Never use genes: terminology effects on public acceptance and implications for agricultural biotechnology

elicited higher acceptance, lower perceived risk, higher perceived benefits, and higher perceived naturalness, the three gene-explicit terms did not show significant differences in these dimensions. Moderated mediation analyses showed that the association between naming and acceptance was primarily through perceived benefits and, more conditionally, through perceived risk. Stronger naturalness orientation amplified naming differences in perceived risks and benefits and strengthened the association between perceived benefits and acceptance, whereas genetics knowledge played a more limited moderating role. The findings highlight the role of terminology in public evaluations of GM foods and suggest that responses to naming are sensitive to concerns about naturalness. For food labeling governance in China, terminology choices should be evaluated for their effects on consumer understanding, informed choice and acceptance.