Consumer Acceptance of Genome-Edited Foods in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors assessed consumer acceptance of GE foods in Japan. The paper is well-written and organized. However, the method used is not the appropriate one. Consumers in Japan are not familiar with GE foods, so, we can not ask them about their intention to buy these products without providing them with enough clear information. The most appropriate way to proceed in this case is to start by providing consumers with information about GE foods before assessing their intention to buy. 

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable feedback and assure you that we have taken appropriate measures to address the concerns raised.

Comment #1 The authors assessed consumer acceptance of GE foods in Japan. The paper is well-written and organized. However, the method used is not the appropriate one. Consumers in Japan are not familiar with GE foods, so, we cannot ask them about their intention to buy these products without providing them with enough clear information. The most appropriate way to proceed in this case is to start by providing consumers with information about GE foods before assessing their intention to buy. 

Response: In order to conduct the web survey, we provided an introductory explanation that included information about genetically engineered (GE) food technology. We ensured that participants understood the information and provided their subjective consent before proceeding with the questions. Only those who agreed participated and responded.　

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please see the attached file with Turnitin results.

Dear authors,

Thank you for giving me the chance to read your research paper, which is extremely interesting. While this is a very interesting paper, it needs to undergo some changes in order to be published.

I hope the following suggestions will help you to improve your work.

General comments

1.      Your English is very good. The paper is very interesting.

2.      You have 34% plagiarism, of which 21% (at first is shows 18% but when clicking on the sources it shows 21%) is from your paper “Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2022). The impact of information disclosure on consumer acceptance of genome-edited foods in Japan.” https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2197499/v1?cv=1.

Either change somethings paraphrasing it, or state somewhere that this is the extended version, or something – see it with the editor.

As for the statements used maybe you should name them someway and use the new name in the other tables. And use “…” for each one. Or write down that the questionnaire is adopted from the work of Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2022).

If you take out table 1 the percentage will decrease.

Also, self-plagiarism is allowed up to 10-12% max.

Specific comments

3.      Line 61-67: you have written: “We explored the literature of novel foods and their acceptance regarding awareness of food technology, information credibility, and usefulness, and developed the below hypotheses. 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 65 the contribution of GE foods to their nutritional issues, health promotion, and sustainability of food industry sectors.” What you have stated after the below hypotheses are not hypotheses. You should write something between the “hypotheses. Awareness”.

4. Maybe rephrase it as (do not know- see it): We explored the literature of novel foods and their acceptance regarding awareness of food technology, information credibility, and usefulness. Before stating the hypotheses development below, the main concepts are introduced. Awareness….,

+ references for each.

 5.      In the results section, you can take out Table 1 with the questionnaire items, especially if you state that the questionnaire is based on the work of…., if not, in text state the items in “..” and state that the first 6 (for example) are adopted from … and the rest adopted from …

 6.      In Table 2, regarding StD use the same number of decimals.

7.      Please provide a table of reliability and validity checks (Composite reliability, average variance extracted, correlations, and discriminant validity checks.)

 8.      Please provide a table of the structural model assessment (Path Coefficient, Standard Errors, t Statistics, p Values or HyP,  Relation, Beta, SE, T-Value, p-Value, Findings = accepted-rejected)

 9.      Please elaborate more on your findings. For example, there is a small Mean Score in all cases. Say something more about what this means. Since in the end, they do not really disagree with your statements. It is not that sure that this will be accepted. It needs a lot of communication marketing.

I hope that these comments will help you with your work

    Best of luck with your paper and stay safe!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful and generous feedback on our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised it according to your guidelines. We believe to meet your suggestions through the manuscript. Revisions are in blue highlight.

Comment #1. You have 34% plagiarism of which 21% (at first is shows 18% but when clicking on the sources it shows 21%) is from your paper “Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2022). The impact of information disclosure on consumer acceptance of genome-edited foods in Japan.” https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2197499/v1?cv=1.

Either change somethings paraphrasing it, or state somewhere that this is the extended version, or something – see it with the editor.

As for the statements used maybe you should name them someway and use the new name in the other tables. And use “…” for each one. Or write down that the questionnaire is adopted from the work of Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2022). If you take out table 1 the percentage will decrease. Also, self-plagiarism is allowed up to 10-12% max.

Response: Thank you for checking and providing suggestions regarding plagiarism. To mitigate self-plagiarism, we have removed Table 1 and incorporated the information into the statement, addressing the reference to the questionnaire as per your suggestion (lines 163-164). Also please understand that Shigi, R., & Seo, Y. (2022) is preprint.

Comments# 2. Line 61-67: you have written: “We explored the literature of novel foods and their acceptance regarding awareness of food technology, information credibility, and usefulness, and developed the below hypotheses. 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 65 the contribution of GE foods to their nutritional issues, health promotion, and sustainability of food industry sectors.” What you have stated after the below hypotheses are not hypotheses. You should write something between the “hypotheses. Awareness”.

Maybe rephrase it as (do not know- see it): We explored the literature of novel foods and their acceptance regarding awareness of food technology, information credibility, and usefulness. Before stating the hypotheses development below, the main concepts are introduced. Awareness….,

Response: Thank you for your generous suggestion. We have made the necessary amendments to the statement as advised (lines 61-63).

Comment #5. In the results section, you can take out Table 1 with the questionnaire items, especially if you state that the questionnaire is based on the work of…., if not, in text state the items in “..” and state that the first 6 (for example) are adopted from … and the rest adopted from …

Response: Table 1 was deleted, and the statement was added (line 163-164).

Comment# 6. In Table 2, regarding StD use the same number of decimals.

Response: We unified the number of decimals. Thank you for your advice.

Comment #7. Please provide a table of reliability and validity checks (Composite reliability, average variance extracted, correlations, and discriminant validity checks.)

Response: We added AVE, CR, MSV in Table 2 and the statement in lines 179-182.

Comment #8. Please provide a table of the structural model assessment (Path Coefficient, Standard Errors, t Statistics, p Values or HyP, Relation, Beta, SE, T-Value, p-Value, Findings = accepted-rejected)

Response: Following your suggestion, we have included Table 4 in the manuscript.

Comment# 9. Please elaborate more on your findings. For example, there is a small Mean Score in all cases. Say something more about what this means. Since in the end, they do not really disagree with your statements. It is not that sure that this will be accepted. It needs a lot of communication marketing.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on the important points. We have taken into account the content of your remarks in lines 281-299.

Reviewer 3 Report

See supplemental file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful and generous feedbacks to our manuscript. We carefully revised as following your guidelines. We believe to meet your suggestions through the manuscript. Revisions are in blue highlight.

Literature Review

L125: Regarding H2, suggest writing: “Concerns about information credibility positively affect willingness to buy”.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestion. The manuscript was amended accordingly (line 126).

Materials and Methods

L153: Concerning the survey sample, could the authors elaborate on the sample criteria and the generalizability of the sample to the Japanese population? If possible, provide a comparison (e.g., in a table) of the match between the study sample and the target population. Please add more demographic information about the survey respondents. Further, what was the rationale behind the study sample size? Please include a power analysis to justify the sample size (e.g., see Price et al., 2005). Where exactly was the survey distributed? The authors currently mention “the Internet”. Moreover, was there any data cleaning performed before the analyses, and were attention checks included in the survey design (appears not to be the case based on Table 1)?

Response: We have verified that the minimum sample size required to satisfy the null hypothesis Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the alternative hypothesis RMSEA, with a degree of freedom of 43, power of 0.80, and alpha level of 0.05, has been met (MacCallum et al., 1996). Proportional sampling was conducted, taking into account the population ratio by prefecture in Japan, as described below. Gender and age were evenly distributed. Demographic information is added in the manuscript (Table 1).

MacCallum,R.C.,Browne,M.W.,and Sugawara,H.M.(1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.

Psychologica Mesthods, 1(2) 130-149.3.

L162: Did survey respondents receive a definition and/or example of GE foods? Being able to fill in the survey questions would require a clear understanding of the concept of GE foods or the main technology.

Response: In order to conduct the web survey, we provided an introductory explanation that included information about genetically engineered (GE) food technology. We ensured that participants understood the information and provided their subjective consent before proceeding with the questions. Only those who agreed participated and responded (lines 156-159).

Discussion

L266-267: Could the authors elaborate briefly on the suggestion of segmenting target groups? This would provide a valuable practical recommendation and thus might deserve some more attention in the Discussion.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added discussion regarding the suggestion of segmenting target groups in lines 285-299.

L269: The limitations section remains rather vague in its current form. Building on the limitations of the current study, could the authors provide some more specific suggestions for future research on GE foods and the importance of investigating public acceptance of these innovative (food) products?

Response: The manuscript was amended in lines 317-331.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reported that they ensured that participants understood the information provided about genetically modified foods (GE) but they did not explain how? Did they assess participants' knowledge after providing the information? when we assess consumers' perceptions toward uncommon products, we should verify consumers' knowledge and correct the gap before assessing purchase intentions.

Author Response

The authors reported that they ensured that participants understood the information provided about genetically modified foods (GE) but they did not explain how? Did they assess participants' knowledge after providing the information? when we assess consumers' perceptions toward uncommon products, we should verify consumers' knowledge and correct the gap before assessing purchase intentions.

---Thank you for your kind clarification. I amended the text where I mistakenly wrote "genetically modified food" instead of "genome-edited food."

We sincerely appreciate your valuable input regarding participants' knowledge of GE foods. However, we would like to clarify that we did not assess their knowledge but rather gathered self-assessments of their understanding. 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 understanding of GE foods proceeded to respond. We have included this limitation in the manuscript (lines 310-318). We fully acknowledge the importance of conducting a comprehension check on GE foods and selecting respondents who meet the criteria as data samples.

Reviewer 2 Report

dear authors

the paper has significantly improved and is ready for publishing.

I have only one point that I consider that you see: 

lines 61-62:

"Before stating the hypotheses development below, the main concepts are introduced below."

you have two-times "below" in the same sentence.

I would suggest the first "below" be deleted and leave the second

or

leave the first and instead of the second "below"  use "as follows" or "following" or something like that

I hope that this comment will help your paper

and thank you for this interesting paper

Author Response

lines 61-62:

"Before stating the hypotheses development below, the main concepts are introduced below."

you have two-times "below" in the same sentence.

I would suggest the first "below" be deleted and leave the second, Or leave the first and instead of the second "below" use "as follows" or "following" or something like that I hope that this comment will help your paper and thank you for this interesting paper

---Thank you for your kind advise. We amended the second “below” to “as follows”.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should include all the explanations provided in the manuscript. "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 understanding of GE foods proceeded to respond. We have included this limitation in the manuscript (lines 310-318). We fully acknowledge the importance of conducting a comprehension check on GE foods and selecting respondents who meet the criteria as data samples."

Author Response

Thank you for the kind suggestion. The statement of samples was added in the manuscript (lines 159-161).