AUSTIN, Texas — The biotechnology industry wants to avoid repeating mistakes with gene editing that it made nearly three decades ago with transgenic crops.

Back when such crops were first being commercialized, the problem wasn’t with the technology but with how the industry rolled them out to the public, said Roxi Beck, director of consumer engagement with the Center for Food Integrity.

Biotech companies primarily focused on explaining the benefits to farmers, rather than shoppers who might be leery of plants that incorporate genes from foreign organisms, Beck said at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s convention on Jan. 20 in Austin, Texas.

“They forgot to say: ‘Consumer, we care about you,’” she said. “They didn’t know they had to think about the customer’s customer’s customer.”

To avoid another “missed opportunity” in consumer communications, the Center for Food Integrity nonprofit has conducted research into how to best to explain the evolving field of gene editing.

Unlike transgenic biotechnology, gene editing involves removing or changing DNA sequences found naturally in the plant or animal.

It can be used to calibrate messages about gene editing, since consumers “absolutely don’t want an academic explanation” but they are also skeptical of oversimplification, Beck said. “We don’t want to make it seem as if we were talking down to them.”

Analogies are useful in explaining the technology, but the Center for Food Integrity has found that some common comparisons are counterproductive, she said.

For example, saying the process of cutting and altering gene sequences was found to “sound sinister” while comparisons to splicing film or editing text with a word processor were thought to be condescending, she said. “They want that level of transparency.”

Analogies that worked well included online encyclopedias and the blueprints for designing a home, which involve a complex interplay of information, Beck said.

“I get the volume (of data) that we’re talking about here,” she said, explaining the consumer’s perspective. “They’re relatable, safe, but not scary.”

Who presents the information about gene editing is also of paramount importance, with consumers trusting science leaders the most and food retailers the least, the organization’s research found. In terms of trust, farmers are at the midpoint between those two groups.

“The closer you are to profit, the less I can trust you,” Beck said, adding that consumers are also dubious of crops that have been gene-edited for cosmetic reasons.

For example, people think that crops such as apples, potatoes and mushrooms are “supposed to brown,” so alterations against browning amount to duping consumers into thinking they’re fresh, she said.

“When that doesn’t happen, you’re messing with nature,” Beck said.

Popular selling points for agriculture technology, such a “feeding the world,” were also determined to be ineffective.

Consumers didn’t put much stock in that rationale for gene editing, as they see abundant amounts of food at the grocery store and mounting concerns about obesity, she said.

“I don’t think we need more food, it’s a distribution problem,” Beck said, summarizing this perspective.

Describing gene editing as an earth-shattering breakthrough is best avoided — consumers are more receptive to the explanation that the process is “an evolution, not a revolution” that simply speeds up natural genetic changes, she said.

“Those headlines can be scary for people who already think we’ve gone too far,” Beck said.

Rather than focus on yield efficiency or similar agricultural benefits, it’s more effective to make equally accurate statements about reducing the environmental footprint of farming by cutting the need for pesticides or antibiotics, she said.

Consumers tend to think about the technology more positively when they’re first introduced to its potential impact on human diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, “There’s huge promise there and the same promise there is in human health is possible in agriculture.”