A new eight-country study shows more than 90 percent of consumers are open to purchasing pork from gene-edited pigs because they value the benefits.
Here’s a hypothetical for you. Say your bank is promoting a new credit card where certain purchases earn points of some sort. Eligible purchases can only be made in one specific chain store, and the card comes with an annual fee. Would you go for it?
No, you probably wouldn’t because the benefits seem weighted more toward the bank and the store than to you or anyone else. And that, according to Charlie Arnot, CEO of The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) in Gladstone, Missouri, is consumer behaviour 101.
“What we’ve found is that purchase decisions are about benefit,” says Arnot. “If it matters to the consumer, if the benefits align with their values, they’ll accept it.”
This holds true even when it comes to one of the most vital purchases we make: food. The word “values” does a lot of heavy lifting here. Arnot says CFI has been conducting consumer research about gene editing for over a decade and found that consumer acceptance of gene editing is strongly associated with values-based benefits, such as public health, animal welfare and reduced food waste, among other benefits.
This supposition was recently confirmed through two separate consumer research projects (one conducted by CFI and the other by U.S.-based Circana), which found that consumers, in Canada and around the world, have an above average likelihood of buying pork from gene-edited pigs if that means lower antibiotic use, along with other environmental and societal benefits.
“Historically, the thinking was that we need to educate the public about the technology first, and that’s just not the case,” says Arnot. “What gene editing means to them is: reduced need for antibiotics, less animal suffering and better environmental performance. And because they support those outcomes, they’re fine with the technology.”
The research done by CFI and Circana offers a fascinating insight into how consumers think about the use of agtech in the realm of food production. It should come as no surprise that it’s a complex, very human, values-driven process.
Two studies, one top finding
The larger of the two studies was conducted in the fall of 2025 by Circana and commissioned by PIC, developers of a gene-edited pig resistant to porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome, or PRRS.
Circana polled more than 5,000 fresh pork consumers across eight key countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Japan, Mexico and the U.S.) as to the likelihood they would buy pork from gene-edited pigs. The study was extensive, encompassing multiple generations from 18 to 70 and across genders.
“It’s a robust, significant sample,” says Staci Covkin, Circana’s principal of innovation, consumer and shopper insight. She explains that participants were given a very short introduction to read outlining how farmers have battled PRRS for decades, how gene editing could be a fix for this problem, how animals could be healthier and that pork remains unchanged in terms of taste and safety.
“Then we tested five different messages about the likelihood of their purchasing this meat,” says Covkin. “They were: fewer antibiotics, better environmental sustainability, same pork as you know and love, safety, and cost.”
Covkin says that respondents identified the need for responsibly reducing antibiotic use as the top reason they’d purchase pork from PRRS-resistant pigs. “Not just in Canada, but around the world, this was the number one motivator,” she says, adding that Canadians indicated an above average likelihood of purchase.
This result is mirrored in CFI’s research, also conducted in the fall of 2025, only in the U.S., which looked at consumer acceptance of gene editing in four food products: pork, tomatoes, eggs and bananas. Of all four products, pork from gene-edited pigs statistically outshot all but tomatoes with a purchase likelihood of 84 per cent. “I was surprised by that,” says Arnot. “But it comes down to the things people care about, which are reduced use of antibiotics and reduced animal suffering.”
Benefits and values
“Fun fact about Canada and Japan,” says Covkin. “They are the most price sensitive countries in our research.” Still, Canadians are willing to pay up to five per cent more for pork from gene-edited pigs, while all other nations would venture as far as 10 per cent.
As people learn more about gene editing, they appear to be more open to it. Covkin says Circana has been surveying people’s attitudes toward the technology for a while now and is noticing a trend. “It’s interesting that two and a half years ago, 37 per cent of respondents in the U.S. were familiar with gene editing. Today, it’s 57 per cent.” In Canada, 42 percent say they are familiar.
“Gene editing technology is offering more consumer benefits than previous agricultural innovations,” says Arnot. “The majority of applications coming to market now are from public companies and universities who all agree on the science. Also, the fact we’re using gene editing in human medicine makes it easier to apply it to agriculture. It’s changed the entire dynamic of the conversation.”
For more information about the consumer research on gene editing and the development of PIC’s PRRS-Resistant Pig, visit the website here PIC PRRS-Resistant Pig.
