South African Consumer Attitudes Towards Plant Breeding Innovation

Abstract

South Africa’s bioeconomy strategy identifies bio-innovation as a key driver of economic growth and social development, with plant breeding playing a central role in improving food security through the development of high-yielding, resilient, and high-quality crops. However, consumer perceptions of recent advances, particularly new breeding techniques (NBTs), remain underexplored. This study examines South African consumer attitudes towards plant breeding innovations, using a mixed-methods approach. The initial focus group interviews informed the development of a structured quantitative survey examining familiarity, perceptions, and acceptance of plant breeding technologies. Consumer awareness of plant breeding principles was found to be limited, with 67–68% of respondents unfamiliar with both conventional and modern plant breeding procedures. Despite this information gap, consumers expressed conditional support for modern breeding techniques, especially when associated with actual benefits like increased nutritional value, environmental sustainability, and crop resilience. When favourable effects were outlined, support for general investment in modern breeding practices climbed from 45% to 74%. Consumer purchase decisions emphasised price, product quality, and convenience over manufacturing techniques, with sustainability ranked last among the assessed factors. Trust in the sources of food safety information varied greatly, with medical experts and scientists being ranked highly, while government sources were viewed more sceptically. The results further suggest that targeted education could improve customer confidence, as there is a significant positive association (R² = 0.938) between familiarity and acceptance. These findings emphasise the significance of open communication strategies and focused consumer education in increasing the adoption of plant breeding breakthroughs. The study offers useful insights for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders working on engagement strategies to facilitate the ethical growth and application of agricultural biotechnology in support of food security and quality in South Africa. This study contributes to a better understanding of South African consumers’ perceptions of plant breeding innovations and food safety. The research findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders in developing effective engagement and communication strategies that address consumer concerns and promote the adoption of products derived from diverse plant breeding technologies.

1. Introduction

South Africa’s National Bioeconomy Strategy, launched in 2014, outlines the country’s vision for leveraging bio-innovation to drive economic growth and social development [1]. Positioned at the intersection of science, sustainability, and socio-economic advancement, the bioeconomy has the potential to enhance livelihoods, foster inclusive innovation, and make meaningful contributions to achieving national growth and development goals, as well as achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Realising these benefits, however, depends on developing the technical, institutional, and governance capacities that are required for implementation, as well as ensuring public awareness, participation, and acceptance [2].

A central pillar of the bioeconomy is agricultural innovation, particularly in plant breeding. With millennia of history alongside rapid, recent advancements, plant breeding remains vital for addressing global challenges such as food insecurity, climate change, and environmental degradation [3,4]. South Africa’s commitment to eradicating hunger and promoting sustainable agriculture, a policy in line with SDG 2, positions plant breeding as a strategic component within the national bioeconomic agenda [2]. Emerging tools, such as bioinformatics, artificial intelligence, and new breeding techniques (NBTs), including genome editing, gene stacking, and cisgenesis, offer the transformative potential to improve crop productivity, resilience, and nutritional quality. However, the success of these innovations is contingent not only on scientific progress but also on societal acceptance and ethical alignment [5,6].

Despite global efforts to understand public perceptions of genetically based plant breeding innovations, a significant knowledge gap persists in the South African context. Research in other regions has shown that public attitudes are influenced by perceived risks and benefits, ethical considerations, and levels of understanding [7,8,9]. However, in South Africa, little is known about how its consumers perceive NBTs and the broader implications for food production, safety, and the bioeconomy [10].

This study addresses three central research questions:

• What are South African consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards plant breeding innovations, particularly NBTs?
• To what extent are consumers aware of how plant-based food products are developed, and of what factors influence their purchasing decisions?
• How can insights into consumer perceptions inform the development of communication strategies and policy frameworks to support sustainable agricultural innovation?

By exploring these questions, this study aims to fill a critical gap in understanding consumer engagement with plant breeding technologies in South Africa. Ultimately, the objective is to generate evidence-based insights that can inform policy, guide the development of inclusive communication strategies, and support the responsible growth of the bioeconomy through socially aligned innovation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study employed a sequential mixed-methods design, which was conducted in two distinct phases. During the initial qualitative phase, the knowledge and perceptions of South African consumers regarding plant breeding and genetics-based innovations were assessed by focus groups. The insights gained from these discussions informed the development of a structured quantitative survey for the second phase. The overarching aim was to examine consumer attitudes towards plant breeding innovations and related food products, utilising both qualitative depth and quantitative breadth to identify the prevailing patterns and relationships.

