New breeding methods have provided scientists with opportunities to improve traits in a wide range of crops, however, there remains resistance to foods that are produced from these crops, and mandates on labels used to describe such processes continue to be a source of policy debate. Here we focus on gene editing and examine (i) whether consumer acceptance varies when the technology is applied to different ingredients (unrefined versus highly refined ingredients) and (ii) the impact of two different claims related to gene editing (health-focused claim versus an environment-focused claim). Our results show that consumers are less likely to purchase a food product that includes gene-edited ingredients, yet the ingredient that is gene-edited is not important. We also find evidence that both of our selected claims about foods produced using gene-edited ingredients would increase consumers’ likelihood to purchase relative to the case with no claims.
