Analysis of the public perception and acceptance of gene-editing technology and gene-edited agricultural products in South Korea

ABSTRACT

Genome editing (GE) is a promising agricultural technology; however, its effective adoption relies on safety assurance and public trust. To investigate Korean perceptions, a 2national survey (n = 1,055) was conducted in 2024 on awareness, attitudes, acceptance, and information behavior. Awareness was high for familiar terms such as “gene scissors,” but low for scientific terms such as CRISPR. Willingness to purchase GE products was 70%, exceeding that for GMO reported previously, although respondents favored conditional adoption (research, imports) over domestic cultivation. Safety was the most decisive factor, not only in the form of scientific verification but also in transparency and institutional safeguards. Expert organizations were trusted, yet mass media remained the preferred information channels, revealing a credibility – accessibility gap. Respondents also emphasized expert and government leadership in policymaking. Overall, Korean perceptions align with global patterns but show stronger emphasis on policy trust and media reliance, underscoring the need for transparent safety verification, expert-led yet mass-mediated communication, and tailored strategies.

Introduction

Recently, the global bioindustry has undergone rapid restructuring, with genome editing (GE) technology at its center. CRISPR-Cas9–based GE techniques have emerged as key innovations across diverse fields, such as life sciences, medicine, and agriculture. As of 2023, the global GE market is estimated to be approximately USD 5.3 billion, with an average annual growth rate of 15%. The market is projected to reach USD 10.7 billion by 2028.¹ Among these technologies, site-directed nuclease-1 (SDN-1)-based genome-edited organisms (GEOs) are drawing attention as new biotechnologies, as they are distinguished from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because no foreign genes are introduced. Reflecting on this technological difference, several countries have established independent regulatory GEO frameworks and are actively engaging in public debates to ensure safety and social acceptance.^2–4

Countries such as the United States, Japan, China, Australia, and Canada have introduced specific GEO regulations and are promoting their commercialization, whereas Korea remains in the early stages of regulatory development.⁵ For the commercialization of GEOs and other biotechnological products, scientific safety, social acceptance, and institutional foundations are essential. Notably, social acceptance significantly affects regulatory decisions and the diffusion of new technologies.^6–9 In the United States and China, insufficient public acceptance is a major barrier to regulatory reform in the commercialization of genetically modified food and animals.⁸ Although South Korea does not cultivate genetically modified (GM) crops domestically, it is one of the world’s major importers of GM agricultural products, particularly soybeans and corn used for food and feed. This position has made Korea a country of high societal and policy interest in both GMOs and GEOs, especially concerning safety, labeling, and regulatory governance.

Public perceptions and acceptance of GEOs have been widely studied in Japan, the United States, Europe, and other regions, providing crucial foundations for policy design, labeling systems, and commercialization strategies. For instance, Japanese consumers tend to respond positively to the benefits of GEO food when they are clearly presented. However, the level of technical understanding remained low, and emotional resistance toward the perceived “unnaturalness” of such products persisted.^10,11 In the United States, “familiarity” with technology and the accumulation of information were key drivers of acceptance, and perceptions differed depending on the application domain (medical vs. agricultural), particularly regarding the required level of evidence and expected benefits.¹² Conversely, European societies place greater emphasis on ethical concerns and regulatory necessity, while some countries, such as Brazil, exhibit higher levels of acceptance and a more flexible policy environment.^13–15

Nonetheless, despite ongoing research and development efforts and policy discussions surrounding GEOs in Korea, empirical studies on public perception and acceptance remain scarce. To secure the social acceptance of GEO commercialization, systematic investigations into public awareness of the technology, modes of information acquisition, and determinants of acceptance are warranted. As the domestic GE technology introduction becomes increasingly tangible, empirical analyses of Korean consumer perceptions and acceptance will provide essential evidence for designing future regulatory frameworks and institutional arrangements.

Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the awareness of Korean citizens regarding GE technology and agricultural products, patterns of information reception, attitudes toward social acceptance, and their willingness to purchase. By comparing these findings with those of prior international surveys, this study seeks to identify the unique characteristics of the Korean public perception and suggest institutional considerations and communication strategies for the social diffusion of GEOs. Furthermore, by examining the information needs and sources of the public, it aims to identify the limitations of the current information provision and propose improvement directions.

Materials and Methods

Survey Participants and Data Collection

An online survey was conducted over approximately 1 month, from August 26 to September 25, 2024, targeting Korean adults aged 20 years or older nationwide. The survey was commissioned by the Korea Public Management Institute (Seoul, South Korea), a professional research organization. Stratified sampling was applied based on gender, age, and region.

Overall, 2,125 responses were collected. After excluding six responses from minors, additional cases were removed based on awareness screening items to ensure analytical accuracy: 263 respondents who had never heard of any agricultural biotechnology – related terms (e.g., biotechnology, GMO, living modified organisms, genetic engineering); 776 respondents who had never heard of any genome-editing – related terms (e.g., gene scissors, CRISPR/Cas9, GE, gene editing); and 25 insincere responses, identified through unrealistically short completion time (less than 3 min), uniform response patterns, or cross-check inconsistencies across related items. Consequently, 1,055 valid responses were finally included.

The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics (n = 1,055).

Variable	Content	N	%
Gender	Male	534	50.6
	Female	521	49.4
Ages (years)	20 - 29	207	19.6
	30 - 39	262	24.8
	40 - 49	269	25.5
	50 - 59	166	15.7
	≥60	151	14.3
Occupations	Farmer etc.	5	0.5
	Self-employment	81	7.7
	Sales/service	92	8.7
	Labor	94	8.9
	Office workers	394	37.3
	Professional	63	6.0
	Public official	50	4.7
	Housewife	99	9.4
	Student	76	7.2
	Unemployed	74	7.0
	Others	27	2.6
Areas	Seoul	303	28.7
	Busan	71	6.7
	Daegu	64	6.1
	Incheon	55	5.2
	Gwangju	29	2.7
	Daejeon	31	2.9
	Ulasn	16	1.5
	Sejong	11	1.0
	Gyeonggi-do	258	24.5
	Gangwon-do	15	1.4
	Chungcheongbuk-do	27	2.6
	Chungcheongnam-do	31	2.9
	Jeollabuk-do	27	2.6
	Jeollanam-do	21	2.0
	Gyeongsangbuk-do	41	3.9
	Gyeongsangnam-do	47	4.5
	Jeju-do	8	0.8
Education levels	≤ High school	157	14.9
	≤ University	753	71.4
	≥ Graduated school	145	13.7

Consequently, 1,055 valid responses were finally included. This sample size corresponded to a sampling error of ±3.01% points at the 95% confidence level. Unless otherwise noted, all proportions are reported with this confidence level.

Questionnaire Design and Analytical Methods

The questionnaire used in this study originated from a long-term national survey series jointly developed in 2011 by experts in biotechnology, public policy, and science communication. The instrument was originally designed to assess the social acceptance of emerging biotechnologies, including GM technologies, and has been administered annually in nationwide studies since its development. Beginning in 2021, items referring to GMOs were adapted to focus on GE technologies, while maintaining the same validated structure and measurement framework.^16–20 The psychometric reliability and validity of this questionnaire have been established in multiple peer-reviewed studies using factor analysis, path modeling, and structural equation modeling to test technology acceptance frameworks. These studies consistently demonstrated adequate construct validity and reliability, supporting the use of this instrument in the present research.

The questionnaire was structured to systematically measure public perceptions of and attitudes toward GE technology and GEOs. Consistent with the initial screening described above, only respondents who reported prior awareness of GE terminology were included as valid samples. The survey consisted of four sections:

1. GEO awareness and knowledge,

2. Attitudes toward GEOs,

3. Social acceptance of GE technology and GE agricultural products,

4. Information acquisition behaviors and information needs related to GEOs.

GE technology awareness was measured as both subjective and objective knowledge. Subjective awareness was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “completely unaware” to “very well aware.” Objective awareness was evaluated by factual statements about GE technology, with response options of “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t know.”

Attitudes toward GE technology were examined using 10 items presented after providing respondents with a basic explanation of GE technology. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The social acceptance of GE technology and agricultural products was evaluated through items assessing priority values, key requirements, effective acceptance methods, and acceptable utilization scope. The information-related questions covered information provision satisfaction, reasons for insufficient information, trust in and preferences regarding information sources, and preferences for policy-leading institutions.

For data analysis, a frequency analysis was conducted to identify demographic characteristics and overall response distributions. Cross-tabulation analysis examined differences across sociodemographic groups. One-way analysis of variance tested the mean differences across groups, and multiple regression analysis explored the relationships between attitudes toward GE technology and the acceptance of GE agricultural products. Pearson’s product-moment correlation analysis evaluated the association between attitudes toward GE technology and the scope of acceptance.

Ethical Considerations

The survey was conducted anonymously, and no personally identifiable information was collected. At its beginning, participants were informed that the results could be used as basic data for research, administrative management, and policy development. All participants voluntarily agreed to participate after being informed of the purpose of the study, and submission of their responses was considered informed consent.

Results

After excluding six responses from minors, 263 respondents who had never heard of any agricultural biotechnology – related terms and 776 respondents who had never heard of any genome-editing – related terms were removed based on the awareness screening items. In addition, 25 insincere responses were excluded. Consequently, 1,055 valid responses were retained for analysis.

Awareness of GE Technology

A multiple-response survey on GE-related terminology awareness revealed that the term “gene scissors” was the most familiar to the public (64%), followed by “gene editing” (47%), “gene correction” (39%), and “CRISPR/Cas9” (18%) (Figure 1). The cross-tabulation analysis indicated significant differences according to age (p = .0266) and educational level (p = .0021). Residual analysis showed that respondents aged 19–29 years had significantly higher awareness of “CRISPR” (residual = 2.2), whereas those aged ≥60 years had significantly lower awareness of “CRISPR” (residual = −2.4) but significantly higher awareness of “gene correction” (residual = 2.5). By education, respondents with a high school diploma or lower had significantly higher awareness of “gene correction” (residual = 2.4), whereas those with graduate-level education had significantly higher awareness of “CRISPR” (residual = 2.4). Accordingly, younger and highly educated groups and older and less educated groups tended to be more familiar with recent scientific and traditional terminology, respectively.

Figure 1.

Awareness of gene-editing related terms (n = 1,055).

Subjective GE technology awareness was assessed. Most respondents were “somewhat aware” (59%), followed by “completely unaware” and “fairly aware” (each 17%), “considerably aware” (5%), and “very well aware” (2%) (Figure 2). While all analyzed respondents had at least some prior exposure to relevant terminology, approximately 20% later reported being “completely unaware” of GE technologies, reflecting heterogeneity in knowledge levels within the analyzed cohort. Chi-square tests indicated significant differences by gender (p = .00094), age (p = .00748), and education level (p = .00223). Residual analysis indicated that men and women were more and less likely, respectively, to report “fairly aware”; respondents aged 19–29 years were less likely to be “completely unaware” and more likely “considerably aware,” whereas those aged 60 years and older were less likely “fairly aware.” For education, respondents with graduate-level education were less likely to be “completely unaware” and more likely “considerably aware” or “very well aware.” Thus, while most respondents possess only a superficial understanding of GE technology, a considerable lack of accurate knowledge remains, underscoring the importance of clear and accessible science communication strategies for improving public understanding.

Figure 2.

Subjective awareness of gene-editing technology (n = 1,055).

Objective awareness of SDN-1–based GE products was measured using five factual statements (Table 2). Respondents who indicated “completely unaware” in the subjective awareness question (n = 176) were excluded, leaving 879 valid respondents. The results exhibited substantial variations in knowledge across items. Regarding the basic GE technology principles (Statement 1), 76% of respondents responded correctly, suggesting a relatively high understanding; conversely, only 52% correctly recognized that GE and GM (genetically modified) technologies were not the same (Statement 2). For GE product detectability (Statement 3), only 24% of respondents answered correctly, indicating limited awareness of the difficulty of confirming whether GE has been applied. Awareness of international regulations such as the exemption of non-transgenic GEOs from GMO regulations in Japan (Statement 4) was also low, with only 27% of respondents selecting the correct answer. Finally, only 29% correctly acknowledged that GE crops did not differ from the naturally occurring mutants (Statement 5).

Table 2.

Objective knowledge of gene-edited technology and its agricultural products (n = 879).

Statement	Yes (n, %)	No (n, %)	Don’t Know (n, %)
1) Gene editing technology can identify the DNA that may cause specific disorders in an organism and, through the action of nucleases, modify it so that the gene has a desirable form.	659 (76%)*	131 (15%)	89 (10%)
2) Gene editing technology and genetically modified (GM) technology are the same.	242 (28%)	461 (52%)	176 (20%)
3) Crops developed using gene editing technology leave no trace that can confirm whether the technology has been applied.	208 (24%)	379 (42%)	292 (34%)
4) Because gene editing technology does not introduce foreign genes, countries like Japan exclude it from GMO regulations.	236 (27%)	279 (32%)	364 (42%)
5) Crops developed using gene editing technology are no different from naturally occurring mutants.	258 (29%)	389 (44%)	232 (26%)

*The Bold text indicates the correct answer.

Cross-tabulation analysis revealed that knowledge of the basic GE technology principles (Statement 1) was relatively high across all groups, with correct response rates above 70%. Nonetheless, the distinction between GE and GM technologies (Statement 2) was only moderate, at approximately 50%. Knowledge concerning the detectability of GE products, international regulations, and similarity to natural mutations (Statements 3–5) remained relatively low at approximately 30%. Subgroup analysis further indicated that individuals in their 30s and those with lower education levels demonstrated generally weaker knowledge, whereas graduate-level respondents displayed a stronger grasp of basic concepts but limited awareness of regulatory and applied aspects. Therefore, scientific communication beyond basic principles and focusing on providing more detailed information regarding regulations and applications is warranted.

Attitudes Toward GE Technology and GE Agricultural Products

The attitude of respondents toward various issues related to GE technology was measured after a basic explanation of the technology was provided. Overall, 10 items were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” and the proportions of disagreement, neutrality, and agreement were calculated (Table 3).

Table 3.

Survey results on attitudes toward gene-editing technology (n = 1,055).

Item	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
	(Disagree Total)			(Agree Total)
1. Safety regulations are lax	3.8	15.6	32.5	39.2	8.9
	(19.4)			(48.1)*
2. Gene-edited crops are harmful to health	5.4	33.6	36.9	20.7	3.4
	(39.0)			(24.1)
3. Domestic distribution and sales should be delayed	5.3	20.5	34.5	33.3	6.4
	(25.8)			(39.7)
4. Government support is necessary to promote technology utilization	1.4	6.3	27.2	48.7	16.4
	(7.7)			(65.1)
5. Oppose development due to potential misuse	7.9	32.6	31.9	21.2	6.5
	(40.5)			(27.7)
6. Need to minimize unnecessary regulations and conflicts	1.3	9.8	34.1	45.6	9.2
	(11.1)			(54.8)
7. A core technology to secure national competitiveness	1.1	6.6	26.8	51.4	14.1
	(6.7)			(65.5)
8. No difference in safety between existing breeding and gene-edited crops	4.0	21.0	43.5	25.9	5.7
	(24.9)			(31.6)
9. GMO regulations should be applied equally	1.8	9.8	40.9	40.7	6.8
	(11.6)			(47.5)
10. A core technology to lead the next generation	0.7	5.8	32.6	48.4	12.5
	(6.5)			(60.9)

*Bold text indicates the highest percentage among the Disagree, Neutral, and Agree categories.

The results suggest several noteworthy patterns. First, 48% of the respondents agreed that exempting GE technology from safety regulations was appropriate because it was difficult to verify the application of the technology without foreign gene insertion, whereas only 19% disagreed. This indicates a generally favorable view of regulatory relaxation. Second, when asked whether GE crops are harmful to human health, 39% and 24% disagreed and agreed, respectively, suggesting that the respondents tended to perceive the technology as relatively safe. Third, 40% of the individuals agreed that the domestic distribution and sales of GE crops should be delayed, even if the technology is scientifically proven to be safe. This was the highest agreement rate among negatively framed items, reflecting persistent caution toward commercialization within Korea. Fourth, there was strong support for national investment, with 65% of respondents agreeing that, considering the low food self-sufficiency rate of Korea, government support is necessary to promote GE technology utilization.

Regarding concerns over misuse, 40% disagreed with the statement that GE technology should not be developed because of its potential for abuse, while 28% agreed, suggesting that although a majority supported continued development, a notable minority remained concerned about potential risks. More than half of the individuals (55%) agreed that unnecessary regulations and conflicts should be minimized because GE technology is a promising alternative to pressing issues such as climate change. Furthermore, 66% agreed that GE technology is a core innovation that determines national competitiveness in the Fourth Industrial Revolution era, exhibiting strong recognition of its strategic value.

Conversely, safety equivalence perceptions are uncertain. When asked whether there is no difference in safety between GE crops and those produced through conventional breeding, 44% responded “neutral,” while only 32% and 25% agreed and disagreed, respectively. This distribution highlights lingering uncertainty regarding GE crop safety. Similarly, 48% agreed that GMO (genetically modified organisms) regulations should also be applied to GEOs, compared to only 12% who disagreed, reflecting considerable support for applying stricter regulatory oversight. Finally, 61% agreed that GE technology and biotechnology more broadly will be core technologies leading the next generation, demonstrating broad optimism about their roles in future societal and industrial development.

Overall, most positively framed items yielded agreement rates exceeding 50%, indicating generally favorable attitudes toward GE technology. The strongest support was observed for government investment in promoting technological development and recognizing GE as a strategic technology essential for national competitiveness. Simultaneously, negatively framed items revealed clear concerns about potential risks, with nearly half the respondents supporting the extension of GMO-level regulations to GEOs. The high proportion of neutral responses to the safety equivalence question further suggests that many consumers remain uncertain rather than firmly opposed, highlighting the importance of providing clear and credible safety information.

Subgroup analyses demonstrated several significant differences according to gender, age, and educational level. For the item addressing health risks, men were more likely than women to assume a definitive position, whereas women selected the neutral option more frequently, reflecting a more reserved stance. Regarding government support, respondents aged 60 years and older showed significantly higher agreement (69%) compared with younger groups, indicating strong support for public investment among older citizens. Contrastingly, higher education levels were associated with a stronger recognition of GE technology as a strategic national asset: 70% of the respondents with graduate-level education agreed with the statement that GE is a core technology for securing national competitiveness. Younger respondents in their 30s expressed the highest concern about potential misuse, with 41% agreeing that GE technology should not be developed because of the risk of abuse.

Taken together, these findings suggest that public attitudes toward GE technology are influenced by demographic factors, including gender, age, and education. Specifically, older and highly educated groups tend to emphasize the necessity and strategic value of technology, whereas younger groups exhibit heightened concern over potential risks. Gender differences were modest, with men showing slightly higher levels of agreement across several items, while women more often selected the neutral option. These results highlight the need for tailored communication strategies and policy approaches to address the distinct perceptions of different demographic groups.

Social Acceptance of GE Technology and Agricultural Products

The social acceptance of GE technology and agricultural products was assessed through questions addressing willingness to purchase, key acceptance values, priority tasks, effective promotion methods, and acceptable adoption levels.

When asked about their willingness to purchase agricultural products developed using GE technology, 70% and 30% of respondents indicated that they would and would not purchase such products, respectively (Figure 3), demonstrating the high willingness among Korean consumers to purchase GEO-based foods.

Figure 3.

Willingness to purchase gene-edited agricultural products (n = 1,055).

Regarding the values considered most important for the social acceptance of GE agricultural products, most respondents (68%) selected safety as their top priority. Other values cited far less frequently included economic feasibility (9%), utility (9%), necessity (6%), potential for development (5%), and ethics (3%) (Figure 4), indicating that safety was the dominant public acceptance criterion.

Figure 4.

Social acceptance criteria of gene-edited agricultural products (n = 1,055). Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

When the respondents were asked what should be prioritized to enhance the social acceptance of GE crops, 59% selected safety verification of the technology and its products as the most urgent task. Transparent disclosure and continuous provision of information (19%), along with the establishment of government laws and regulations (10%), were also identified as key requirements (Figure 5), suggesting that public acceptance cannot be achieved solely by emphasizing technological excellence but requires parallel efforts to provide transparent information and institutional support.

Figure 5.

Priorities for social acceptance of gene-edited agricultural products (n = 1,055). Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Regarding the most effective methods to promote social acceptance, 40% of the respondents pointed to consistent information provision and publicity by government agencies and broadcasters, while 32% emphasized the repeated mention of GE-related topics in mainstream news coverage (Figure 6), highlighting the crucial role of continuous and repetitive communication through mass media in building trust and acceptance.

Figure 6.

Effective methods for promoting acceptance of gene-edited agricultural products (n = 1,055).

Additionally, respondents were asked about the acceptable scope of adoption of GE technology and agricultural products. The largest proportion indicated that only research and development (R&D) should be permitted (31%), followed by R&D in combination with imports and distribution (24%). Moreover, some individuals supported more proactive forms of acceptance, such as domestic cultivation and distribution (23%) and domestic cultivation only (12%). Nevertheless, the overall trend demonstrates a preference for cautious and limited adoption (Figure 7). This suggests that the broad social acceptance of GEOs requires both safety assurance and a phased approach accompanied by sufficient information provision.

Figure 7.

Acceptance scope of gene-edited agricultural products (n = 1,055). Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

The correlation analysis between attitudes toward GE technology (Table 3) and the scope of acceptance (Figure 7) revealed several significant associations. Positive GE technology perceptions, such as recognition of the need for government support, minimization of unnecessary regulations, and acknowledgment of its role as a core technology for national competitiveness and next-generation leadership, were positively correlated with wider acceptance (r = 0.210–0.306). Conversely, negative perceptions, including opposition to regulatory exemption, health risk concerns, support for delaying distribution and sales, and fear of potential misuse, were negatively correlated with the scope of acceptance (r = −0.272 to −0.296). Therefore, while perceptions of national necessity and the strategic value of GE technology expand the scope of acceptance, distrust in safety and ethical concerns restrict it. Thus, enhancing social acceptance requires a balanced communication strategy combining transparent safety verification and risk management, with an emphasis on the broader social and economic benefits of the technology.

Information Acquisition Behaviors and Needs

To establish an effective information provision system for GE technology and agricultural products, this study first examined the current status of public information acquisition. When asked whether sufficient information about GE technology and GE-derived agricultural products was being provided, 46% of the respondents answered negatively, including 10% and 36% who responded “not at all” and “not sufficiently,” respectively, indicating that the general public perceives a lack of adequate information on this subject, and that this perception is consistent across gender, age, and education groups (Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Sufficiency of gene-editing technology information (n = 1,055).

The most common reasons for insufficient information were that the issue was not widely recognized as a social concern, relevant information was difficult to access, and public interest was low at 26%, 24%, and 24%, respectively. Additional reasons included difficulty understanding technical content (9%) and lack of proactive information seeking by individuals (18%), suggesting that GE-related information is perceived as being difficult to access and understand, limiting its reach and effectiveness (data not shown).

Furthermore, the respondents were asked about the trustworthiness and preferences of different media sources for obtaining information on GEOs. Regarding trust, “experts and scientific organizations” ranked the highest (28%), followed by television (17%), YouTube and Instagram (15%), and government or public institutions (14%). However, when asked about preferred media sources for obtaining information, television ranked first (21%), followed by expert and scientific organizations (19%), and YouTube/Instagram (18%) (Figure 9), indicating a directional misalignment between the sources respondents trusted most (e.g., experts and scientists) and those they preferred to use for obtaining information (e.g., television and social media).

Figure 9.

Trust and preference by media for gene-editing technology (n = 1,055). Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Descriptive differences were observed across gender, age, and educational level. While both men and women cited expert organizations as their most trustworthy sources, women tended to prefer television (22%) and YouTube/Instagram (21%), whereas men showed a relatively higher preference for YouTube/Instagram (21%) and Internet portals (17%). Younger respondents in their 20s and 30s tended to rely more on online platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and Internet portals (24.2–27%), while older individuals in their 50s and 60s showed a higher preference for expert organizations and television, with 28.2–33% citing these as their most trusted sources. Descriptive differences were also observed across educational level: those with a high school education or less tended to favor television (31%) and YouTube/SNS (22%), whereas individuals with a graduate-level education preferred expert organizations (31%) and government/public institutions (14%). These findings suggest that while expert organizations remain among the most trusted sources, mass media, including television and social media platforms, are more relevant for disseminating actual information.

Most respondents expressed neutral or moderate satisfaction levels with their preferred media. A combined 80% reported either “neutral” (52%) or “somewhat satisfied” (28%), while only 4% and 2% were “very satisfied” and “very dissatisfied,” respectively. The most frequently cited dissatisfaction reasons included the use of technical terms and content that were difficult for laypersons to understand (17%), unverified information and sources (15%), a lack of up-to-date materials (14%), and difficulties in accessing information (13%), which may reflect persistent limitations in both the accessibility and comprehensibility of the available information (data not shown).

Regarding information needs, the respondents most frequently indicated a desire for information on the “safety of GE technology and its impact on human health and the environment” (51%). Other important information needs included the expected effects and influence of GE technology (18%), comparisons with conventional or GM crops (12%), benefits to the nation and humanity (7%), the necessity and importance of the technology (5%), advantages and disadvantages (5%), and domestic and international case studies (1%) (Figure 10). These results suggest that safety remains the primary public concern, both in terms of acceptance values and information demands.

Figure 10.

Information needs regarding gene-editing technology (n = 1,055). Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Finally, respondents were asked about their trust in different institutions and their preferences regarding which groups should lead GE policies. Most (52%) identified expert and scientific organizations as the most trusted, followed by government agencies and public institutions (27%), suppliers and corporations (12%), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or civic groups (9%) (Figure 11). These results were consistent across gender, age, and educational level. Nonetheless, this tendency was more pronounced among women and highly educated respondents. Regarding preferred policy-leading groups, 32% of the respondents selected academia and experts, while 28% indicated government and public institutions, followed by producer groups (18%), consumers (12%), and NGOs or civic groups (11%) (Figure 12). These findings suggest a general public preference for expert- and government-led policymaking in GE technology.

Figure 11.

Most trusted institutions for gene-editing technology (n = 1,055). NGO, non-governmental organization. Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Figure 12.

Preference for policy-leading groups in gene-editing technology (n = 1,055). NGO, non-governmental organization. Note: percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

In summary, the analysis of information acquisition behaviors and needs highlights three main insights. First, the public perceives existing information about GE technology and agricultural products as insufficient, with safety identified as the most pressing informational need. Second, while experts and scientific organizations are the most trusted sources, mass media platforms such as television and social media are the most frequently used, indicating a notable gap between credibility and accessibility. Third, respondents expressed a strong preference for expert- and government-led policymaking. Together, these findings suggest that improving public acceptance of GE technology requires bridging the gap between trusted and accessible information channels and prioritizing clear, safety-focused communication.

Discussion

This study analyzed Korean public perceptions of GE technology and GE-derived agricultural products, focusing on awareness, information behaviors, social acceptance, and willingness to purchase, revealing both similarities and differences with the findings of international studies, thereby suggesting potential implications for the development of strategies and policies for GE technology in Korea.

First, GE terminology awareness was relatively high for familiar expressions such as “gene scissors”; nevertheless, recognition of core scientific terms such as “CRISPR” remained low (Figure 1). This trend is consistent with findings from Japan, where consumers exhibited strong interest in functional GEO products (e.g., “delicious rice” or “functional tomatoes”) but limited conceptual understanding of the underlying technology.¹⁰ In Korea, most respondents reported only partial awareness, and more than half selected incorrect or uncertain responses to objective knowledge questions, particularly concerning the regulatory distinctions between GEOs and GMOs (Figure 2; Table 2), suggesting a persistent conceptual gap that warrants precise and accessible communication strategies.

Second, GE agricultural product acceptance was relatively high, with 70% of the respondents expressing willingness to purchase (Figure 3). However, when asked about the acceptable scope of adoption, respondents favored limited acceptance, such as research and development (31%) and import and distribution (24%), while fewer supported domestic cultivation (Figure 7), suggesting a cautious conditional acceptance rather than unconditional approval. Similar patterns have been reported in multinational surveys, in which Korean and Japanese respondents showed “conditional acceptance” shaped by social values and perceived purposes rather than the technology itself.¹⁵

Safety was overwhelmingly emphasized as the primary social acceptance criterion, with 68% and 51% identifying it as the most important value (Figure 4) and the most necessary type of information (Figure 10), respectively. These results corroborate those of U.S. research highlighting that safety verification is a prerequisite for consumer acceptance).¹² Nonetheless, Korean respondents placed a stronger emphasis on the transparency of information and institutional safeguards rather than solely on scientific evidence (Figure 5). These findings suggest that policy trust and information environment play decisive roles in shaping acceptance in South Korea.

Compared with earlier GMO surveys, willingness to purchase GE products was higher: a 2022 nationwide survey in Korea reported 40–50% willingness for GM foods, depending on the product,²¹ whereas the present study found 70% for GE foods. Similar contrasts can be observed internationally; consumer attitudes toward GM foods are predominantly negative in China and Japan,^22,23 and a significant portion of U.S. consumers actively avoid GMO products.²⁴ The relatively higher acceptance of GE technologies suggests that consumers distinguish them from GMOs and perceive them more favorably, potentially providing a stronger commercialization foundation. However, this interpretation should be treated with caution, as the present analysis was limited to respondents with prior awareness of relevant terminology. This sampling constraint may have led to more favorable attitudes than those that would be observed in the general Korean population. Nevertheless, this trend aligns with the findings of Son and Lim, who reported that Korean consumers accept GE foods more readily than GM foods, and that acceptance increases with higher levels of scientific knowledge.²⁵

Further, the survey identified a gap between the trusted and preferred sources of information. Expert and scientific organizations were considered the most trustworthy (52%), while television, YouTube, and other social media platforms were preferred as the actual information sources (Figures 11 and 9). This discrepancy has also been observed in Japan and Europe,^11,26 where accessibility, ease of understanding, and exposure frequency have a greater influence on consumer attitudes compared to the objective reliability of the source. Similar findings in Korea highlight the need to integrate expert-driven communication with mass media channels to enhance reach and impact.²⁷

Finally, respondents expressed strong expectations of expert and government leadership in GE policymaking, with academia and experts (32%) and government and public institutions (28%) being the most preferred policy-leading groups (Figure 12), indicating that, while trust in scientific expertise remains high, institutional credibility and transparent governance are equally critical in securing public support. Similar tendencies emphasizing expert- and government-led governance have also been reported in Japan and several European countries. However, the relative strength of institutional trust observed in Korea appears more pronounced, reflecting a distinctive reliance on public-sector credibility in shaping acceptance.

Although the present study provides meaningful insights, its findings should be interpreted within the context of a terminology-aware subpopulation, rather than the general Korean public. This limitation stems from the exclusion of respondents who had never heard of related terms, which was methodologically necessary to ensure data validity.

To promote the social acceptance and commercialization of GE technology in Korea, several measures may be considered. Strengthening scientific safety verification and regulatory transparency is essential, while combining expert credibility with effective mass-media communication may help bridge the gap between trusted and frequently used information channels. In addition, tailoring messages to demographic subgroups based on age, gender, and education appears necessary, and establishing a consistent system for delivering accurate, accessible, and verified information is equally important. Taken together, these measures are critical for building public trust, expanding acceptance, and supporting policy development for the responsible deployment of GEOs.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Research and Development Program for Agricultural Science and Technology Development [Project No. RS-2024-00398787] of the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data Availability Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.