2.2. Qualitative Phase: Focus Group Interviews

Focus group interviews were conducted with purposively selected South African consumers to explore their understanding of plant breeding and genetics-based innovation. Three distinct groups were targeted to capture a diversity of views, including millennial mothers, general-outlook consumers, and health-conscious consumers. Each group consisted of 6–8 participants. Interviews took place in Johannesburg from 14 to 17 July 2020. A semi-structured discussion guide facilitated open-ended dialogue, encouraging participants to share their knowledge, attitudes, and concerns. The findings from this phase were exclusively used to inform the design and refinement of the subsequent survey instrument, to ensure its relevance and contextual accuracy.

2.3. Quantitative Phase: Population Survey

2.3.1. Sampling Design and Participants

The quantitative phase involved a cross-sectional survey of 314 respondents, recruited through a non-probability convenience sampling method. Trained field agents from a third-party market research organisation approached potential participants at various high-traffic, commercial convergence points in Gauteng, the Western Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal, the three most populous provinces in South Africa. Sampling locations included shopping arcades, public transport hubs, and community centres. These provinces were selected to reflect demographic and socio-economic diversity, as well as logistical accessibility [11].

While convenience sampling allowed for practical data collection, its use limits the generalisability of the findings. As the participants were selected based on availability at specific locations, the sample may not be fully representative of the national population. This limitation is addressed in Section 3, with the suggestion that future research should employ probability sampling for improved representativeness.

Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly maintained, with no personal identifying information being collected.

2.3.2. Survey Instrument and Data Collection Protocol

The survey questionnaire (Annexure 1) was administered through one-on-one interviews conducted by trained field agents in November 2020. The instrument comprised both closed- and open-ended questions. Closed-ended items primarily used five-point Likert scales to assess attitudes, perceptions, and familiarity with plant breeding innovations [12]. The Likert scale ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”, with 3 = “no opinion” serving as a neutral midpoint. Neutral responses were analysed separately to capture ambivalence or uncertainty.

To minimise the priming effects from repetitive content, thematically related questions were deliberately spaced throughout the questionnaire. Data were collected electronically using handheld devices and a standardised digital entry form. Responses were synchronised in real time to a central server, enabling the ongoing monitoring of data quality and completeness. The research team conducted rigorous validation checks before including the final dataset in the analysis.

2.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using Stata software version 14. Descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages were used to summarise the participant characteristics and response distributions for a sample of n = 314 participants. To assess whether there were significant differences in the distribution of responses to a question, a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test was employed, comparing the observed counts to expected equal proportions. Where an overall significant difference was detected (p < 0.05), subsequent pairwise comparisons of the proportions were conducted using two-sample Z-tests. To control for the increased risk of Type I errors due to multiple comparisons, p-values from these pairwise tests were adjusted using the Bonferroni correction method. Due to the ordinal nature of Likert scale-based responses, caution was exercised in interpreting these results.

To compare the distributions of responses between two independent sets of questions (each comprising three or more categorical responses from the same total sample size of n = 314 participants), a chi-squared test for homogeneity was utilised. This test determined if the observed proportions across categories were consistent across the two sets. A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted for all primary tests. The possibility of inflated familiarity scores due to priming effects is acknowledged as a methodological limitation and is discussed in more detail in Section 3. Future research should consider adjustments to account for this bias.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Demographics

Demographic profiling is essential for contextualising consumer responses and identifying potential influences on consumer perceptions of plant breeding innovations. The key demographic variables assessed included geographic distribution, gender, age, race, educational attainment, and gross monthly household income.

The provincial distribution of the respondents reflected proportional representation across the three targeted provinces: 39% resided in the Western Cape, 32% in KwaZulu-Natal, and 29% in Gauteng (Figure 1A). The gender distribution was slightly skewed towards female respondents (55%) compared to males (45%) (Figure 1B). The respondents were broadly distributed across five age categories, ranging from 18 years to over 55 years, with no single age group predominating (Figure 1C).

