ArticlePloS one2024
A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Acceptance of Genome-Edited Crops and Foods: The Role of Trust, Attitudes, and Perceived Literacy in Italy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Consumer choices regarding genome-edited food crops: lessons from Japan.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Article
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9 have been developed in the last decade and have been applied to new food technologies. Genome-edited food (GEF) is a crucial issue with those new food technologies. Thus, each country has established GEF governance systems to maximize benefits and minimize risks. These emphasize the importance of communicating about GEF to the public. The key concerns are understanding various viewpoints and value perspectives (framings) in science and technology and encouraging and opening communication with the public. Thus, it is essential to understand differences between the public and experts' interests and discuss various framings and effective communication with regard to GEF. Accordingly, this study involved administering a questionnaire to analyze the public's attitudes in Japan and identify gaps between these and expert opinions on GEF. A total of 4000 responses from the public and 398 responses from GEF experts were collected. The study found that the Japanese public has a "wait-and-watch" attitude toward GEF, and the demand for basic information on it is quite high. Moreover, they are apprehensive about proper risk governance systems for GEF. This is despite experts' emphasis on the adequacy of the mechanism, necessity of technology, and trust in the scientific community. Understanding gaps between the public and experts' opinions on and interests in GEF provides essential insight for effective communication and acts as the basis for appropriate governance of emerging science and technology.
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.