Beyond the Hype: Stakeholder Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering for Sustainable Food Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the application of genetic engineering (GE) and nanotechnology (nano) in sustainable food production. Through 42 experts, three GE cases and three nano cases were evaluated across 10 dimensions including environmental, economic, and social sustainability. It was found that nano products generally outperformed GE products in all dimensions, and the 10 sustainability dimensions showed a strong positive correlation. The paper systematically analyzed experts' evaluations of the sustainability of these two technologies, revealed the importance of stakeholder perspectives in technology assessment, and provided an important basis for responsible innovation and technology governance in the agrifood sector. However, there are two issues that require further elaboration:

1.The small sample size (42 participants) and insufficient representation from government sectors may limit the generalizability of the results. The potential impact of sample bias on the conclusions should be further explained in the discussion. 

2. The paper only focuses on U.S. stakeholders and lacks cross-country or cross-cultural comparisons. The geographical limitations of the research conclusions should be clearly pointed out.

Author Response

Comments 1: The small sample size (42 participants) and insufficient representation from government sectors may limit the generalizability of the results. The potential impact of sample bias on the conclusions should be further explained in the discussion. 

Response 1: Thank you for raising this important point. We agree that the sample size and limited representation from the government sector are noteworthy limitations. In response, we have added a paragraph under “Sample Composition” in the methods section (lines 325-330) that directly addresses sample size and sectoral distribution, providing readers with a clearer understanding of the participant pool before they read our findings. We also better contextualized the impact of sample size and composition on the transferability of results in the Discussion section (lines 853-866). Specifically, we acknowledge that while the sample is comparable in size to similar studies, the lower number of government-affiliated participants and the broader orientation toward stakeholders with biotechnology expertise may underrepresent more critical or skeptical views (lines 855-862). We also note that although these factors may limit generalizability, we mitigated their effects by incorporating open-ended responses and triangulating across quantitative and qualitative data to strengthen the credibility of findings (lines 624-627).

Comments 2:  The paper only focuses on U.S. stakeholders and lacks cross-country or cross-cultural comparisons. The geographical limitations of the research conclusions should be clearly pointed out.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the geographic scope of our study, as this factor greatly contextualizes the findings of the study. We see the choice to focus on U.S. stakeholders (also as this study was supported by funding from the US Department of Agriculture, USDA) as both a strength and a limitation; however, as your comment points out, we did not make this clear in our original submission.

To address your point, we have clarified in the second paragraph of the introduction (lines 62-66) the reasoning behind the U.S.-based lens and stakeholder selection. In other places in the Introduction (line 105) and Conclusion (lines 930-931), we clarified the U.S. focus to remind readers of this lens. We also added several sentences in the “Sample Composition” section of the Methods (lines 337-343) explaining the focus on U.S.-based stakeholders and the benefits and drawbacks that came with that choice. Finally, we clarify in the discussion that while this U.S. focus allowed for in-depth engagement with domestic regulatory, cultural, and market contexts, it also limits the applicability of our findings in global settings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study by focusing on how expert stakeholders evaluate the sustainability of genetically engineered (GE) and nanotechnology-based (nano) agri-food products, the research provides valuable insight into the intersection of technology, sustainability, and societal values. However, despite its strengths, the manuscript has several structural and content-related shortcomings that should be addressed to improve its clarity and impact. These include:

1. Please list the keywords in alphabetical order. Avoid repeating the title of the article.

2. Lines 62–67 in the introduction should be expanded to include the perspectives of Europe and Asia on this issue.

3. In the introduction, the most relevant and recent scientific studies on the research topic are typically reviewed. The separate section titled 2. Literature Review should be merged into the introduction and reorganized to highlight the core research idea, the problem addressed, the need for this study, and how it fits within the broader research field.

4. Please standardize the caption and labeling of Figure 1.

5. The manuscript places considerable emphasis on the analysis of other research studies, which makes its structure resemble more that of a review article. Therefore, the structure should be standardized to align with that of a typical research paper.

6. The conclusion section should be rewritten to clearly highlight the main findings of the study, rather than continuing the discussion.

7. The amount of self-citation must be reduced.

Author Response

Comments 1:  Please list the keywords in alphabetical order. Avoid repeating the title of the article.

Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have reordered the keywords alphabetically and revised them to avoid repeating terms from the title and to improve clarity and precision.

Comments 2: Lines 62–67 in the introduction should be expanded to include the perspectives of Europe and Asia on this issue.

Response 2: We appreciate this comment and agree that broader international perspectives are important, as the adoption and assessment of innovations are greatly shaped by national and international contexts and can vary across countries and regions. Our study was designed specifically to assess the views of U.S.-based stakeholders, also supported by funding from the USDA. For this reason, we do not expand more broadly into European or Asian contexts in this manuscript.