Racial classification, based on Statistics South Africa’s standard categories, showed that 48% of respondents identified as Black, 26% as White, and 13% each as Coloured and Indian/Asian (Figure 1D). This racial composition is broadly reflective of national demographics, enabling a nuanced interpretation of consumer perspectives across social groupings.

Regarding education, 46% of participants had completed Grade 12, while 34% had some secondary education but did not obtain a matriculation certificate. Higher certificates and diplomas were reported by 12% and 7% of respondents, respectively, and only 1% held a university degree (Figure 1E). Income data revealed that 77% of households earned less than ZAR 20,000 per month (Figure 1F), highlighting the predominance of lower-income groups within the sample, a significant consideration for interpreting value-based decision-making in food purchases.

3.2. Retail Preferences

The respondents identified their primary retailer for purchasing plant-based food products, including fruits, vegetables, and grain products such as bread, pasta, and cereals. Shoprite emerged as the most frequently used retailer (31%), followed closely by Checkers/Checkers Hyper (27%), with Boxer (12%) and Pick n Pay/Pick n Pay Hyper (11%) also featuring prominently (Figure 2A). These retailers are known for their affordability, extensive product offerings, and accessibility to lower-income consumers, thereby aligning with the income distribution observed in the sample (Figure 2B) [13].

The Shoprite Group dominates the South African retail market in terms of scale, reach, and consumer base, operating 2676 stores nationwide. In 2019, supermarkets represented 32.4% of South Africa’s 11,736 formal retail stores. Shoprite led, with 1476 outlets, followed by Pick n Pay (780), Boxer (320), and Checkers (204). Despite variations in store counts, these retailers remain central to food access for most South African consumers.

No respondents (0%) selected informal traders or spaza shops as their primary source of plant-based foods. Informal traders were the second choice for only 4% and the third choice for 7% of respondents. Given that informal retail accounts for approximately 30% of the national consumer goods market and plays a critical role in food security, this result is both surprising and noteworthy [14]. Informal traders are often located in highly accessible areas such as transport hubs and township entry points, offering affordable fruits and vegetables. The preference for formal retailers may reflect consumer perceptions of quality, safety, or reliability that are associated with formal retail environments, particularly among lower-income consumers, who comprised most of the sample (55% earning below ZAR 11,000 and 25% below ZAR 5,500 per month (ZAR 1 ≅ EUR 0.05); Figure 2B). Only 16% of respondents earned above ZAR 20,000, and 7% did not disclose their income.

This income profile reflects broader national trends. According to Statistics South Africa’s 2021 General Household Survey, the majority of South African households fall within low-income brackets and often depend on social grants as a primary income source [15]. These economic constraints likely inform retailer preferences, with affordability and proximity being critical factors in food purchasing decisions.

3.3. Consumer Behaviour When Purchasing Food Products

Factors influencing consumer purchasing decisions were initially identified through focus group interviews and included in the survey to ensure contextual relevance. Respondents rated each factor’s importance using a three-point scale: “important”, “unimportant”, and “neutral”. A substantial proportion (65%) rated all listed factors as “important”. Key considerations included affordability, value for money, promotional offers, product arrangement, and clear “best-before” date labelling.

Respondents demonstrated conceptual awareness of possible distinctions between “natural” and “man-made” foods but exhibited a limited understanding of the actual origins of their fresh produce. Only 13% consistently considered the source of agricultural products, while 35% did so occasionally, and 28% only rarely. A notable 37% indicated a lack of knowledge about how such products are produced or sourced. Further misconceptions were evident regarding how farmers access the crops they grow, with respondents citing “recycled plants”, “chemically created processes”, or “seed suppliers” as possible sources. The “do not know” response rate ranged from 6% to 21% across food origin questions, underscoring significant knowledge gaps regarding agricultural supply chains.

Table 1. Relative importance of the various considerations when purchasing (A) fruits and vegetables or (B) grain products. Data are expressed as the percentage of respondents who consider a particular consideration important or unimportant (n = 314). Key: PF = product features, A = affordability, PP = presentation and packaging, C = choice, S = sustainability. Grey cells = individual considerations with the lowest product feature rating.

A. When Purchasing Fruits and Vegetables				B. When Purchasing Grain Products
Type	Consideration	Important	Unimportant	Type	Consideration	Important	Unimportant
PF	Attractiveness	94%	0%	A	Good value for money	94%	0%
PF	Nutritional value	92%	0%	A	Affordable	93%	1%
PF	In its most natural state	92%	2%	A	Lower prices than other stores	82%	4%
PF	In season	84%	3%	A	Specials/promotions in store	88%	2%
PF	Organic	64%	15%	PP	Labelled with best-before date	93%	1%
A	Affordable	94%	1%	PP	Clear and comprehensive ingredient details that I can check	89%	1%
A	Lower prices than other stores	89%	2%	PP	Clearly labelled with its source (where it comes from)	84%	4%
A	Good value for money	87%	2%	PP	Appealing packaging	81%	6%
A	Specials/promotions	81%	3%	PF	In its natural state	87%	4%
C	My family requested it	87%	2%	PF	Nutritional value	83%	4%
C	Buying what the family enjoys	82%	4%	PF	Non-GMO	67%	11%
C	Preference for a specific variety	77%	6%	C	Familiarity – bought it before and was happy with it	87%	3%
C	Buying the fruits/vegetables that my family enjoys	75%	13%	C	The type of meals that I’ll be making in the future	86%	3%
PP	Pre-packed for convenience	85%	3%	C	My family requested it	86%	2%
PP	Neatly presented	78%	7%	C	Preference for a specific variety, e.g., long vs. short-grain rice	80%	5%
PP	Labelled best before date	76%	11%	C	Preferred brand name	73%	13%
S	Not pre-packed	71%	12%	S	Eco-friendly packaging	78%	6%
S	Eco-friendly packaging	69%	10%

outlines the relative importance of product attributes for purchasing (A) fresh produce and (B) grain-based foods. For fresh fruits and vegetables, the top-ranked factors were “product features” and “affordability”, followed by “choice” and “presentation and packaging” (i.e., PF > A > C > PP > S). For grain products, “affordability” and “presentation and packaging” were prioritised, with lesser emphasis placed on “product features” and “choice” (i.e., A > PP > PF > C > S). In both categories, “sustainability” consistently ranked lowest.

In the context of NBTs, the relatively low prioritisation of “non-GMO” as a product feature for grain products suggests that consumers are more influenced by immediately observable or functional attributes (e.g., price and packaging) than by genetic status or composition. This finding aligns with research on organic food consumption, where perceived quality and freshness often outweigh considerations of production methods [16].

The high proportion of “important” ratings (at least 64%) and low rates of “neutral” responses (5–21%) suggest the potential influence of an acquiescence response bias, where respondents tend to agree with positively framed items, regardless of their actual preferences [17,18,19]. While respondents may broadly affirm the importance of multiple attributes, actual purchasing decisions are more likely governed by a context-specific prioritisation of key factors. For instance, although respondents may express interest in both affordability and quality, their actual willingness to pay a premium will depend on the perceived value of such enhancements. Additionally, social desirability bias may have influenced the respondents’ reluctance to admit uncertainty, particularly for socially valued attributes like sustainability.

These findings highlight the complex interplay of factors that shape consumer decisions and underscore the importance of carefully designed surveys in reducing response bias and uncovering authentic preferences.

3.4. Consumer Familiarity with and Perceptions of Plant Breeding and Associated Technologies

Consumers’ familiarity with and perceptions of plant breeding and associated technologies were examined through various questions, with the aim of understanding how consumers view these concepts and how they may impact their acceptance of plant-based food innovations.

3.4.1. Familiarity with and Perceptions of “Plant Breeding” and “Modern Plant Breeding”

Respondents were first provided with definitions and examples of “plant breeding” and “modern plant breeding” (in this order) and were then asked questions about their familiarity with and perceptions regarding these broad concepts. Associated product examples (seedless grapes and nartjies) were consistent across both definitions to isolate the impact of the breeding approach on consumer responses.

