Emerging Social and Scientific Imaginaries for Gene Edited Foods: Implications for Governance

Gene editing is being heralded by its scientific and business proponents as a ‘powerful tool’ with ‘infinite possibilities.’ The technology is ‘precise’, ‘fast’ and ‘simple’ - capable of delivering an array... [ view full abstract ]

Gene editing is being heralded by its scientific and business proponents as a ‘powerful tool’ with ‘infinite possibilities.’ The technology is ‘precise’, ‘fast’ and ‘simple’ - capable of delivering an array of crops and foods with benefits for producers, consumers and the environment. It will drive the ‘next Green Revolution.’ At the same time, proponents of gene editing are concerned the rapid development of gene editing and gene edited foods (GEFs) will create controversy and pose major social acceptance and governance challenges because of misunderstandings about the scientific complexity and the disruptive potential of the novel gene editing technologies. These concerns emanate from existing social controversy toward current genetically modified foods (GMOs). Many proponents are eager to avoid the public scrutiny and backlash that GMOs have engendered, as well as rigorous regulatory oversight that could limit the technology’s potential.

In this paper, we examine how gene editing is being ‘imagined’ and framed by its proponents. We derive our data from a content analysis of the discourses used in public stakeholder comments submitted to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 2017 docket titled “Genome Editing in New Plant Varieties Used for Food.” This provides a sample frame consisting of comments from the agrifood and biotech industry, agricultural commodity groups, and scientific organizations. Our findings reveal several key frames in the testimony: first, regulations for GEF should be based on science rather than non-scientific concerns; second, GEF are necessary to ensure global food security; third, gene editing techniques are substantially equivalent to traditional breeding methods and therefore pose no additional food safety risks. The imaginaries concept provides analytical insight into GEF proponents’ collectively imagined visions of the role this technology ought to play in the economy, scientific research communities, agrifood industry, and US and global affairs. These sociotechnical imaginaries have the potential to influence how consumers perceive GEF and how they are governed. We draw on the imaginaries literature, together with previous analyses of the GMO controversy over labeling in the US, to understand how these frames for GEF are used to help legitimize this novel technology, increase its social acceptance, and shape its governance.