PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 2026Cogent Food & Agriculture0 citationsOpen Access

A systematic review of agrifood chain actors’ evaluation of genome editing in food and agriculture: trends, determinants and research gaps

View Full Paper
AAAlice Onek AtimangoNANathaline Onek AparoSKStephen W. Kalule

Key Points

  • This review aims to synthesize evaluations of genome editing (GE) by agrifood chain actors and identify the determinants influencing their perceptions, alongside research gaps.
  • Systematic review of 90 relevant studies following the SPAR-4-SLR protocol.
  • Focus on evaluations of genome editing in food and agriculture among agrifood chain actors.
  • Analysis of determinants influencing evaluations, including information access and risk perceptions.
  • Evaluations of genome editing are varied, with a skew towards consumers in developed countries.
  • Key determinants include information availability, risk and benefit perceptions, and trust in institutions.
  • Methodological limitations noted include reliance on quantitative cross-sectional designs and inconsistent measurement scales.

Abstract

Genome editing (GE) exhibits great potential for advancing sustainability in the agrifood systems. However, evaluations of GE by agrifood chain actors remain varied. This systematic review synthesised existing research on agrifood chain actors’ evaluation of GE in food and agriculture, the determinants of their evaluations, and the methodologies applied in past studies, while also identifying research gaps that could be addressed by future studies. Following the Scientific Procedure and Rationale for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol, 90 relevant studies were reviewed. Findings indicate that GE evaluations are mixed and skewed towards consumers in developed countries. Key determinants were related to information, risk and benefit perceptions and trust in institutions, GE products and technology. Effective science communication, transparent regulations, and tailored messaging emphasising GE benefits could positively affect evaluations. This review highlights methodological limitations, including heavy reliance on quantitative cross-sectional designs and inconsistent measurement scales, and provides actionable insights for policy, academic, and industry research.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Atimango et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1d20f302fbce9130637292https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2026.2673640
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper