Public perception of plant gene technologies worldwide in the light of food security

References

• Ma X, Mau M, Sharbel F. Genome editing for global food security. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(2):123–27. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.08.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO Report. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021 report; 2021: 11. Accessed 2022 Feb 1. https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2021/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Metje-Sprink J, Sprink T, Hartung F. Genome edited plants in the field. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;61:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2019.08.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F2F strategy. A FARM TO FORK STRATEGY for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Document 52020DC0381. COM; 2020. 381 final. Brussels. 2020. Accessed 2022 Feb 23. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381
   Google Scholar
• Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgment in case C-528/16 confédération paysanne and others v Premier minister and Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt. Court of Justice of the European Union; 2018. Accessed 2022 Feb 16. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?%20text=&docid=204387&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first%20&part=1&cid=10652372
   Google Scholar
• EC study. EC study on new genomic techniques. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jan 1. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology/ec-study-new-genomic-techniques_en
   Google Scholar
• Lema MA. Regulatory aspects of gene editing in Argentina. Transgenic Res. 2019;28(S2):147–50. doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00145-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiemann J, Robienski J, Schleissing S, Spök A, Sprink T, Wilhelm RA. Editorial: plant Genome Editing – policies and Governance. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:284. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Directorate-general for research and innovation. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010). 2010. Publications Office. Accessed 2022 Jul 15. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/97784
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Report: genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. 2016. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evanega S, Conrow J, Adams J, Lynas M. The state of the ‘GMO’debate-toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech? GM Crops Food. 2022;13(1):38–49. doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuschmierz P, Beniermann A, Bergmann A, Pinxten R, Aivelo T, Berniak-Woźny J, Bohlin G, Bugallo-Rodriguez A, Cardia P, Cavadas BF, Cebesoy UB. European first-year university students accept evolution but lack substantial knowledge about it: a standardized European cross-country assessment. Evol: Educ Outreach. 2021;14(1):1–22. doi:10.1186/s12052-021-00158-8.
   Google Scholar
• Beniermann A, Mecklenburg L, Upmeier Zu Belzen A. Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Educ Sci. 2021;11(9):522. doi:10.3390/educsci11090522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobato EJ, Zimmerman C. Examining how people reason about controversial scientific topics. Think Reason. 2019;25(2):231–55. doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1521870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):842–51. doi:10.3945/an.115.008870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubisz P, Dalton G, Majewski E, Pogodzińska K. Facts and Myths about GM food-the case of Poland. Agriculture. 2021;11(8):791. doi:10.3390/agriculture11080791.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woźniak E, Tyczewska A, Twardowski T. A shift towards biotechnology: social opinion in the EU. Trends Biotechnol. 2021;39(3):214–18. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.08.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci. 2004;13(1):55–74. doi:10.1177/0963662504042690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(1):35–54. doi:10.1177/0963662506070159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky S, Oberauer K. Motivated Rejection of Science. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;25(4):217–22. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornsey MJ, Fielding KS. Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist. 2017;72(5):459. doi:10.1037/a0040437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci. 2015;20(7):414–18. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savadori, L, Savio S SL, Nicotra E, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. 2004;24(5):1289–99. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landrum AR, Hallman WK, Jamieson KH. Examining the impact of expert voices: communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environ Commun. 2019;13(1):51–70. doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose KM, Brossard D, Scheufele DAOS. Nature, and health: how perceptions of specific risks and benefits of genetically engineered foods shape public rejection. Environ Commun. 2020;14(7):1017–31. doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1710227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, van den Berg I, Zimmermann KL. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2013;30(2):142–52. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runge KK, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Rose KM, Larson BJ. Attitudes about food and food-related biotechnology. Public Opin Q. 2017;81(2):577–96. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Hesseln H. Regulatory uncertainty around new breeding techniques. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1291. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eurobarometer 52.1.The Europeans and biotechnology. Report by INRA (Europe) – ECOSA on behalf of Directorate-General for Education and Culture Citizens’, Belgium: DG Research, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Eurobarometer 58.0. European and Biotechnology in 2002. EC Directorate Genaral for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society‘. 2003, Belgium: DG Research.
   Google Scholar
• Special Eurobarometer 64.3. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. The European Commission‘s Directorate-General for Research. 2006, Belgium: DG Research.
