New consumer intelligence conducted by Decision Analytica Consulting, LLC, reveals that the market for pork from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS)-resistant pigs is significantly more receptive than traditional food-tech "backlash" narratives suggest. As one of the most economically devastating viruses in global pork production, PRRS cripples herd health and inflates input costs through increased mortality and antibiotic reliance. But PRRS resistance can be achieved by precisely removing a specific portion of a gene in pigs’ DNA, while maintaining no difference in growth and meat quality compared to other hogs.
The hurdle has never been the science of production, but the specter of consumer rejection. I have witnessed firsthand how selective interpretations of prior consumer research, including commentary of my own peer-reviewed studies, have contributed to exaggerated assumptions of broad consumer backlash, even when the underlying data reflected far more nuance and openness than critics often acknowledge.
For more than a decade, my research as a behavioral scientist has focused on risk perception, public trust, and emerging technologies, particularly how consumers interpret biotechnology in food and agriculture. This work has included collaborations with leading universities, federal partners, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and international efforts tied to NATO initiatives on biotechnology development and responsible innovation.
New research reflects a notable shift in consumer openness to gene editing in food
More than five years ago, I authored some of the first peer-reviewed academic studies that systematically examined the public’s willingness to eat or purposefully avoid gene-edited foods. At that time, gene editing was still largely unfamiliar to most Americans, and public understanding of the technology was heavily shaped by decades of highly visible GMO debates. This newest research reflects a notable shift. Consumers are increasingly evaluating products like the PRRS-resistant pig through practical questions about animal health, food affordability, sustainability, and consumer choice rather than reflexive opposition to the technology itself. Over multiple years of research, one finding has remained remarkably consistent: consumers rarely respond to biotechnology based on technical science alone. They respond to whether the product feels useful, understandable, trustworthy, and aligned with the values and expectations they already hold about the food system. While the industry has historically operated under a cloud of assumed opposition, data from this new study of 1,000 U.S. pork consumers gathered in April 2026 suggests that such caution may actually be distorting commercial decision-making.
Click here to see more...