Abstract:Genetic modification has been used to create dairy cattle without horns and with increased resistance to disease; applications that could be beneficial for animal welfare, farm profits, and worker safety. Our aim was to assess how different stated purposes were associated with public attitudes toward these two applications using a mixed methods approach. Using an online survey, U.S. participants were randomly assigned to one of ten treatments in a 2 (application: hornless or disease-resistant) x 5 (purposes: improved animal welfare, reduced costs, increased worker safety, all three purposes, or no purpose) factorial design. Each participant was asked to read a short description of the assigned treatment (e.g. hornlessness to improve calf welfare) and then respond to a series of questions designed to assess attitude toward the treatment using 7-point Likert scales (1 = most negative; 7 = most positive). Responses of 957 participants were averaged to creative an attitude construct score. Participants were also asked to explain their response to the treatment. Qualitative analysis of these text responses was used to identify themes associated with the participants' reasoning. Participant attitudes were more favorable to disease resistance than to hornlessness (mean ± SE attitude score: 4.5 ± 0.15 vs. 3.7 ± 0.14). In the 'disease-resistance' group participants had more positive attitudes toward genetic modification when the described purpose was animal welfare versus reduction of costs (contrast = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.12-1.88). Attitudes were less favorable to the 'hornless' application if no purpose was provided versus when the stated purpose was either to improve animal welfare (contrast = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.26-1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.19-1.58). Similarly, attitudes were less positive when the stated purpose was to reduce costs versus either improving animal welfare (contrast = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.09-1.64) or when all purposes were provided (contrast = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.02-1.56). Quantitative and qualitative analysis indicated that both the specific application and perceived purpose (particularly when related to animal welfare) can affect public attitudes toward genetic modification.

Social acceptance of genetic engineering technology

Consumers' perceptions and acceptance of genome editing in agriculture: Insights from the United States of America and Switzerland

Public attitudes toward the use of technology to create new types of animals and animal products

What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR

Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops

Will Following the Regulatory Script for GMOs Promote Public Acceptance of Gene-Edited Crops?

Public Perceptions of Agri-Food Applications of Genetic Modification - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle

Social Acceptance for Commercialization of Genetically Modified Food Animals

Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food

Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics

Public attitudes towards genetically modified polled cattle

Using animal history to inform current debates in gene editing farm animals: A systematic review

Transparency in risk-disproportionate regulation of modern crop-breeding techniques

Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan

“Frequently Asked Questions” About Genetic Engineering in Farm Animals: A Frame Analysis

The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China

Supporters or Opponents: Will Cultural Values Shape Consumer Acceptance of Gene Editing?

Ethical Eggs: Can Synthetic Biology Disrupt the Global Egg Production Industry?

An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food

Genome editing in food and agriculture: from regulations to consumer perspectives