   Google Scholar
• Special Eurobarometer 73.1. In:Vol. Belgium: TNS Opinion & Social on request of EC; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Special Eurobarometer Wave EB91.3. 2019. Food Safety in the EU. Accessed 2022, Feb 11. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/Eurobarometer2019_Food-safety-in-the-EU_Full-report.pdf (Belgium: EFSA, EU).
   Google Scholar
• Lakomy M, Bohlin G, Hlavová R, Machácková H, Bergman M, Lindholm M. Public attitudes to life sciences research in six European countries. ORION Project Deliverable No. 2.3. 2018. Accessed 2022 Jan 10. https://www.orion-openscience.eu/publications/deliverables/201812/d23-public-attitudes-life-sciences-research-six-european-countries
   Google Scholar
• Norway Report. Norwegian consumers’ attitudes toward gene editing in Norwegian agriculture and aquaculture 2020. Accessed 2022, Jan 01. https://www.bioteknologiradet.no/filarkiv/2020/04/Report-consumer-attitudes-to-gene-editing-agri-and-aqua-FINAL.pdf (Norway: Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board).
   Google Scholar
• van Mill A, Hopkins H, Kinsella S. Potential uses for genetic technologies: dialogue and engagement research conducted on behalf of the Royal Society. Findings Report. 2017. Accessed 2022 Jan 10. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/gene-tech/genetic-technologies-public-dialogue-hvm-full-report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker. 2022. Accessed 2022 July 15. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/
   Google Scholar
• Hunter MC, Smith RG, Schipanski ME, Atwood LW, Mortensen DA. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience. 2017;67(4):386–91. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66428. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyczewska A, Woźniak E, Gracz J, Kuczyński J, Twardowski T. Towards Food security: current state and future prospects of agrobiotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(2):1219–29. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The World Bank Database. Arable land and agricultural land. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 10. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.ZS
   Google Scholar
• Blagoevska K, Ilievska G, Jankuloski D, Dimzoska BS, Crceva R, Angeleska A. The controversies of genetically modified food. Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2021;854:012009. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/854/1/012009.
   Google Scholar
• Cui K, Shoemaker SP. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. Npj Sci Food. 2018;2(1):10. doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gabel I, Moreno J. Genome editing, ethics, and politics. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1105–1110. doi:10.1001/amajethics.2019.1105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ricroch A. Global developments of genome editing in agriculture. Transgenic Res. 2019;28(S2):45–52. doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00133-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth SJ. The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18(4):887–88. doi:10.1111/pbi.13261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit Rev In Biotechnol. 2014;34(1):77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996-2015. GM Crops Food. 2017;8(3):156–93. doi:10.1080/21645698.2017.1317919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giudice G, Moffa L, Varotto S, Cardone MF, Bergamini C, De Lorenzis G, Velasco R, Nerva L, Chitarra W. Novel and emerging biotechnological crop protection approaches. Plant Biotechnol. 2021;19(8):1495–510. doi:10.1111/pbi.13605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Esse HP, Reuber TL, van der Does D. Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytol. 2020;225(1):70–86. doi:10.1111/nph.15967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hefferon KL. Nutritionally enhanced food crops; progress and perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(2):3895–914. doi:10.3390/ijms16023895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karkute SG, Singh AK, Gupta OP, Singh PM, Singh B. CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Genome Engineering for Improvement of Horticultural Crops. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1635. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erpen-DallaCorte L, Mahmoud LM, Moraes TS, Mou Z, W. Grosser J, Dutt M. Development of improved fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops using the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technique. Plants. 2019;8(12):601. doi:10.3390/plants8120601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang T, Zhang C, Zhang H, Zhu H. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing revolutionizes the improvement of horticulture food crops. J Agric Food Chem. 2021;69(45):13260–69. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.1c00104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenke D, Cai D. Applications of CRISPR/Cas to improve crop disease resistance: beyond inactivation of susceptibility factors. iScience. 2020;23(9):101478. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang G, Qin J, Dolnikowski GG, Russell RM, Grusak MA. Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(6):1776–83. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.27119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschi KD. Genetically Modified Plants: nutritious, Sustainable, yet Underrated. J Nutr. 2020;150(10):2628–34. doi:10.1093/jn/nxaa220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo L, Grando MS. Genetically modified plants for nutritionally improved food: a promise kept? Food Rev Int. 2019;36(1):58–76. doi:10.1080/87559129.2019.1613664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISAAA: GM Approval Database. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jan 10. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA brief 55. biotech crops drive socio-economic development and sustainable environment in the New Frontier. 2019. Accessed 2022 Jan 02. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/55/executivesummary/default.asp