To address your comment and clarify this U.S.-based focus for readers (which we recognize is both a strength and weakness of our study), we added explanatory text across the paper. In the Introduction (lines 62–66), we added text to frame the reasoning behind our choice of U.S. stakeholders early on. In the Methods (“Sample Composition,” lines 337–343), we added details about the U.S. focus of the study, as well as the benefits and tradeoffs that came with this focus on U.S. stakeholders. In the Discussion (lines 862–865), we reemphasize that our findings are situated within the U.S. regulatory and cultural landscape, and that perceptions of sustainability may differ considerably across global contexts, warranting future research pursuing this comparison. Additionally, we made sure to highlight the U.S. focus of our study wherever we summarized main findings, including line 105 in the Introduction and lines 930-931 in the Conclusion.

Comments 3: In the introduction, the most relevant and recent scientific studies on the research topic are typically reviewed. The separate section titled 2. Literature Review should be merged into the introduction and reorganized to highlight the core research idea, the problem addressed, the need for this study, and how it fits within the broader research field.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion—it has been one of the most thought-provoking points of all the reviews we received! While we understand the reasoning behind merging the sections to make the paper conform better to the traditional outline of a research article, we believe there to be great benefit in retaining a separate, carefully organized Literature Review section. Our study (and resulting research article) is highly interdisciplinary, spanning stakeholder engagement, sustainability perceptions, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering—often distinct fields that may not all be familiar to every reader (this is something we realized when carrying out the study, as well: stakeholders may be experts in genetic engineering, or nanotechnology, or agrifoods, or sustainability, but rarely were they deeply familiar with all four domains). By providing abbreviated literature reviews of each domain in a dedicated section that is separate from the broader introduction, we allow readers to more easily locate and engage with the background information most relevant to their needs. That said, we will defer to the journal’s editorial preference and are prepared to integrate the literature review into the introduction if required by the editor.

Comments 4: Please standardize the caption and labeling of Figure 1.

Response 4: Thank you for catching this. We have reformatted Figure 1 and its caption in accordance with the journal’s template for multi-panel figures.

Comments 5: The manuscript places considerable emphasis on the analysis of other research studies, which makes its structure resemble more that of a review article. Therefore, the structure should be standardized to align with that of a typical research paper.

Response 5: We appreciate this comment and understand the concern. Our intention was to balance original research findings with sufficient background context, particularly given the interdisciplinary nature of the work. Because our methods build upon emerging approaches in sustainability assessment and stakeholder engagement, we believe that situating our work within these multiple literatures is essential for interpretability and impact. We view this paper as an original research article, but one that seeks to advance broader dialogue in related fields. We hope this structure makes the work more accessible to diverse readers, and we are happy to make additional adjustments if recommended by the editors.

Comments 6: The conclusion section should be rewritten to clearly highlight the main findings of the study, rather than continuing the discussion.

Response 6: We agree with this point. In response, we revised the second half of the Conclusion (lines 942–950) to highlight the main empirical findings and contributions of the study in a more direct and concise manner. We moved the broader implications for responsible innovation to the end of the Discussion section (lines 909–926) to avoid overlap between these sections.

Comments 7: The amount of self-citation must be reduced.

Response 7: Thank you for raising this concern. We reviewed all self-citations and removed those that could be replaced with more recent literature from other scholars. In cases where we retained citations to our own prior work, we did so because they are either directly foundational to this study or represent unique contributions to the field that we were unable to find elsewhere. For example, citation 30 reports on a prior stakeholder survey conducted by our research team that directly informed the sustainability framework used in this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study begins from the perspective of STS and uses multi-dimensional evaluations by 42 cross-domain experts to empirically reveal the realistic picture of nano-agricultural technology generally superior to genetic engineering in terms of sustainability cognition. Its contribution lies in shifting the responsible innovation framework from the “technology-risk” paradigm to the “technology-value-governance” paradigm, emphasizing the weight of social ethics, fairness and collective well-being in the evaluation of emerging agricultural technologies, and providing policy makers with feasible paths for early intervention, differentiated regulation and stakeholder consultation. My opinion is minor revisions.

 

1.The government representatives in the stakeholder sample were only 2, which was not enough to reflect the regulatory perspective, and it was recommended to increase.

2.There is a double imbalance between species and product type in case selection. The Q method should be used in the supplementary material to evaluate the impact of case representativeness on the robustness of the conclusion, or clearly state the external validity boundary.

3.The "Public Perception" section mainly quotes research before 2015 and recommends inclusion in the research situation in recent years.

4.The discussion section mentions that “responsible innovation requires early intervention in TRL3-6”, but no operational templates for how to embed ELSI evaluation are given.

Author Response

Comments 1: The government representatives in the stakeholder sample were only 2, which was not enough to reflect the regulatory perspective, and it was recommended to increase.

Response 1: We appreciate this comment and fully agree that the regulatory perspective is important. During the recruiting process, we contacted a relatively proportional number of stakeholders from each sector (including government) to try to ensure no one sector was over or underrepresented. However, response rates from government representatives were significantly lower than the other sectors. As we did not wish to exclude any willing participants, and we could not find additional willing regulatory representatives, we had to continue with a disproportionately small amount of government representatives.

In response to your comment, we have taken steps to clearly acknowledge and contextualize this limitation. Specifically, we added a paragraph under “Sample Composition” (lines 332–337) that outlines the sectoral distribution and limited government participation, and we highlight its implications for generalizability in the Discussion (lines 855-862).

Comments 2: There is a double imbalance between species and product type in case selection. The Q method should be used in the supplementary material to evaluate the impact of case representativeness on the robustness of the conclusion, or clearly state the external validity boundary.

Response 2: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We aimed to select a diverse set of case studies across technology type (nano vs GE), organism (plant vs animal), and application (e.g., vaccines, coatings, nutrient delivery), but acknowledge that it is possible that other case combinations could yield different results; in fact, we believe a key output of our research is a replicable way to test sustainability perceptions of many products (see paragraph beginning with line 888 and lines 953-955).

While we did not use Q methodology, we performed a preliminary test to compare average sustainability ratings across plant- and animal-based cases and found no significant differences (see the table below). We have chosen not to include these results in the Supplementary Material unless requested by the editor, as we do not think they are meaningful enough to warrant a full discussion in the paper:

	Summary of Sentiments
	Sustainable	Neutral	Unsustainable
Animal avg	50%	39%	11%
Plant avg	51%	38%	12%

 

To address your point, text in the Discussion (lines 866–876) references the boundaries of external validity and acknowledging that our findings should be interpreted in light of the particular cases included in the study.

Comments 3: The "Public Perception" section mainly quotes research before 2015 and recommends inclusion in the research situation in recent years.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the Literature Review to include more recent publications that address public perceptions of nano and GE in agrifoods, including work by Gómez-Llorente et al. (2022), Liu et al. (2022), Wozniak-Gientka et al. (2022), and Kato-Nitta et al. (2022). We believe the addition of these references strengthens the relevance and timeliness of our framing.

Comments 4: The discussion section mentions that “responsible innovation requires early intervention in TRL3-6”, but no operational templates for how to embed ELSI evaluation are given.

Response 4: We appreciate this observation and agree that concrete guidance for embedding ELSI within TRLs is a crucial area for future work. However, developing a full operational framework for such integration is beyond the scope of the current study, which focuses on stakeholder perceptions of sustainability. To clarify the current state of research in this area, we added a sentence in the Discussion (lines 850-852) that elaborates on Trump et al.’s suggestions for how to implement ELSI evaluations into both basic research stages and advanced research stages in the TRL pipeline.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

line 457- name of the species in italic

Make the limitations part different in order to be easier to follow. Explain in more details how the number and sector affects your study and how do you consider the results could be in other countries from Europe or Asia (based on literature).

A study with a broader specter for stakeholders would be amazing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: line 457- name of the species in italic

Response 1: Corrected! Thank you for pointing this out.

Comments 2: Make the limitations part different in order to be easier to follow. Explain in more details how the number and sector affects your study and how do you consider the results could be in other countries from Europe or Asia (based on literature).

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, we revised the limitations discussion throughout the manuscript for improved clarity and emphasis. In particular, we now more explicitly describe how the small sample size and sectoral imbalance—especially the limited government representation—may influence interpretation of the results (see “Sample Composition,” lines 332–336 and Discussion, lines 854–861). We also address the U.S.-only scope of the study, including a new sentence emphasizing the impact of cultural values, regulatory frameworks, and national priorities on innovations (lines 62–66), an explanation in the Methods as to why we considered U.S. stakeholders specifically (lines 337-343), and an expanded discussion that considers how cultural and regulatory differences might affect sustainability perceptions in other countries (lines 862–866). We agree that a future study with a broader international sample would greatly enrich this field of inquiry and have noted this in our suggestions for future research.

Comments 3: A study with a broader specter for stakeholders would be amazing.

Response 3: We couldn’t agree more with this point!! A future study with a broader international sample would greatly enrich this field of inquiry and have noted this in our suggestions for future research.