Plant Breeding: “Plant breeding is the practice of selecting and crossing plants to change their characteristics/traits in a specific manner for the greater good. For example, crop plants are bred to allow them to grow better in drought-stricken environments or so that their fruits don’t have any seeds, e.g., grapes or nartjies”.

Modern Plant Breeding: “Modern plant breeding also uses modern scientific methods and biotechnology to make the practice of crossing plants or changing their characteristics/traits quicker and with a greater degree of success. For example, using biotechnology allows crop plants to grow better in drought-stricken environments or ensures that their fruits don’t have any seeds, e.g., grapes or nartjies”.

A significant majority of respondents (>2/3, p < 0.001) were unfamiliar with both these concepts (

Table 2. Levels of familiarity with and perceptions of “plant breeding” and “modern plant breeding” (n = 314).

Rating	Plant Breeding (PB)		Modern Plant Breeding (MPB)
A.  Familiarity	PB vs. MPB familiarity: χ2 = 4.1198, df = 2, p-value = 0.1273
Familiar	11%	χ2 = 158.54	15%	χ2 = 168.32
Neutral	22%	df = 2	17%	df = 2
Unfamiliar	67%	p-value < 0.001	68%	p-value < 0.001
B.  Perception	PB vs. MPB perception: χ2 = 0.6542, df = 2, p-value = 0.721
Positive	40%	χ2 = 9.272	39%	χ2 = 4.783
Neutral	34%	df = 2	32%	df = 2
Negative	26%	p-value = 0.0097	29%	p-value = 0.0914

(A)). While the frequencies of the three perception ratings towards “plant breeding” were significantly different (p < 0.01) and favoured positivity (40%), no statistically significant difference was evident between the three perception ratings for “modern plant breeding” (Table 2 (B)). In addition, no significant differences were evident in the distribution of the ratings for both familiarity with and the perception of “plant breeding” and “modern plant breeding” (Table 2 (A) and (B)). Overall, these results highlight the lack of contextual knowledge among South African consumers and suggest a small but significant negative association with concepts like “modern scientific methods and biotechnology”.

In a subsequent question, respondents were asked, “How likely is it that your knowledge of plant breeding will impact your selection and eating choices of plant-based foods?”, and 50% indicated that they were likely to consider this, while 29% thought it unlikely (p < 0.01). Considering the high rates of unfamiliarity with breeding-associated concepts (see Table 2 and Figure 3 and Figure 4), this is an unexpected result that is indicative of a desire to be able to make informed distinctions, rather than having the ability to do so.

3.4.2. Relationship Between Familiarity and Attitude Towards Plant Breeding-Associated Terminologies

To further investigate consumer understanding and attitudes towards plant breeding and related technologies, respondents were presented with a list of terms (Figure 3), ranging from basic agricultural concepts to more technical scientific terminology, and were asked to rate their familiarity with and general feelings (positive, neutral, or negative) about each term. Commonly recognised terms like “farming” and “natural” elicited high familiarity and positive ratings. Conversely, more technical terms such as “genome”, “genetic engineering”, and “GMO” were frequently reported as unfamiliar and were perceived less positively. A strong positive correlation (R² = 0.938) was observed between familiarity and positivity (Figure 3), indicating that an increased familiarity with a term was generally associated with a more positive attitude.

This finding aligns with the familiarity effect and research on attitudes towards GMOs, which suggests that knowledge can positively influence perception [20,21,22,23,24]. These results underscore the importance of effective science communication and education in fostering positive attitudes towards bio-innovation and its products. Increased familiarity with scientific concepts has the potential to mitigate negative perceptions and promote greater acceptance of emerging technologies [20,21,22].

3.4.3. Relationship Between Familiarity and the Perceived “Naturalness” of Selected Plant Breeding Techniques

As the demand for natural and minimally processed plant-based food increases [22], it is important to understand how perceptions of “naturalness” may impact breeding programs and product development through them. Therefore, the respondents were asked to rate selected breeding techniques in terms of their familiarity and naturalness. “Plant breeding”, the most elementary of the listed techniques, was rated highest for both familiarity and naturalness. However, even for this term, only 43% of respondents considered it natural, while 33% perceived it as unnatural (χ² = 15.56, df = 2, p < 0.001) (Figure 4).