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States (USA: USDA). USDA-ERS Economic Research Report. 2014: 162. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.2503388
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA Brief. Breaking barriers with breeding: a primer on new breeding innovations for food security. 2021. Accessed 2022 Feb 10. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/56/download/isaaa-brief-56-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Waltz E. USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(1):12–13. doi:10.1038/nbt0115-12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33(4):326–27. doi:10.1038/nbt0415-326c.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Wilhelm R, Sprink T. Genome edited crops touch the market: a view on the global development and regulatory environment. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:586027. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.586027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltz E. With a free pass, CRISPR-edited plants reach market in record time. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(1):6–7. doi:10.1038/nbt0118-6b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calyxt Inc. First Commercial Sale of Calyxt High Oleic Soybean Oil on the U.S. Market. Minneapolis-St.Paul (MI): Calyxt Inc; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Yield10 Bioscience Inc. Yield10 bioscience obtains positive response from USDA-APHIS on regulated status of its CRISPR genome-edited C3007 trait in Canola; Plans U.SField Tests for 2021 | Yield10 Bioscience, Inc. 2020. Accessed 2021 Oct 12. https://yield10bioscienceinc.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/yield10-bioscience-obtains-positive-response-usda-aphis-0
   Google Scholar
• Abraham L. Health Canada: CFIA approve genetically engineered potato with reduced browning; 2016 [Accessed 2022 Jan 10. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/03/21/health-canada-cfia-approve-genetically-engineered-potato-with-reduced-browning
   Google Scholar
• GM Crop Events approved in Canada. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/approvedeventsin/default.asp?CountryID=CA&Country=Canada
   Google Scholar
• The Government of Canada. The safety of genetically modified (GM) foods. 2022. Accessed 2022 Aug 18. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/safety.html
   Google Scholar
• Health Canada. About novel and genetically-modified (GM) foods. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 15. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods.html
   Google Scholar
• Tracker CGE. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/canada-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• Brazil GE regulation tracker. Brazil: Crops/Food. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jan 02. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/brazil-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• Central America GE regulation tracker. Central America: Crops/Food. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jan 02. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/central-america-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• Argentina GE regulation tracker. Argentina: Crops/Food. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 02. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/argentina-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• Turnbull C, Lillemo M, Hvoslef-Eide TAK. Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom – a review. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12. Doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.630396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Republic of Ecuador Constitution. 2008. Accessed 2022, March 12. https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html (Ecuador: Official Register).
   Google Scholar
• Ecuador GE. Regulation Tracker. Ecuador: Crops/Food. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 10. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/ecuador-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• USDA. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service. Mexico Agricultural Biotechnology. 2021. Annual Report Number: MX2021-003.
   Google Scholar
• Peikes K. The U.S. agriculture secretary says Mexico’s GMO ban won’t hurt corn exports. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jan 01. https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-10-20/the-u-s-agriculture-secretary-says-mexicos-gmo-ban-wont-hurt-corn-exports
   Google Scholar
• Report MON 810. 2021. Annual monitoring report on the cultivation of MON 810 in 2020. Portugal and Spain. Submitted by Bayer Agriculture BV. Accessed 2022 March 15. https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2021-10/gmo_rep-stud_mon-810_report-2020.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA. European commission authorizes 10 GM crops for food and feed. 2021. Accessed 2022 Feb 12. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=18969
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Poveda A, Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá M, Del Campo Gomis FJ. Consumer perception of Gm Foods. Profiles of Potential consumers and non-consumers in Spain. CIACR. 2019;7(3):942–52. doi:10.32474/CIACR.2019.07.000263.
   Google Scholar
• Regulation Tracker NGE. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 15. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/norway-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• UK Statutory Instruments, The genetically modified organisms (Deliberate release) (Amendment) (England) regulations. 2022;. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/347/regulation/2/made (UK: UK Government).
   Google Scholar
• ACRE guidance on genetic technologies that result in ‘qualifying higher plants. Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. 2022. Accessed 2022 July 20. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acre-guidance-on-genetic-technologies-that-result-in-qualifying-higher-plants
   Google Scholar
• Ledford H. New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier. Nature. 2021. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01572-0.
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament. Changing the regulation of certain genetically modified plants: motion not to approve new laws. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 20. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/changing-the-regulation-of-certain-genetically-modified-plants-motion-not-to-approve-new-laws/
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA. UK prepares for field trials of gm and gene-edited Barley. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 10. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=19369
   Google Scholar
• Crop science centre to conduct field trials of genetically modified barley that could reduce need for synthetic fertilisers. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 28. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/crop-science-centre-to-conduct-field-trials-of-genetically-modified-barley-that-could-reduce-need
   Google Scholar
• AATF. TELA Maize variety, a win-win for Nigerian farmers. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 08. https://www.aatf-africa.org/tela-maize-variety-a-win-win-for-nigerian-farmers/
   Google Scholar
• Crop Biotech Update. Nigeria and partners launch bt Cowpea Nutrition Outreach. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 10. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=19178
   Google Scholar
• Guidelines for determining the regulatory process of genome edited organisms and products in Kenya. National Biosafety Authority. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 20. https://www.biosafetykenya.go.ke/images/GENOME-EDITING-GUIDELINES-FINAL-VERSION-25th-Feb-2022-03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Nigeria approved National Biosafety Guideline on Gene Editing. 2021. Accessed 2022 March 20. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/nigeria-government-nigeria-approved-national-biosafety-guideline-gene-editing
   Google Scholar
• Seralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. RETRACTED: long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(11):4221–31. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akinbo O, Obukosia S, Ouedraogo J. Commercial Release of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: interface Between Biosafety Regulatory Systems and Varietal Release Systems. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:314. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.605937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao C. How global debates transformed China’s Agricultural Biotechnology policies. New York: Columbia University Press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jin Y, Drabik D, Heerink N, Wesseler J. Getting an imported GM crop approved in China. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37(6):566–69. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.02.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crop Biotech Update. Japan begins sale of genome-edited ”Madai” Red Sea Bream. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 03. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=19061
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka S, Arai C, Takayama M, Matsukura C, Ezura H. Efficient increase of ɣ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) content in tomato fruits by targeted mutagenesis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):7057. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06400-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GLP. Manipulating plant mitochondrial DNA could boost crop diversity, promote food security. 2019. Accessed 2021 Oct 02. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/07/11/manipulating-plant-mitochondrial-dna-could-boost-crop-diversity-promote-food-security/
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA blog. Philippines approves bt eggplant for direct use as food, feed, or for processing. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 4. https://www.isaaa.org/blog/entry/default.asp?BlogDate=7/23/2021
   Google Scholar
• IRRI. Philippines becomes first country to approve nutrient-enriched “Golden Rice” for planting. 2021. Accessed 2021 Nov 02. https://www.irri.org/news-and-events/news/philippines-becomes-first-country-approve-nutrient-enriched-golden-rice
   Google Scholar
• Shelton AM, Sarwe SH, MdJ H, Brookes G, Paranjape V. Impact of Bt brinjal cultivation in the market value chain in five districts of Bangladesh. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:498. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton AM. Bt eggplant: a personal account of using biotechnology to improve the lives of resource-poor farmers. American Entomologist. 2021;67(3):52–59. doi:10.1093/ae/tmab036.
