ArticlePloS one2015
Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers' Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice?
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of attitudes towards genetically modified food among young adults and their referent persons.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Engineering glyphosate tolerance in sugarcane through overexpression of a mutated version of its nativeGM crops & food · 2026Article
- Fructans and Fructooligosaccharides in Plants and Fruits: Metabolism, Functional Roles, and Emerging Biotechnological Opportunities.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- From Blog to lab: testing messages to shift public opinion on gene editing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Exploring the landscape of public attitudes towards gene-edited foods in Japan.Breeding science · 2024Article
- Dually biofortified cisgenic tomatoes with increased flavonoids and branched-chain amino acids content.Plant biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Breeding by intervening: Exploring the role of associations and deliberation in consumer acceptance of different breeding techniques.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Article
- Applications of Genomic Tools in Plant Breeding: Crop Biofortification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Review
- Gene-Edited Meat: Disentangling Consumers' Attitudes and Potential Purchase Behavior.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Novel and emerging biotechnological crop protection approaches.Plant biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Perception of genetically engineered crops in Paraguay.GM crops & food · 2021Article
- All Plant Breeding Technologies Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others: The Case of GM and Mutagenesis.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Biotechnological Approaches: Gene Overexpression, Gene Silencing, and Genome Editing to Control Fungal and Oomycete Diseases in Grapevine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit-Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Information and order of information effects on consumers' acceptance and valuation for genetically modified edamame soybean.PloS one · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable--sexually compatible--plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers' WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant's own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers' eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.