Notably, the proportion of respondents who indicated that they were familiar with the term “plant breeding” increased significantly across the three consecutive questions where it was rated. Initial familiarity was 11% (Table 2), rising to 35% (Figure 3) and then to 49.7% (Figure 4), suggesting a priming effect due to repeated exposure [23].

Two technical terms, “mutagenesis” and “hybridisation”, were introduced in this question and received the lowest scores for familiarity (21% each) and naturalness (27% and 24%, respectively) (Figure 4). No significant correlation was found between apparent familiarity and perceived naturalness (R² = 0.510). Importantly, all the listed breeding techniques, including “traditional breeding” based on natural reproduction, received low ratings for both familiarity (≤50%) and perceived naturalness (≤43%). This finding requires consideration in the context of the strong support for using modern plant breeding techniques to achieve specific goals, as discussed in the next section.

3.4.4. Consumer Support for Using Modern Plant Breeding Techniques in Specific Contexts

To assess respondents’ attitudes towards the potential future use of modern plant breeding techniques, the definition of “modern plant breeding” was repeated, followed by a series of questions probing the use of these techniques within defined contexts.

General investment: Forty-five per cent (45%) of respondents were positive about investing in these technologies to produce new crop varieties, while 27% were negative (χ² = 20.04, df = 2, p < 0.001). A subsequent open-ended question, designed to elicit the reasoning behind these sentiments, revealed a clear divergence in perspectives between these two groups.

Respondents expressing positive sentiments tended to emphasise the potential benefits related to product quality and abundance. Illustrative examples included: “There will be a wider range of foods”, “We might get new and tastier fruits and vegetables”, “There will always be food for people”, and “Plants will grow faster”. The terms “science/scientific” and “modern” were used 62 times by these respondents, consistently using them within a positive context. For instance, respondents stated, “Modern breeding using the modern scientific way lets crops grow much better” and “Modern methods are better and quicker”.

In contrast, respondents expressing negative sentiments focused on concerns related to preserving the perceived naturalness of food, apprehensions about food safety, and uncertainty regarding the processes involved. Illustrative statements included: “I like natural food”, “I believe, to plant, wait, and harvest the natural way. Why change?”, “This will cause cancer”, and “I don’t like things I don’t know”. The terms “science/scientific” and “modern” were used only nine times by these respondents and invariably appeared within a negative context, as exemplified by statements such as “I don’t believe in science” and “I would not use products that have been done through science”.

Breeding outcomes: When the question “Do you feel positive or negative towards the use of modern plant breeding methods?” was repeated, framed within the context of using these methods to achieve specific breeding outcomes, the average positive response increased to 74% (±2.7%) across all seven goals (Figure 5). This represents a 29% increase in support compared to the initial general question, which did not explicitly link the technology to its potential benefits. Breeding goals related to environmental sustainability and tangible product quality (i.e., goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) received the highest and statistically indistinguishable levels of positive support (76 ± 0.9%). The only breeding goal that received less than 70% positive support was goal 5, focusing on “cosmetic traits like colour and size”. This lower support was attributed to a significantly higher percentage of negative perceptions (15%) compared to the average for other breeding goals (7 ± 0.5%). The goal of “Adapting crops to climate change” (goal 6) received slightly less positive support (−4%) than other environmental and yield-related goals, potentially due to the more indirect or less tangible nature of its perceived benefits.

Willingness to buy: Most respondents (55% and 57% for fruits/vegetables and grains/grain products, respectively) indicated that they were likely to purchase plant-based products bred using modern plant breeding methods. They also did not distinguish, in this context, between the two product categories, i.e., fruits/vegetables that are often used fresh vs. grains/grain products that are often processed (χ² = 0.302, df = 2, p = 0.860). Only 24% of respondents (for both categories) indicated that they were unlikely to buy such products.

Beneficiaries: Regarding the primary beneficiaries of newly bred crop varieties (Figure 6), the great majority of respondents (85 ± 4.6% on average) supported the breeding of crops with more desirable traits for consumers, farmers, retailers, and food processors. However, food processors received significantly less support (77%; χ² = 20.67, df = 3, p < 0.001) compared to the other three groups.

Specific traits: Open-ended questions regarding desired improvements in grains, fruits, and vegetables yielded highly variable data. An average of 20% (±2.6%) of respondents could not suggest any improvements and only three specific traits were mentioned by more than 10% of respondents for any single food type (

Table 3. Consumer desires regarding the improvement of (A) individual and (B) related plant-based food traits (n = 314).

Trait	% of Respondents Who Would Improve the Trait
	Grains	Fruits	Vegetables
A. Individual traits
Better taste	1.6	18.2	10.2
More fibre	16.2	0.6	1.3
Improved nutritional value	2.9	10.2	10.5
B. Cumulative totals for related traits
Quality-related (incl. the following terms: quality, taste, size, and shelf-life)	12.1	29.9	19.7
Health-related (incl. the following terms: healthy, nutrition, insecticide, and fibre)	28.0	17.2	18.8
Environmental and production sustainability (incl. the following terms: environment, disease, and yield)	10.5	6.1	8.3
Do not change (incl. the following terms: natural and nothing)	5.4	5.4	5.1

(A)). Desirable traits also varied significantly across the three food types, with improving the taste of fruits and increasing the fibre content of grains being the most frequently mentioned improvements (18.2% and 16.2%, respectively). Overall, quality- and health-related traits were identified as the most desirable types of improvements (Table 3 (B)). Environmental and production sustainability traits were mentioned by an average of only 8.3% (±2.2%) of respondents, and only 5.3% (±0.3%) indicated they would not change anything or preferred food to remain natural.

The data presented here suggest that most South African consumers appreciate the importance of continued innovations in crop- and plant-based food development. They also support the use of modern plant breeding techniques and biotechnology to attain relevant goals that benefit all the stakeholders in the plant-based food value chain. However, this support cannot be interpreted as “unqualified support for modern plant breeding or biotechnology methods”; it must always be interpreted in the context of the intended outcomes, benefits, and beneficiaries.

3.5. Food Safety Information Sources and Perceived Trustworthiness

Understanding where consumers seek food safety information and which sources they trust is critical for plant breeding professionals who aim to communicate effectively about their products. Misinformation and limited public understanding can undermine trust, hinder acceptance, and delay the adoption of innovative agricultural technologies [24,25]. Public scepticism towards GMOs, often driven by inadequate or biased information, illustrates how misinformation can shape consumer attitudes and influence market and policy outcomes [26].

Research indicates that most consumers lack in-depth knowledge of both traditional and modern plant breeding techniques, often relying on oversimplified or inaccurate information from non-scientific sources. This knowledge gap can heighten concerns around food safety, sustainability, and health risks, posing a challenge for the successful adoption of biotechnology-derived products [26,27]. Identifying trusted communication channels and ensuring transparent, accurate messaging about the safety and sustainability of modern plant breeding are, therefore, essential to foster informed consumer decisions.

When asked about their primary food safety information sources, respondents most frequently cited friends and family (40%), followed by the Internet (18%) and magazines (16%) (Figure 7). In contrast, only 9% and 8% mentioned television and food packaging, respectively. These preferences differ markedly from those reported for biotechnology-related information, where respondents favoured television, radio, print media, and the Internet, and showed less reliance on interpersonal sources [28]. This contrast suggests that consumers differentiate between everyday topics, where personal experience and social networks dominate, and technical subjects, which prompt a turn towards mass media or formal information sources.

Social influence, particularly through word-of-mouth discussion among friends and family, plays a significant role in shaping food safety perceptions. Studies have shown that such interpersonal networks often outweigh scientific evidence in terms of guiding consumer attitudes, especially when institutional trust is low or the information is complex or contradictory [29,30,31]. Personal anecdotes and experiences from trusted individuals can create lasting biases against certain technologies, even when a strong scientific consensus affirms their safety [30,31]. In environments where regulatory systems are politicised or science is misrepresented, these biases can fuel persistent scepticism and misinformation.

To assess trust in various information sources, respondents rated 11 human and institutional sources on a three-point scale: “highly trusted”, “somewhat trusted”, and “do not trust” (Figure 8). On average, 35% (±5.6%) of responses across all sources were “somewhat trusted”, reflecting a general ambivalence. Medical doctors, Google searches, industry specialists/experts, and teachers/lecturers were the most trusted, with 60% (±2.8%) rating them as “highly trusted”. However, industry specialists/experts also attracted the highest proportion of “not trusted” responses (13%), 8% above the average for the other three, highlighting a degree of scepticism towards industry-linked expertise.

Scientists, dieticians, and friends/family received “highly trusted” ratings from an average of 49% (±1.0%) of respondents. Among these, scientists also received the highest level of distrust (26%). Journalists and food bloggers were “highly trusted” by 39% and 30%, respectively. Social media sources ranked lower, and trust in the South African Government was particularly poor, with only 5% rating it as “highly trusted” and 61% selecting “not trusted”.

While trust is dynamic and context-sensitive, international studies suggest a consistent hierarchy: medical professionals typically rank highest (75–85%), followed by scientists (65–80%), dieticians (60–75%), government agencies (40–60%), and industry sources (25–45%) [30,31,32]. Although the results of this study broadly align with these trends, key distinctions emerge. The combined “highly” and “somewhat trusted” rating of 87% for “industry specialists/experts” may reflect the respondents’ focus on expertise rather than institutional affiliation, suggesting that South African consumers may be less sceptical of industry involvement than those in other regions [31]. Nevertheless, the widespread distrust in government bodies as a source of food safety information likely reflects broader public dissatisfaction with South African governmental institutions during the survey period. This trend mirrors global patterns, where governments are often perceived as less credible providers of technical or scientific information [31,33].

Interestingly, the respondents expressed significantly more trust in information obtained through Google searches than in other online sources, including blogs and social media, an observation that is consistent with international findings [34]. However, this reliance on self-directed searching introduces the risk of confirmation bias, where users prioritise information that aligns with their existing beliefs. Conversely, unsolicited content is often viewed more sceptically, due to perceptions of self-interest or promotion. These nuances highlight the importance of promoting media literacy and critical evaluation across platforms to mitigate bias and foster informed engagement with digital information.

In conclusion, trust in food safety information among South African consumers is complex and is shaped by both source credibility and personal relevance. Professionals involved in modern plant breeding must leverage trusted channels and clear, accessible communication strategies to address misconceptions and promote consumer confidence in food innovations.

4. Conclusions

This study examined South African consumers’ perceptions and preferences regarding plant breeding innovations and related food products. The findings indicate that while affordability, convenience, and nutritional value are key drivers of food choice, consumers generally have limited knowledge of food production methods. Although purchasing decisions for plant-based foods are shaped by a range of considerations, including individual preferences and situational factors, a nuanced but often superficial understanding of production techniques persists.

A key insight is the disconnect between consumers’ broad support for innovation in plant-based food development and their limited awareness of the specific plant breeding techniques involved. Despite their low levels of familiarity, the respondents expressed conditional support for modern breeding and biotechnological approaches, particularly when the potential benefits, outcomes, and beneficiaries were clearly communicated. A strong positive correlation between familiarity and favourable perception suggests that increasing public awareness may reduce resistance to these innovations.

The study also revealed a notable tension between the consumers’ stated preference for “natural” foods and their perceptions of plant breeding techniques. All techniques, including those relying on natural reproductive processes, received relatively low ratings for “naturalness”, indicating a disconnect between scientific definitions and consumer interpretations. Moreover, the participants prioritised consumer-facing attributes such as taste and nutritional value over sustainability and production concerns, suggesting that products offering clear personal benefits may be more readily accepted, even when produced using advanced breeding technologies.

Word-of-mouth and online sources emerged as key channels for food safety information, with healthcare professionals, industry experts, and self-directed online searches ranked as the most trusted sources. This highlights the potential of these actors and platforms to serve as credible conduits for improving public understanding of food technologies.

The primary strength of this study lies in its contextual focus on consumer attitudes towards agricultural innovation in South Africa. However, the use of non-probability convenience sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should prioritise probability-based sampling to better capture nationally representative consumer insights. Further investigations are also needed to explore the complex relationship between perceived “naturalness” and technology acceptance, assess the effectiveness of targeted communication strategies, and examine the roles of cultural context and institutional trust in shaping consumer responses. Addressing these areas will support a more informed public discourse and enable the responsible development and adoption of plant breeding innovations.