   Google Scholar
• Countries with GM Crop Approvals. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/countrylist/default.asp
   Google Scholar
• Crop field trial map. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://www.ogtr.gov.au/what-weve-approved/crop-field-trial-map
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt SM, Belisle M, Frommer WB. The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture. EMBO Rep. 2020;21(6):e50680. doi:10.15252/embr.202050680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australia GE Tracker. Australia: Crops/Food 2021. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/australia-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• George J. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing: from cancer treatment to agriculture. 2017. Accessed 2021 Oct 04. https://synbioaustralasia.org/2017/12/21/crispr-cas9-genome-editing-from-cancer-treatment-to-agriculture/
   Google Scholar
• Zealand GE Tracker N. 2022. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/new-zealand-crops-food/
   Google Scholar
• Agricultural biotechnology annual Report 2021, NZ2021–0019. 2021. Accessed 2022 March 31. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Wellington_New%20Zealand_10-20-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fritsche S, Poovaiah C, MacRae E, Thorlby G. A New Zealand perspective on the application and regulation of gene editing. Front Plant Sci. 2018;12(9):1323. doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Macall DM, Hesseln H, Phillips PWB, Smyth SJ. Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion. Transgenic Res. 2019;28(2):247–56. doi:10.1007/s11248-019-00118-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Phillips PWB, Smyth SJ, Hesseln H. Estimating the cost of regulating genome edited crops: expert judgment and overconfidence. GM Crops Food. 2019;10(1):44–62. doi:10.1080/21645698.2019.1612689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Major Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior. 2021. Accessed 2021 Dec 15. https://clootrack.com/knowledge_base/major-factors-influencing-consumer-behavior/
   Google Scholar
• Scott SE, Inbar Y, Wirz CD, Brossard D, Rozin P. An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu Rev Nutr. 2018;38(1):459–79. doi:10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M. The ‘trust gap’ hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal. 2003;23(4):751–66. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden BR, Smyth SJ. Perceptions of genetically engineered technology in developed areas. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37(5):447–51. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard D, Nisbet MC. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res. 2007;19(1):24–52. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley JC, Shanahan J. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci Commun. 2005;26(4):347–67. doi:10.1177/1075547005275443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk J, McFadden RB, Wilson N. Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it? Food Policy. 2018;78:81–90. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen KH, Lassen J, Sandoe P. Genetically modified crops: a US farmer’s versus an EU citizen’s point of view. Acta Agric Scand Sect B-Soil Plant Sci. 2003;53(S1):60–67. doi:10.1080/1659140310015120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolodinsky J, Lusk JL. Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Sci Adv. 2018;4(6):eaaq1413. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaq141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassoued R, Macall DM, Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Hesseln H. Risk and safety considerations of genome edited crops: expert opinion. Curr Res Biotechnol. 2019;1:11–21. doi:10.1016/j.crbiot.2019.08.001.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin BK, Marra MC, Piggott NE. The cost of a GMO-free market basket of food in the United States. AgBioForum. 2015;19:25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Lang JT. Elements of public trust in the American food system: experts, organizations, and genetically modified food. Food Policy. 2013;41:145–54. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Register. National bioengineered food disclosure standard. 2019. Accessed 2021 Dec 01. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard
   Google Scholar
• Shew AM, Nalley LL, Snell HA, Nayga RM, Dixon BL. CRISPR versus GMOs: public acceptance and valuation. Glob Food Secur. 2018;19:71–80. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005.
   Google Scholar
• Evans EA, Ballen FH. 2014. A synopsis of US consumer perception of genetically modified (biotech) crops, University of Florida-IFAS and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University-CAFS Florida Small Farms and Alternative Enterprises Conference, 1-2 August (Florida: IFAS Extention).
   Google Scholar
• Hossain F, Onyango B, Schilling B, Hallman W, Adelaja A. Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetically modified foods. Int J Consum Stud. 2003;27(5):353–65. doi:10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00303.x.
   Google Scholar
• Macall DM, Williams C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. Canadian consumer opinions regarding food purchase decisions. J Agric Food Inf. 2021;3:100098. doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2020.100098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdulkadri A, Pinnock S, Tennant PF. In: USA: AAEA; 2004. Public perception of genetic engineering and the choice to purchase genetically modified food Agricultural and Applied Economics Association AAEA Conference, 1-4 August 2004, Denver. p. 12.
   Google Scholar
• Gatica-Arias A, Valdez M, Arieta-Espinoza G, Albertazzi-Castro FJ, Madrigal-Pana J. Consumer attitudes toward food crops developed by CRISPR/Cas9 in Costa Rica. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2019;139(2):417–27. doi:10.1007/s11240-019-01647-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massarani L, Moreira IDC. Attitudes towards genetics: a case study among Brazilian high school students. Public Underst Sci. 2005;14(2):201–12. doi:10.1177/0963662505050992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinoza-Esquivel AM, Arrieta-Espinoza G. A multidisciplinary approach directed towards the commercial release of transgenic herbicide-tolerant rice in Costa Rica. Transgenic Res. 2007;16(5):541–55. doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9068-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aerni P. Stakeholder attitudes toward the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: a comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. Risk Anal. 2002;22(6):1123–37. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Salas Z, Campos-Gongora E, Gonzalez-Martinez BE, Tijerina-Sáenz A, Escamilla-Méndez AD, Ramírez-López E. Basic-education Mexican teachers’ knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes about the consumption of genetically modified foods. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2017;45(5):396–402. doi:10.1002/bmb.21058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candia NB, Mayans GU, Paniagua PG, Rezende Ribeiro C, Velázquez Franco J, Kamada D, Mendoza de Arbo L, Fernández Ríos D. Perception of genetically engineered crops in Paraguay. GM Crops Food. 2021;12(1):409–18. doi:10.1080/21645698.2021.1969835.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schnettler B, Sepúlveda O, Ruiz D. Differentiated acceptance of transgenic foods of animal and vegetable origin in the Region of La Araucania, Chile. Cien Inv Agr. 2008;3:133–44.
   Google Scholar
• Schnettler B, Gonzalez A, Avila R, Vargas HM, Maldonado JS, Coria MD. Preference for oils with different types of genetic modifications in Temuco, Araucanía Región, Chile. Int J Agric Nat Resour. 2010;37(1):17–28. doi:10.4067/S0718-16202010000100002.
   Google Scholar
• Schnettler B, Miranda H, Sepúlveda O, Coria MD. Consumer preferences of genetically modified foods of vegetal and animal origin in Chile. Food Sci Technol. 2012;32(1):15–25. doi:10.1590/S0101-20612012005000025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oda LM. Genetically modified foods: economic aspects and public acceptance in Brazil. Trends in Biotechnology. 2000;18(5):188–90. doi:10.1016/s0167-7799(00)01436-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikora D, Rzymski P. Public acceptance of GM foods: a global perspective (1999-2019). In: Singh P, editor. Policy Issues in Genetically Modified Crops: global Policies and Perspectives. USA: Academic Press; 2021. p. 293–315
   Google Scholar
• Brosig S, Bavorova M. Association of attitudes towards genetically modified food among young adults and their referent persons. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0211879. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson D, Brinch-Pedersen H, Chawade A, Holme IB, Hvoslef‐Eide TAK, Ritala A, Teeri TH, Thorstensen T. Scandinavian perspectives on plant gene technology: applications, policies and progress. Physiol Plant. 2018;162(2):219–38. doi:10.1111/ppl.12661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spendrup S, Eriksson D, Fernqvist F. Swedish consumers´ attitudes and values to genetic modification and conventional plant breeding - The case of fruit and vegetables. GM Crops Food. 2021;12(1):342–60. doi:10.1080/21645698.2021.1921544.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Woźniak-Gientka E, Tyczewska A, Twardowski T. Public opinion on biotechnology and genetic engineering in the European Union. Polish Consumer Study BioTechnologia. 2022;103(2):185–201. doi:10.5114/bta.2022.116212.
   Google Scholar
• Pappalardo G, D’Amico M, Lusk JL. Comparing the views of the Italian general public and scientists on GMOs. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56(7):3641–50. doi:10.1111/ijfs.14993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delwaide A-C, Nalley LL, Dixon BL, Danforth DM, Nayga RM, Van Loo EJ, Verbeke W. Revisiting GMOs: are there differences in European consumers’ acceptance and valuation for cisgenically vs transgenically bred rice? PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126060. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heng Y, Yoon S, House L. Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: an International Study. Sustainability. 2021;13(22):12882. doi:10.3390/su132212882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borello M, Cembalo L, Vecchio R. Role of information in consumers’ preferences for eco-sustainable genetic improvements in plant breeding. Plos One. 2021;16(7):e0255130. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevanda L, Žilić M, Ećimović B, Matković V Public opinion toward GMOs and biotechnology in Bosnia And Herzegovina. In: Badnjevic A, eds. CMBEBIH 2017. IFMBE Proceedings 62, Springer, Singapore; 2017. Doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4166-2_70.
