Dixon, B.L. CRISPR Versus GMOs: Public Acceptance and Valuation. Glob. Food Sec. 2018, 19, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liang, R.-D. Predicting Intentions to Purchase Organic Food: The Moderating Effects of Organic Food Prices. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Customer Affairs Agency (CAA), Government of Japan. Genetically Modified Food. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/consumer_safety/food_safety/food_safety_portal/genetically_modified_food/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  19. Robinson, C.; Leonhardt, J.M. Consumer Innovativeness and Loyalty to Non-GMO Foods: The Role of Cognitive and Affective Beliefs. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 39–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wunderlich, S.; Gatto, K.A. Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information. Adv. Nutr. 2015, 6, 842–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Vecchione, M.; Feldman, C.; Wunderlich, S. Consumer Knowledge and Attitudes About Genetically Modified Food Products and Labelling Policy. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 66, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Palmieri, N.; Simeone, M.; Russo, C.; Perito, M.A. Profiling Young Consumers’ Perceptions of GMO Products: A Case Study on Italian Undergraduate Students. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2020, 21, 100224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Arora, N. GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice. J. Mark. 2022, 86, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Du, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Xu, J. How Does Information Exposure Affect Public Attitudes Toward GMO in China? The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Conspiracy Belief and Knowledge. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 955541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Campbell, B.L.; Campbell, J.H.; Berning, J.P. GMO Turfgrass Introduction to the Market: Acceptance and Market Simulations for Connecticut Consumers. HortScience 2021, 56, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McLeod, A. (Ed.) World Livestock 2011: Livestock in Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i2373e/i2373e.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  27. Post, M.J. Cultured Meat From Stem Cells: Challenges and Prospects. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Tuomisto, H.L. The Eco-friendly Burger: Could Cultured Meat Improve the Environmental Sustainability of Meat Products? EMBO Rep. 2019, 20, e47395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Exploring Consumers’ Attitude Towards Cultured Meat in Italy. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhang, M.; Li, L.; Bai, J. Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Urban Areas of Three Cities in China. Food Control 2020, 118, 107390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jung, I.N.; Sharma, A.; Mattila, A.S. The Impact of Supermarket Credibility on Purchase Intention of Novel Food. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y. Consumer Insights on the Best Ways to Communicate New Zealand’s Food Safety Message to Chinese Consumers. Master’s Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2019. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10523/9065 (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  34. Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Fujiyoshi, L.; McGreevy, S.R.; Tayasu, I. Trust Me? Consumer Trust in Expert Information on Food Product Labels. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 137, 111170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kraus, A. Development of Functional Food with the Participation of the Consumer. Motivators for Consumption of Functional Products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Frewer, L.; Scholderer, J.; Lambert, N. Consumer Acceptance of Functional Foods: Issues for the Future. Br. Food J. 2003, 105, 714–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. D’Amico, M.; Di Vita, G.; Monaco, L. Exploring Environmental Consciousness and Consumer Preferences for Organic Wines Without Sulfites. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 120, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bryant, C.; Dillard, C. The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Maehle, N.; Skjeret, F. Microalgae-Based Food: Purchase Intentions and Willingness to Pay. Future Foods 2022, 6, 100205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Goodwin, J.N.; Shoulders, C.W. The Future of Meat: A Qualitative Analysis of Cultured Meat Media Coverage. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. CAA. Summary of Consumer Opinion Survey on Genetically Modified Foods. 2017. (In Japanese). Available online: https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/food_labeling/other/pdf/genetically_modified_food_170426_0006.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  42. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy Library. Analysis of Determinants of Social Acceptance of New Technology. 2021. Available online: https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=6731&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21 (accessed on 24 April 2023).
  43. Sharma, S.; Kaur, R.; Singh, A. Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas Mediated Genome Editing for Crop Improvement. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2017, 11, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Simona, R.; Saba, A. The Perception of Risks Associated with Food-Related Hazards and the Perceived Reliability of Sources of Information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 39, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Dillen, S.M.E.; Hiddink, G.J.; Koelen, M.A.; De Graaf, C.; Van Woerkum, C.M.J. Perceived Relevance and Information Needs Regarding Food Topics and Preferred Information Sources among Dutch Adults: Results of a Quantitative Consumer Study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 58, 1306–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Joe, M.; Lee, S.; Ham, S. Which Brand Should Be More Nervous about Nutritional Information Disclosure: McDonald’s or Subway? Appetite 2020, 155, 104805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Filho, T.L.; Lucia, S.M.D.; Lima, R.M.; Scolforo, C.Z. A Qualitative Study on the Perceptions and Attitudes of Brazilians Toward Irradiated Foods. J. Sens. Stud. 2015, 30, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eden, S. Food Labels as Boundary Objects: How Consumers Make Sense of Organic and Functional Foods. Public Underst. Sci. 2011, 20, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Díaz, L.D.; Fernández-Ruiz, V.; Cámara, M. An International Regulatory Review of Food Health-Related Claims in Functional Food Products Labeling. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 68, 103896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tabei, Y.; Shimura, S.; Kwon, Y.; Itaka, S.; Fukino, N. Analyzing Twitter Conversation on Genome-Edited Foods and Their Labeling in Japan. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 535764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Waris, I.; Ali, R.; Nayyar, A.; Baz, M.; Liu, R.; Hameed, I. An Empirical Evaluation of Customers’ Adoption of Drone Food Delivery Services: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Buaprommee, N.; Polyorat, K. The Antecedents of Purchase Intention of Meat with Traceability in Thai Consumers. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2016, 21, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baglione, S.L.; Tucci, L.A.; Stanton, J.L. Self-Reported Nutritional Knowledge and the Acceptance of Health-Related Food Benefit Claims. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Choe, J.Y.; Cho, M.S. Food Neophobia and Willingness to Try Non-Traditional Foods for Koreans. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kishimoto, K.; Washio, Y.; Yoshiura, Y.; Toyoda, A.; Ueno, T.; Fukuyama, H.; Kato, K.; Kinoshita, M. Production of a Breed of Red Sea Bream Pagrus major with an Increase of Skeletal Muscle Mass and Reduced Body Length by Genome Editing with CRISPR/Cas9. Aquaculture 2018, 495, 415–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cairns, G. Evolutions in food marketing, quantifying the impact, and policy implications. Appetite 2013, 62, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kusá, A.; Urmínová, M.; Darázs, T.; Šalgovičová, J. Testing of Standardized Advertising Slogans Within the Marketing Communication of Sustainable and Local Foods in Order to Reveal Consumer Preferences. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 703223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Grasso, S.; Monahan, F.J.; Hutchings, S.C.; Brunton, N.P. The effect of health claim information disclosure on the sensory characteristics of plant sterol-enriched turkey as assessed using the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) methodology. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 57, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yu, Y.; He, Y. Information disclosure decisions in an organic food supply chain under competition. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Genome-edited foods acceptance model.
Figure 1. Genome-edited foods acceptance model.
Sustainability 15 09662 g001
Table 1. Sample distribution.
Table 1. Sample distribution.
Percentage out of 550 Respondents
Gender
Men48.5
Women51.5
Age
20~2912.0
30~3921.0
40~4925.0
50~5925.0
60~6914.0
70 and above3.0
Career
Government employee5.6
Manager/Executive2.2
Company employee (clerical)17.8
Company employee (technical)11.3
Company employee (other)14.4
Self-employed4.7
Freelance1.6
Homemaker14.9
Temporary worker11.8
Student1.8
Others2.0
Unemployed11.8
Table 2. Latent variables and observed variables.
Table 2. Latent variables and observed variables.
Latent VariableObserved VariableMSDαAVECRMSV
Willingness to buy genome-edited foodsWillingness to buy 12.731.030.9630.890.960.26
Willingness to buy 22.711.02
Willingness to buy 32.751.08
Perceived usefulnessPerceived usefulness 12.731.010.8870.750.900.22
Perceived usefulness 22.580.96
Perceived usefulness 32.900.96
Information credibilityInformation credibility 12.920.980.8110.700.820.14
Information credibility 22.741.01
Awareness of genome editing technologyAwareness 11.911.050.9560.810.950.39
Awareness 21.961.04
Awareness 31.941.05
Awareness 41.961.01
Awareness 52.001.06
Table 3. Correlations of latent variables.
Table 3. Correlations of latent variables.
Willingness to Buy Genome-Edited FoodsPerceived UsefulnessInformation CredibilityAwareness of Genome Editing Technology
Willingness to buy genome-edited foods10.7860.8600.180
Perceived usefulness 10.9410.227
Information credibility 10.209
Awareness of genome editing technology 1
Table 4. The structural model assessment.
Table 4. The structural model assessment.
PathPath
Coefficient
Standard
Errors
t-Valuep-Value
Awareness of genome-editing technology
→ Information credibility
0.2010.0354.3480.000
Awareness of genome-editing technology
→ Perceived usefulness
0.0550.0242.0440.041
Perceived usefulness
→Willingness to buy genome-edited foods
0.2010.0663.4360.000
Information credibility
→ Perceived usefulness
0.8210.04819.9560.000
Information credibility →
Willingness to buy genome-edited foods
0.6790.08910.1510.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shigi, R.; Seo, Y. Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662

AMA Style

Shigi R, Seo Y. Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shigi, Ryoma, and Yuna Seo. 2023. "Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662

APA Style

Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2023). Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan. Sustainability, 15(12), 9662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129662

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop