New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) and Consumer Perception

This report provides an analysis of consumer attitudes towards foods developed using New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), focusing on their purchase intention for such products across different labelling scenarios. The labelling regulations for NGTs remain contentious, with the current legislative framework treating them similarly to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a regulatory status that the European Commission (EC) recently proposed revising. The report examines consumer responses to four distinct labelling scenarios for NGT-based food products: 1. Status Quo (NGTs as GMOs): As widely expected, consumers expressed lower purchase intentions for products labelled as GMOs compared to conventional or non-GMO products, indicating a negative perception of genetically modified labels. 2. NGT with no separate label: Treating NGTs as conventional (no separate labelling) showed no significant difference in purchase intention between conventional products and those labelled with a voluntary negative label ‘non-NGT’. 3. Separate NGT Labelling: When NGT products were labelled as ‘NGT’, consumers showed a decrease in PI, albeit with slightly less aversion than for GMO-labelled products. 4. NGTs and GMOs with Positive Claims: Adding environmental benefits (e.g. reduced pesticide use) alongside NGT or GMO labels on the front of the package helped mitigate consumer’s negative perceptions, particularly for NGTs. The report’s descriptive statistics reveal demographic nuances. For instance, German and Spanish respondents showed different degrees of trust in institutions like universities and farmers’ organisations, and generally, higher levels of trust were associated with pro-environmental attitudes. However, objective knowledge about NGTs was relatively low across both countries, with only 18% demonstrating a high level of understanding, compared to 35% for GMOs. The results confirm that labelling products as containing GMOs or NGTs on the back-of-package (BOP) significantly reduces purchase intention. Importantly, the magnitude of this negative response does not differ between the two labels, suggesting that distinguishing NGTs from GMOs under a separate labelling framework (Scenario 3) is unlikely to improve sales relative to the current EU regulatory approach, which treats NGTs as equivalent to GMOs. A notable finding is the effectiveness of positive front-of-package (FOP) claims – such as ‘reduced pesticide use’ – in mitigating the negative impact of NGT labelling. These claims are particularly successful for NGTs compared to GMOs and are most effective among younger consumers (18–35 years). Younger respondents exhibit greater openness to NGT products, likely due to higher familiarity with food technologies or lower aversion to novel products. For this group, the presence of a positive environmental claim alongside an NGT label did not significantly affect purchase intention, especially when compared to older respondents, suggesting that the claim mitigated the otherwise negative effect of the presence of NGT. In summary, the results suggest that from a market perspective, the most favourable approach is scenario 2, where NGTs are treated as conventional products without labelling. In addition, for the younger consumer cluster, a product-based approach (i.e. adding a positive claim to the product) could also be a successful approach to increasing market acceptance of NGTs. However, underlying consumer sentiment remains cautious towards any GM-related terminology, indicating a persistent barrier that needs to be considered when developing strategies to improve NGT acceptance.