   Google Scholar
• Brankov TP, Sibalija T, Lovre K, Cvijanovic D, Subic J. The impact of biotechnology knowledge on the acceptance of genetically modified food in Serbia. Rom Biotech Lett. 2013;18(3):8295–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rzymski P, Królczyk A. Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO? Food Secur. 2016;8(3):689–97. doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0572-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popek S, Halagarda M. Genetically modified foods: consumer awareness, opinions and attitudes in selected EU countries. Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41(3):325–32. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramon D, Diamante A, Calvo MD. Food biotechnology and education. Electron J Biotechnol. 2008;11(5):1–5. doi:10.2225/vol11-issue5-fulltext-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastrow M, Roberts B, Reddy V, Ismail S. Public perceptions of biotechnology in South Africa. S Afr J Sci. 2016;114:1–9. doi:10.17159/sajs.2018/20170276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamatsembe IM, Asea G, Haefele SM. A survey: potential impact of genetically modified maize tolerant to drought or resistant to stem borers in Uganda. Agronomy. 2017;7(1):24. doi:10.3390/agronomy7010024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimenju SC, Degroote H. Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya. Agricultural Economics. 2007;38(1):35–46. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00279.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kikulwe EM, Wesseler J, Falck-Zapeda J. Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite. 2011;57(2):401–13. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mnaranara T, Zhang J, Wang G. Public perception towards genetically modified foods in Tanzania. J Anim Plant Sci. 2017;27:589–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwade PC, Lugu BK, Lukman S, Edem Quist C, Chu J. Farmers’ attitude towards the use of genetically modified crop technology in Southern Ghana: the mediating role of risk perception. AIMS Agric Food. 2019;4(3):833–53. doi:10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worldometer. Asia population. 2021. Accessed 2022 Jul 20. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/asia-population/
   Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Chen C, Hu W, Chen L, Zhan J. Influence of source credibility on consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods in China. Sustainability. 2016;8(9):899. doi:10.3390/su8090899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SH, Kim JN, Besley JC. Pathways to support genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: deliberate reasoning, information shortcuts, and the role of formal education. Public Underst Sci. 2013;22(2):169–84. doi:10.1177/0963662512442308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato-Nitta N, Maeda T, Inagaki Y, Tachikawa M. Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):137. doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0328-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng Q, Wang HH. Do consumers view the genetically modified food labeling systems differently? “Contains GMO” versus “Non-GMO” labels. China Econ. 2021;54(6):376–88. doi:10.1080/10971475.2021.1890356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JS, Yoo SH. Willingness to pay for GMO labeling policies: the case of Korea. J Food Saf. 2011;31(2):160–68. doi:10.1111/j.1745-4565.2010.00280.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basaran P, Kilic B, Soyyigit H, Sengun H. Public perceptions of GMOs in food in Turkey: a pilot survey. J Food Agric Environ. 2004;2:25–28.
   Google Scholar
• Chuah ASF, Leong AD, Cummings CL, Ho SS. Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications. J Nanoparticle Res. 2018;20(2):36. doi:10.1007/s11051-018-4126-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babasaheb Kajale D, Becker TC. Determinants of consumer support for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food in India A student survey. Brit Food J. 2013;115(11):1597–611. doi:10.1108/BFJ-12-2011-0302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin R, Khan S, Zeb TF, Ali S, Baqai N, Baqai M, Shuja S. Knowledge and attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food among health sciences university students in Karachi, Pakistan. Nutr Food Sci. 2021;51(7):1150–62. doi:10.1108/NFS-01-2021-0019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Fan Y, Chen C, Cao J, Pu H. Consumer perception, mandatory labeling, and traceability of GM soybean oil: evidence from Chinese urban consumers. GM Crops Food. 2021;12(1):736. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1807852.
