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

Public acceptance remains a major social bottleneck in the diffusion of agricultural biotechnologies. Following the U.S. policy of mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods as “bioengineered” rather than using gene-explicit terminology, this study examines whether alternative Chinese names for agricultural biotechnologies shape public acceptance and related evaluations. In a one-way between-subjects online experiment, 1,217 Chinese participants were randomly assigned to one of four naming conditions: biotechnology food, transgenic food, genetically modified food, or genetic engineering food. While biotechnology food 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.