As the Florida citrus industry continues its fight against the deadly citrus greening disease, scientists are exploring genetic editing and CRISPR technology as potential solutions.
But while biotechnologies show promise in battling citrus greening, there’s another battle — in the court of consumer perception of gene editing — that must be won first.
Bachir Kassas, an assistant professor of food and resource economics at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, has been conducting ongoing research to assess consumer acceptance of CRISPR biotechnology and genetic modification.
While CRISPR and genetic modification are both types of gene editing, there are key differences in the biotechnology, says Kassas. CRISPR allows scientists to modify DNA by cutting sections of the genetic code to remove, add or alter genes with the goal, in this case, to make citrus trees more disease-resistant or improve the taste of fruit. Whereas in genetic modification, scientists can modify crops and other organisms by taking genes from one species and inserting them into another to achieve similar goals.
As a behavioral economist, Kassas studies consumer behavior — with a specific emphasis on consumer preferences for products and product labeling, health-related decisions and social behaviors — to help explain and even predict consumer decisions.
In 2021, he conducted USDA-funded focus groups in New York City and Jacksonville, Fla., to assess consumer awareness and acceptance of gene editing.
Through these focus groups, “we learned that everybody knew what GMO was and everybody had negative impressions about GMO,” Kassas said. “The consumers in the focus group thought GMOs were driven by profit and there was no benefit to the consumer.”
They also learned that consumers don’t know the difference between gene editing and genetic modification.
“Nobody knew that CRISPR even existed as a technology for gene editing,” he said. “They all thought it was something in their refrigerator. So, in those focus groups, we also had them watch an animated video that explained the difference between GMO and CRISPR in a simplified way.
“Surprisingly, even after watching the video, more than 80% of the participants in those focus groups still did not know the difference between CRISPR and GMO,” Kassas said.
UF/IFAS also conducted three nationally representative online surveys of approximately 2,000 people per survey to assess behavioral factors like perception, attitudes, valuations, acceptance and willingness to buy orange juice made from CRISPR-edited and genetically modified citrus.
“Interestingly, GMO was discounted almost twice as much as CRISPR,” Kassas said. “If I remember correctly, the discount for GMO was around $3 and the discount for CRISPR was around $1.50 per carton of orange juice. So, this also gave us hope that CRISPR might fare better in the marketplace than GMO.”
Florida citrus in crisis
Florida has been struggling with citrus greening since 2005, when it was first discovered. “It spreads through groves like wildfire,” said Kassas, reducing the quality of the fruit, reducing yields and eventually killing the plant.
In 2022, the USDA estimated that citrus greening disease — also known as huanglongbing or HLB — had reduced Florida citrus production by 75% and more than doubled production costs. Multiple hurricanes have further hindered production.
“Florida was the flagship state for citrus, and it’s not anymore because of its struggle with [citrus greening] for two decades,” Kassas said. “Now, the entire industry is at stake. If a solution is not provided soon, the entire industry is at risk of shutting down.”
Consumer acceptance is critical
While scientists see CRISPR technology and genetic modification as possible solutions to Florida’s citrus industry crisis, educating consumers will be critical to success in the marketplace.
“CRISPR and GMO are very promising approaches to hopefully resolve the citrus greening issue and breed either tolerance or hopefully resistance,” Kassas said. “[But] for that to be a viable solution though, the marketing side is equally important.
“It’s one thing to develop the varieties that will help you circumvent citrus greening, but if people will not buy these varieties, then we didn’t really solve the problem [in a way that will allow] stakeholders to still sell their produce,” he continued. “So, for us to have a viable solution, we need to be able to market it. We need to make sure that it’s profitable for the stakeholders.”
Kassas says the university’s previous research further found that certain kinds of messaging were effective in increasing acceptance for CRISPR. Specifically, positively framed information was more effective than when it was negatively framed.
“Efficient educational and marketing campaigns are critical to the successful commercialization of CRISPR food products, especially given the resistance genetically modified foods have faced in the market,” he said.
Next up: Neuromarketing
This summer, Kassas and his team are planning to conduct a neuromarketing experiment in Gainesville, Fla., the results of which will inform messaging around CRISPR and GMOs with the goal of improving consumer perception and acceptance of biotechnology.
“The idea is to test different formats of informational message to see what the most effective way is of communicating with consumers to improve acceptance and increase willingness to pay for products made from gene edited citrus,” Kassas said.
Through previous work, Kassas and team have found that a positive lens works best, highlighting CRISPR’s benefits to fighting world hunger, increasing fruit quality and production, and so on. The researchers also found that providing additional information on gene editing and debunking myths were helpful in reaching consumers.
The Gainesville experiment will tackle this study from a neuroeconomics perspective or approach, says Kassas. “We want to see how people consume information, how that information manifests in the brain and then how it would be translated into decisions and preferences later.
“We’re looking at different ways to communicate with people, and we’re looking at what is the most effective way to help them understand how useful this technology might be for the economy, for sustainability, even for them to get the products that meet their demands and preferences,” he added.
Without consumer buy-in, it may not matter how effective gene editing is in the fight against citrus greening.
“For us to have a viable solution, we need to be able to market it,” Kassas said. “We need to make sure that it’s profitable for the stakeholders. That’s how important it is to raise awareness and hopefully improve acceptance.”