   Google Scholar
• Demirci A. Perceptions and attitudes of geography teachers to biotechnology: a study focusing on genetically modified (GM) foods. Afr J Biotechnol. 2008;7:4321–27.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Huang J, Qiu H, Huang Z. A consumer segmentation study with regards to genetically modified food in urban China. Food Policy, Elsevier. 2010;35(5):456–62. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishiyama I, Nagai A, Muto K, Tamakoshi A, Kokado M, Mimura K, Tanzawa T, Yamagata Z. Relationship between public attitudes toward genomic studies related to medicine and their level of genomic literacy in Japan. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;146A(13):1696–706. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meerah TSM, Harail MFA, Halim L. Malaysian secondary school students’ knowledge and attitudes towards biotechnology. J Balt Sci Educ. 2012;11(2):153–63. doi:10.33225/jbse/12.11.153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han F, Zhou D, Liu X. Attitudes in China about Crops and Foods Developed by Biotechnology. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0143474. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haque MS, Saha NR. Biosafety Measures, Socio-Economic Impacts and Challenges of Bt-brinjal Cultivation in Bangladesh. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:337. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin L, Azlan NAA, Hashim H. Ethical perception of cross-species gene transfer in plant. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10:12457–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin L, Abul M, Samian AL. Factor influencing risk perception of food additives. J Food Agric Environ. 2013;11:66–72.
   Google Scholar
• Ghasemi S, Ahmadvand M, Karami E, Karami A. Social risk perceptions of genetically modified foods of engineers in training: application of a comprehensive risk model. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(2):641–65. doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00110-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook AJ, Kerr GN, Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23(5):557–72. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassardjian E, Gamble J, Gunson A, Jaeger SR. A new approach to elicit consumers’ willingness to purchase genetically modified apples. Br Food J. 2005;107(8):541. ABI/INFORM Global. doi:10.1108/00070700510610968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson V. An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students’ understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education. 2007;37(1):59–73. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9016-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavanagh H, Hood J, Wilkinson J. Riverina high school students’ views of biotechnology. Electron J Biotechnol. 2005;8(2):121–27. doi:10.4067/S0717-34582005000200001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler SA. Exploring the influences on Australian agricultural professionals’ genetic engineering beliefs: an empirical analysis. J Technol Transf. 2009;34(4):422–39. doi:10.1007/s10961-008-9094-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer SB, Mamerow L, Henderson J, Taylor AW, Coveney J, Ward PR. The importance of food issues in society: results from a national survey in Australia. Nutr Dietetics. 2017;71(2):108–16. doi:10.1111/1747-0080.12076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohr P, Golley S. Responses to GM food content in context with food integrity issues: results from Australian population surveys. N Biotechnol. 2016;33(1):91–98. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2015.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDougall DJ, Longnecker NE, Marsh SP, Smith FP. Attitudes of pulse farmers in Western Australia towards genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Australasian Biotechnol. 2001;11:36–39.
   Google Scholar
• Shew AM, Danforth D, Nalley LL, Nayga RM, Tsiboe F, Dixon BL. New innovations in agricultural biotech: consumer acceptance of topical RNAi in rice production. Food Control. 2017;81:189–95. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.05.047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dror Y. Values and the Law. Antioch Rev. 1957;17(4):440–54. doi:10.2307/4610000.
   Google Scholar
• An introduction to law and society. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2018. Accessed 2022 Jul 20. https://in.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/86864_book_item_86864.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ZrxhXXnDUnreuxUZFmls9iwOz-8P_tUwwDkwcb3RE51lMyvjSVbnnQZo
   Google Scholar
• Laaninen T (2019). New plant-breeding techniques. Applicability of EU GMO rules. European Parliamentary Research Servce. PE 642.235. Accessed 2022 Jun 20. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/642235/EPRS_BRI(2019)642235_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Position Paper. Genomeditierung bei Pflanzen: chancen für eine nachhaltige und ressourcenschonende Landwirtschaft. 2019. Accessed 2022 Jan 15. https://www.cdu.de/system/tdf/media/bfa-beschluss-genom-editierung-16122019_0.pdf?file=1 (Germany: CDU).
   Google Scholar
• Lougheed T. Outside looking in: understanding the role of science in regulation. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(3):A104–A110. doi:10.1289/ehp.117-a104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuschmierz P, Meneganzin A, Pinxten R. Towards common ground in measuring acceptance of evolution and knowledge about evolution across Europe: a systematic review of the state of research. Evol: Educ Outreach. 2020;13(1):1–24. doi:10.1186/s12052-020-00132-w.
   Google Scholar
• Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci. 2016;25(4):400–14. doi:10.1177/0963662516629749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar