foods

Article
Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnological
Solutions for Gluten-Free Products
Paola Sangiorgio 1, * , Simona Errico 1 , Alessandra Verardi 1 , Silvia Massa 2 , Riccardo Pagliarello 2 ,
Carla Marusic 2 , Chiara Lico 2 , Ombretta Presenti 2 , Marcello Donini 2 and Selene Baschieri 2

1 Laboratory Bioproducts and Bioprocesses, ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies,
Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Trisaia Research Centre, 75026 Rotondella, Italy
2 Laboratory Biotechnologies, ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development, Casaccia Research Centre, Santa Maria di Galeria, 00123 Rome, Italy
* Correspondence: paola.sangiorgio@enea.it

Abstract: Celiac disease is an immune-mediated disorder caused by the ingestion of gluten proteins.
The gluten-free diet is currently the only therapy to achieve the symptoms’ remission. Biotechnologi-
cal approaches are currently being explored to obtain safer and healthier food for celiacs. This article
analyzes consumer awareness and acceptance of advanced biotechnologies to develop gluten-free
products. An online snowball sampling questionnaire was proposed to 511 Italian participants,
selected among celiac and non-celiac people, from December 2020 to January 2021, during the second
wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 64% of respondents favor food biotechnology, as long as it
has benefits for health or the environment. Moreover, biotechnology perception differs according to
education level and type. A total of 65% of the survey participants would taste gluten-free products
obtained through a biotechnological approach, and 57% would buy them at a higher price than the
current market price. Our results show a change in public opinion about the usefulness of food
biotechnology and its moral acceptability compared to 20 years ago. However, the study of public
opinion is very complex, dealing with individuals with social, economic, and cultural differences.
Undoubtedly, the scientific dissemination of genetic biotechnologies must be more effective and
usable to increase the level of citizens’ awareness.
Citation: Sangiorgio, P.; Errico, S.;
Verardi, A.; Massa, S.; Pagliarello, R.;
Marusic, C.; Lico, C.; Presenti, O.;
Keywords: gluten-free products; public opinion; consumer behavior; consumer acceptance;
Donini, M.; Baschieri, S. Consumer food biotechnology
Awareness and Acceptance of
Biotechnological Solutions for
Gluten-Free Products. Foods 2023, 12,
1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
foods12091808 Celiac disease is an immune-mediated pathology that affects about 1% of the popula-
Academic Editor: Marina Carcea tion in Europe. It is characterized by a state of chronic inflammation of the small intestine
triggered, in genetically predisposed subjects, by ingesting gluten proteins contained in the
Received: 6 February 2023 grains (seeds) of certain cereals, including wheat [1]. Complete and permanent elimina-
Revised: 12 April 2023
tion of gluten from the diet is the only treatment currently available for the remission of
Accepted: 21 April 2023
symptoms and to prevent complications. Although considerable progress has been made
Published: 26 April 2023
to improve the palatability of gluten-free foods, commercial products are usually high in
calories and expensive. However, gluten-free diets have become increasingly popular in
recent years among the general population, athletes, and patients with clinical conditions
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
other than celiac disease, including non-celiac gluten sensitivity, irritable bowel syndrome,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. neurological diseases, and autism [2].
This article is an open access article The replacement of the gluten mesh is currently one of the biggest challenges in
distributed under the terms and food technology [3]. In the grain, gluten proteins serve as an energy reserve and support
conditions of the Creative Commons germination during the initial stages of plant development. When the grains are milled,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and water is added to the flour to produce dough, the matrix formed by gluten proteins
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ around starch granules turns into an elastic, viscous network. In the dough, during baking,
4.0/). the gluten network slows down the absorption of water by the starch, giving the product

Foods 2023, 12, 1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12091808 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods

Foods 2023, 12, 1808 2 of 19

tenacity and elasticity, while in bread, it retains the gas bubbles produced by yeast. This
property, combined with those of cohesion, homogeneity, visco-elasticity, and tenacity,
results in a soft and elastic product that is pleasing to the palate [4]. Gluten proteins, which
are numerous and very diverse, are encoded by several genes grouped in loci distributed
on different chromosomes and are classified into two groups, gliadins and glutenins [5].
This genetic complexity makes it impossible to generate gluten-free cereals using classical
genetic techniques (such as plant breeding) [6].
Patents focused on gluten-free products and ‘celiac disease’ are numerous, and many
of them focus on the development of (i) drugs [7]; (ii) chemical-physical or enzymatic
treatments for the degradation of gluten in food [8,9]; (iii) non-transgenic low-gluten
wheat with CRISPR/Cas9 [10]; and (iv) detoxified gluten proteins through recombinant
DNA-based approaches [11].
Biotechnologies, in particular genetic technologies, can help to obtain gluten-free prod-
ucts with characteristics similar to those containing “natural” gluten, as demonstrated by
the above studies. However, has public opinion on these technologies improved compared
to twenty years ago [12]? Recent studies show that the debate on the use of biotechnology
in the agri-food sector is still heated, despite the unanimous chorus of scientists worldwide
on their safety and usefulness. However, these studies acknowledge a more favorable
public sentiment toward biotech products, especially in relation to genetically modified
products [13]. The 2019 European Food Safety Authority survey observed a decrease in the
percentage of Europeans choosing GMOs as a food safety concern from 66% in 2010 to just
27% in 2019 [14]. Does this mean that common knowledge has increased?
The purpose of this article is to identify if there has been a positive trend in the
perception of biotechnologies and, in particular, of foods produced with biotechnological
approaches. Through an online survey of 511 consumers selected by snowball sampling,
we studied consumer awareness and acceptance of the use of advanced biotechnologies for
gluten-free products. We also evaluated the degree of knowledge of celiac disease on the
part of consumers and their propensity to purchase innovative products with detoxified
gluten. Finally, we compared our findings with data from similar studies in the literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Survey Design
An online snowball sampling questionnaire was used to reach numerous consumers
during the second wave of COVID-19 in Italy. During this period, the pandemic crisis has
imposed restrictions (stay-at-home policy) to contain the virus’s spread in Italy. In this
situation, this non-probability survey sample selection method made it possible to obtain
answers quickly from a good number of consumers, guaranteeing the representativeness
and generalizability of the sample. The survey was conducted from December 2020 to
January 2021 using an ad hoc questionnaire linked to the Google Forms platform. Selected
participants were asked to share the invitation with colleagues/friends/family who might
be suitable for this study. The target of consumers believed to have the characteristics of
interest was reached through the numerous referrals of the initially sampled participants
to other potential subjects [15]. A total of 511 Italian participants answered the question-
naire disseminated using different media channels, including personal social networks
(e.g., Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.), institutional mailing lists, and specifically dedicated pages.
In this way, we were also able to reach a large proportion of consumers directly or
closely affected by the coeliac condition. This is confirmed by the percentage of participants
with coeliac disease or family members with coeliac disease: 19% of consumers surveyed
compared to 1% of coeliacs on average in Italy and Europe [1].

2.2. Questionnaire Design

Particular attention was paid to formulating simple, clear, and concise questions and
ordering their succession to lead the consumer by the hand to the heart of the survey. The
questionnaire includes various sections:
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 3 of 19

• Presentation of the questionnaire and informed consent;

• Consumer details: province of residence, gender, age (by age group), description of
the family unit, educational qualification, level and type of culture, and profession;
• Purchasing habits: factors that influence their choices;
• Propensity for novelties in the food field;
• Degree of knowledge of biotechnologies and their perception;
• Celiac disease: direct or indirect knowledge of people with celiac disease, degree of
knowledge of the celiac disease;
• Gluten-free products: characteristics and satisfaction;
• Propensity to consume and purchase products containing detoxified gluten.
The questionnaire was strictly anonymous. The answers were anonymous and confi-
dential: the results were reported aggregately and archived securely so as not to disclose
information about individual consumers. The data access was limited to a pool of autho-
rized and identified persons of the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy
and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA). Participation in the survey was voluntary.
It was possible to withdraw at any time by closing the browser and not submitting the
form. Finally, it was requested to give electronic informed consent to proceed with the
answers to the various questions.

2.3. Statistical Processing of Data

The survey results were statistically processed using GraphPad Prism version 8
(GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Data are shown as means ± standard
deviation (SD). In the case of a normal distribution of data of groups, we conducted
a one-way ANOVA analysis of variance with multiple comparisons to evidence dif-
ferences between groups. Tukey’s post hoc test was used as a statistical hypothesis
testing, applying a 95% confidence level (p < 0,05). In the case of non-normal data, we
performed the Kruskal–Wallis test (p < 0.05), followed by the Dunn test for multiple
comparisons of groups. Significant differences were shown as asterisks on respec-
tive graphs, where * p-value ≤ 0.033, ** p-value ≤ 0.002, and *** p-value ≤ 0.001. We
used the Chi-square test of independence (confidence interval = 95%) on some data to
determine whether categorical or nominal variables are likely to be related.

3. Results
3.1. Consumer Characteristics
Figure 1 shows the results of the survey relating to consumer characteristics, such as
region (or province) of origin, gender, age group, number of family members and minor
children, education, and employment.
Survey participants are mainly aged between 18 and 24 (24%), 45 and 54 (23%), and 25
and 34 (19%), of which 65% are female.
Regarding the place of origin, the most represented region is Lazio (206 respon-
dents from Lazio, of which 193 were from Rome), followed by Sicily (56), Lombardy (51),
Calabria (42), and Basilicata (34). It is interesting to note that the surveyed sample is
balanced between large and small cities.
Regarding the level and type of education, 66% of the participants have a tertiary
education, and 61% declare a predominantly scientific culture.
 3. Results
3.1. Consumer Characteristics
Figure 1 shows the results of the survey relating to consumer characteristics, such as
region
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 (or province) of origin, gender, age group, number of family members and minor 4 of 19
children, education, and employment.

Figure 1. Main
Figure 1. Main characteristics characteristics
of survey of survey
participants: participants:
(a) origin, (b) age,(a)
(c) origin,
gender,(b)
(d)age, (c) gender,
culture type, (d) culture type,
(e) education, (f) employment.
(e) education, (f) employment.

3.2. Purchasing Habits

Survey participants are mainly aged between 18 and 24 (24%), 45 and 54 (23%), and
Regarding
25 and 34 (19%), of which 65% are shopping
female.habits, the survey asked respondents whether they pay attention
to the label, expiration
Regarding the place of origin, the most date, and other region
represented indications on(206
is Lazio the respondents
packaging when making a
purchase. The possible answers were always,
from Lazio, of which 193 were from Rome), followed by Sicily (56), Lombardy (51),often, sometimes, rarely,
Ca-and never. The
survey results
labria (42), and Basilicata (34). show that the sample
It is interesting to noteinterviewed alwayssample
that the surveyed pays attention to what is stated on
is balanced
the label (65%)
between large and small cities. or does it often (24%).
Furthermore,
Regarding the level and typethe of questionnaire
education, 66% asked the consumer
of the participants which
haveinformation
a tertiary reported on the
label was most important, such
education, and 61% declare a predominantly scientific culture.as expiry date, ingredients, geographical origin, brand, etc.
The consumer could indicate a maximum of 3 preferences. Results show that respondents
are more careful about the expiry date (87%), the ingredients (62%), the geographical
3.2. Purchasing Habits
origin (50%), and the presence or absence of some compounds in the ingredients (37%).
Regarding Finally,
shopping habits, theshare
a significant survey asked respondents
of responses whethertothey
indicates attention pay products
organic atten- (20%) and to
tion to the label,the
expiration
brand (20%).date, and other indications on the packaging when making a
purchase. The possible answersfactors
Regarding were always, often,the
influencing sometimes,
food product rarely, and never.
choice, surveyThe participants rated
survey results show that the sample interviewed always pays attention
quality, price/quality ratio, ingredients, price, origin, promotions, to what is and
stated
brand on a Likert
on the label (65%) or does
scale rangingit often
from (24%).
1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). Table 1 shows the
Furthermore, the questionnaire
frequencies of the scoresasked the consumer
assigned for eachwhich
factor,information
their means, reported
standard ondeviations (SD),
the label was mostandimportant,
medians. such as expiry date, ingredients, geographical origin, brand,
 to the brand (20%).
Regarding factors influencing the food product choice, survey participants rated
quality, price/quality ratio, ingredients, price, origin, promotions, and brand on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (very important). Table 1 shows the fre-
quencies of the scores assigned for each factor, their means, standard deviations (SD), and
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 medians. 5 of 19

Table 1. Results relating to factors influencing the food product choice. Frequencies of the scores,
mean
Table score and standard
1. Results relating todeviation (SD), and the
factors influencing themedian. Scale used:
food product 1 =Frequencies
choice. not important at all;
of the 2=
scores,
not important; 3 = partially not important; 4 = neutral; 5 = partially important; 6 = important;
mean score and standard deviation (SD), and the median. Scale used: 1 = not important at all; 7 = very
important.
2 = not important; 3 = partially not important; 4 = neutral; 5 = partially important; 6 = important;
What Factors Influence the Choice
7 = veryofimportant.
One Scores
Mean (SD) Median
Product Over Another Equivalent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
What Factors Influence the Choice of One Scores Mean
Price
Product Over Another Equivalent? 1 37 267 63
3 794 1215 81 6 63 7 4.8(SD)
(1.8) 5
Median
Quality 9 13 50 23 51 134 231 6.4 (1.5) 6
Price 37 67 63 79 121 81 63 4.8 (1.8) 5
Price/Quality
Quality Ratio 9 11 1332 55
50 3123 5851 115134 209 231 6.1
6.4(1.7)
(1.5) 66
Promotions
Price/Quality Ratio 11 33 3256 68
55 7231 102
58 96 115 84 209 5.0
6.1(1.8)
(1.7) 65
Brand
Promotions 33 67 5676 84
68 106
72 99
102 50 96 29 84 4.1
5.0(1.7)
(1.8) 54
Brand
Ingredients 67 22 7634 84
49 106
45 7199 10750 183 29 4.1 (1.7)
5.9 (1.8) 46
Ingredients 22 34 49 45 71 107 183 5.9 (1.8) 6
Origin
Origin 44 44 5050 59
59 5656 7474 128128 100 100 5.2
5.2(1.9)
(1.9) 55

Comparing the average scores obtained for each factor, quality, price/quality ratio,
and ingredients
Comparing obtain the highest
the average average scores
scores obtained (6.4,
for each 6.1, quality,
factor, and 5.9,price/quality
respectively).ratio,
The
brand obtains the lowest average value (4.1). However, the analysis of the frequency
and ingredients obtain the highest average scores (6.4, 6.1, and 5.9, respectively). his-
The brand
tograms of the
obtains the scores
lowest assigned
average by(4.1).
value the respondents shows
However, the the of
analysis following (Figurehistograms
the frequency 2):
of the scores assigned by the respondents shows the following (Figure 2):

Figure 2. Frequencies of the scores for some factors influencing the food product choice. Scale used:
Figure 2. Frequencies of the scores for some factors influencing the food product choice. Scale used:
1 = not important at all; 2 = not important; 3 = partially not important; 4 = neutral; 5 = partially
1 = not important at all; 2 = not important; 3 = partially not important; 4 = neutral; 5 = partially
important; 66 == important;
important; important; 77 == very
veryimportant.
important.

For quality, quality/price ratio, and ingredients, there is an imbalance clearly in

For quality, quality/price ratio, and ingredients, there is an imbalance clearly in favor
favor of the highest scores 6–7; i.e., most consumers find these factors important or
of the highest scores 6–7; i.e., most consumers find these factors important or very im-
very important.
portant.
The origin has a distribution like that of the three most favored factors, but with much
lower frequencies of the highest score. The origin, however, is an overall rather important
factor (average value 5.2).
The price (average score 4.8) is important and very important (score 5–7) for just over
half of the sample surveyed (265 responses), while it is not at all or not very important
(score 1–3) for 167 consumers.
Promotions and brand show mirrored distributions. Promotions have the most
selected score, 5–7 (for a total of 282 responses), while the brand receives the most re-
sponses with a score below 4 (333 responses) and obtains the lowest average score (average
value 4.1).
 half of the sample surveyed (265 responses), while it is not at all or not very important
(score 1–3) for 167 consumers.
Promotions and brand show mirrored distributions. Promotions have the most se-
lected score, 5–7 (for a total of 282 responses), while the brand receives the most responses
with a score below 4 (333 responses) and obtains the lowest average score (average value
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 6 of 19
4.1).

3.3. Propensity for Novelties in the Food Field

3.3. Propensity for Novelties in the Food Field
The propensity to try new foods receives an average score of 5.2 on a scale ranging
from 1The propensity
(strongly to try
disagree) tonew foods receives
7 (strongly an the
agree). On average scorethe
contrary, of participants
5.2 on a scale ranging
disagree
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). On the contrary, the participants
or partially disagree with the assertion of distrust of novelties (average score 2.6) (Tabledisagree
2).or partially disagree with the assertion of distrust of novelties (average score 2.6) (Table 2).

Resultsrelating
Table2.2.Results
Table relatingtotothe
thepropensity
propensitytototrytryfood
foodnovelties.
novelties.Frequencies
Frequenciesofofthe
thescores,
scores,mean
mean
score and standard deviation (SD), and the median. Scale used: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree;
score and standard deviation (SD), and the median. Scale used: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree;
3 3= =
partially disagree;
partially disagree;4 =4 neutral; 5 =5 partially
= neutral; agree;
= partially 6 =6 agree;
agree; 7 =7strongly
= agree; agree.
= strongly agree.

How How Much

MuchDo DoYou
YouAgree withThese
Agree with These Scores
Scores
Statements
Statementsabout
aboutthe
the Propensity toTry
Propensity to Try Mean
Mean(SD)
(SD) Median
Median
1 1 2 2 33 44 55 66 7 7
FoodFood Novelties?
Novelties?
I like trying
I like tryingnew
newfoods
foods 12 12 20 20 57
57 75
75 103
103 109
109 135135 5.2
5.2(1.6)
(1.6) 55
I do not trust novelties
I do not trust novelties 160160 135135 79
79 60
60 42
42 1919 16 16 2.6 (1.6)
2.6 (1.6) 22

The frequency distribution of consumers’ scores on the statements related to the pro-
pensityTheto frequency distribution
novelties (Figure of consumers’
3) shows that 68% ofscores on the statements
the participants assign a related
score ofto5–7
the
propensity to novelties (Figure 3) shows that 68% of the participants assign a score
(partially totally agree) to the item “I like trying new foods”. On the other hand, only 15% of 5–7
of(partially totally agree)
the respondents to the
partially item “Iagree
strongly like trying
with “Inew foods”.
do not trustOn the other hand, only 15%
novelties”.
of the respondents partially strongly agree with “I do not trust novelties”.

Figure 3. The propensity for novelties in the food field.

Figure 3. The propensity for novelties in the food field.
3.4. Degree of Knowledge of Biotechnologies and Their Perception
3.4. Degree
Givenof the
Knowledge of Biotechnologies
preponderance and Their
of consumers withPerception
university and post-graduate education
Given
in the the preponderance
sample interviewed, as of consumers with university
well as scientific andbelieve
culture, we post-graduate educationto
it is interesting
ininvestigate
the sampleany
interviewed,
differences in the consumer’s approach to (new) biotechnologiestobased
as well as scientific culture, we believe it is interesting inves-on
tigate any differences
the level of education inand
the consumer’s approach
type of culture. To thistoend,
(new)
webiotechnologies based on the
divided the participants into
level
threeofgroups:
education and typeschool
A (middle of culture. To this
or high end,
school we divided
diploma; the participants
173 participants), into three
B (bachelor’s
or master’s degree, PhD—humanities culture; 105 participants), and C (bachelor’s degree,
master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture; 233 participants). Thus, we re-analyzed the results
of some more significant questions for the objectives of our research based on these three
consumer populations.
The detailed analysis of the respondents of the three groups shows a perfect balance
in terms of the size of the city of residence (about 50% of the participants in each group
live in a large city). On the contrary, the age and gender distributions are different across
groups. Chi-square test analysis with a 95% confidence interval demonstrates that Groups
A, B, and C are related to the respondents’ age (p-value 0.001) and gender (p-value 0.005).
Indeed, 67% of the women surveyed are in Group A, 75% are in Group B, and 58% are in
Group C. Regarding age, Group C is younger than A and B (very similar), with 45% of
respondents between 18 and 24 years old.
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 7 of 19

3.4.1. Awareness of Biotechnology and More Reliable Sources of Information

Considering the entire sample interviewed, most consumers (73%) say they have
heard of biotechnology in the food sector. Analyzing the answers by splitting the surveyed
sample based on level and type of education, we obtain the results in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparing knowledge of biotechnology based on level and type of education.

Have You Ever Heard of Biotechnology in Chi-Square

Yes No p-Value *
the Food Sector? Value
Group A 117 56
Group B 62 43 15.7 0.001
Group C 196 37
* p-value < 0.05 indicate that the considered variables are related.

Having heard of biotechnology in the food sector is independent of gender, but instead
depends on the level and type of education, as it was legitimate to imagine (p-value 0.001).
In fact, the percentages of “Yes” for each group are in the following order: C (tertiary
education and scientific culture) > A (middle and high school diploma) > B (tertiary
education and humanistic culture). Group A shows higher values than Group B despite its
lower education level. A possible explanation is that in Group A, there may be a discrete
fraction of high school graduates with a scientific focus.
Those who affirmatively answered that they had heard of biotechnology in the food
sector were asked for their opinion on the use of biotechnology in this sector. A total of
64% of respondents are favorable toward it, provided that biotechnology can compensate
for food shortages, intolerances, diseases, etc., or make production more sustainable. A
total of 26% of respondents are unconditionally in favor of it. If we analyze this question
considering the three groups, A, B, and C, we obtain the data reported in Figure 4. The scale
used was as follows: 1 (contrary), 2 (neutral), 3 (favorable if biotechnologies compensate
for food shortages, intolerances, diseases, etc., or make production more sustainable), and
4 (unconditionally favorable). The results show that the means of Groups A and B are
significantly different (p < 0.001) from those of C for both questions. Group C, composed of
Foods 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW consumers with a university level and scientific culture, is more aware of biotechnologies
8 of 20
and is more in favor of them, although not scoring the maximum score for both questions
(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Responses relating the opinion on the use of biotechnology in the food sector for the three
Figure 4. Responses relating the opinion on the use of biotechnology in the food sector for the three
Groups A
Groups A (middle
(middle school
schoolor
orhigh
highschool
schooldiploma),
diploma),B B(bachelor’s
(bachelor’soror
master’s
master’sdegree, PhD—humanities
degree, PhD—human-
ities culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). The
culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). The scalescale
usedused
was
was as follows:
as follows: 1 (contrary),
1 (contrary), 2 (neutral),
2 (neutral), 3 (favorableif),
3 (favorable if),and
and4 4(unconditionally
(unconditionallyfavorable).
favorable). The
The post
post
hoc
hoc Dunn
Dunn test
test at
at the
the 5%
5% level
level of
of significance
significance was
was conducted.
conducted. Significant
Significant differences
differences were
were shown
shown as
as
asterisks
asterisks on
on respective
respective graphs,
graphs, where *** p-value
where *** p-value ≤≤0.001.
0.001.

The
The three
three groups
groups ofof participants
participants also
also differ
differ in
in terms
terms of
of the
the source
source from
from which
which they
they
heard
heard about
about biotechnologies
biotechnologies (Figure
(Figure 5).
5). Group
Group C C clearly
clearly differs
differs from
from AA and
and BB(which
(whichshow
show
very similar trends) in the percentage assigned to the item “In specialized journals” (64%
against 20–25% of Groups A and B), “From friends and/or relatives” (13% against 31–32%
of Groups A and B), and “TV/Radio” (16% versus 33–34% of Groups A and B).
 ities culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). The scale used
was as follows: 1 (contrary), 2 (neutral), 3 (favorable if), and 4 (unconditionally favorable). The post
hoc Dunn test at the 5% level of significance was conducted. Significant differences were shown as
asterisks on respective graphs, where *** p-value ≤ 0.001.

Foods 2023, 12, 1808 The three groups of participants also differ in terms of the source from which 8they of 19
heard about biotechnologies (Figure 5). Group C clearly differs from A and B (which show
very similar trends) in the percentage assigned to the item “In specialized journals” (64%
against 20–25%
very similar of Groups
trends) in theA and B), “From
percentage friends
assigned and/or
to the itemrelatives” (13% against
“In specialized 31–32%
journals” (64%
of Groups
against A andofB),
20–25% and “TV/Radio”
Groups (16% versus
A and B), “From friends33–34%
and/orof Groups A
relatives” andagainst
(13% B). 31–32%
of Groups A and B), and “TV/Radio” (16% versus 33–34% of Groups A and B).

Figure 5. Sources from which Groups A, B, and C heard about biotechnologies. A (middle school or
Figure 5. Sources from which Groups A, B, and C heard about biotechnologies. A (middle school or
high school
high school diploma),
diploma), BB(bachelor’s
(bachelor’sorormaster’s
master’sdegree,
degree,PhD—
PhD— humanities
humanitiesculture), andand
culture), C (bachelor’s
C (bache-
lor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). Item percentages are calculated with respect
degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). Item percentages are calculated with respect to the
to the total number of respondents in each group.
total number of respondents in each group.

Regarding the
Regarding the reliability
reliabilityof
ofthe
theinformation
informationsources
sources(Figure 6),6),
(Figure thethe
scientific
scientificcommunity
commu-
nity is the most reliable source on the subject for the three groups, followed by the
is the most reliable source on the subject for the three groups, followed by public
the public
Foods 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWauthorities. Differences between the three groups can be observed. Group C has 9 of 20
more trust
authorities. Differences between the three groups can be observed. Group C has more trust
in public authorities than the other two groups (55% against 50–51% of Groups
in public authorities than the other two groups (55% against 50–51% of Groups A and B) A and B)
and believes
and believes more
more in
in the
the scientific
scientific community
community (88%(88% against
against 69%
69% ofof AA and
and 79%
79% of of B).
B).

Figure 6. More reliable sources about biotechnologies for Groups A (middle school or high school
Figure 6. More reliable sources about biotechnologies for Groups A (middle school or high school
diploma),
diploma),BB(bachelor’s
(bachelor’s or
or master’s degree,PhD—humanities
master’s degree, PhD—humanitiesculture),
culture),
andand
CC (bachelor’s
(bachelor’s or master’s
or master’s
degree, PhD—scientific culture).
degree, PhD—scientific culture).

Regarding the best description of food biotechnologies (Figure 7), the items “Appli-
cation of scientific and engineering principles to treat biological material to supply goods
and services” and “Human intervention to alter the final products of a natural production
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 9 of 19

Regarding the best description of food biotechnologies (Figure 7), the items “Appli-
cation of scientific and engineering principles to treat biological material to supply goods
and services” and “Human intervention to alter the final products of a natural production
process” find the three groups in agreement and obtain 23–26% and 2% of preferences,
respectively. This last item, which denotes a negative interpretation of biotechnology, is
therefore considered valid only for a negligible minority of the groups. The distribution of
responses among the other items follows a similar trend among the three groups, except
for the phrase “Techniques which artificially induce changes in the structure and function
of a living organism or biological process for a purpose of concrete utility”. For this item,
Group B gives a much lower percentage of answers than A and C. Moreover, almost half of
Group C prefer the item “They use living organisms to obtain products, improve plants
and animals”.

Figure 7. Responses (expressed in %) indicating the phrase that best describes food biotechnologies for
the three Groups A, B, and C. A (middle school or high school diploma), B (bachelor’s or master’s de-
gree, PhD—humanities culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture).

3.4.2. Consumer Opinions on Biotechnologies and Their Uses

The questionnaire follows with the question relating to the current uses of biotechnol-
ogy. According to consumers, biotechnologies are currently used, in order of importance,
to improve the resistance of plants to parasites (77%), to improve the characteristics of food
products (59%), to introduce nutrients into widely consumed foods (45 %), to increase the
shelf life of foods (36%), for the leavening of bread and the fermentation of beer (27%), and
for the production of yogurt and cheese (23%). Some consumers have the wrong conception
of biotechnologies, as they believe they can be used to obtain larger animals (23%) or for
cryogenics (5%).
Regarding the usefulness, safety, and moral acceptability of some uses of biotechnology,
the participants assigned scores from 1, corresponding to the negative judgments of useless,
risky, and morally unacceptable, and 3, related to the positive opinions (helpful, safe, and
ethically acceptable). The value 2 indicated the uncertainty. As shown in Figure 8, the
following can be seen:
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 10 of 19
Foods 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Figure 8. ResponsesFigure
about8.the
Responses aboutsafety,
usefulness, the usefulness,
and moralsafety, and moral acceptability
acceptability of some uses ofof
some uses of biotech-
biotech-
nology for the threenology for A,
Groups theB,
three
andGroups A, B,
C. Scale and C.
used: Scale used:
1 (useless, 1 (useless,
risky, risky, and
and morally morally unacceptable), 2
unacceptable),
(neutral), and 3 (helpful, safe, and ethically acceptable). The post hoc Dunn test at the 5% level of
2 (neutral), and 3 (helpful, safe, and ethically acceptable). The post hoc Dunn test at the 5% level of
significance was conducted. Significant differences were shown as asterisks on respective graphs,
where * p-value ≤ 0.033, ** p-value ≤ 0.002, and *** p-value ≤ 0.001.
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 11 of 19

The three groups judge the 2–5 uses helpful, with average values close to the maximum
score. Regarding Use 1, i.e., introducing human genes into animals, the mean values of A
and B (about 2.2) significantly differ from those of Group C, which has values around 2.5.
Regarding the risky judgment, only Use 3 (genetic tests for diagnostics) shows values
above 2.4 for Groups A and B, and close to 3 for Group C, indicating an opinion of moderate
safety. Manipulating human genes (Use 1) and the transfer of genes into plants to make
them resistant (Use 2) are judged to be much more risky than safe, showing low mean values.
Relative to this use, Group C has significantly higher values than A and B. Use 5 obtains
unanimous neutrality, while Use 4 shows A and C as neutral and B lower than C.
The “moral acceptability” judgment is almost unanimous for Use 3 (close to the
maximum score) and is prevalent for Use 4, with a higher score for Group C. For Use 5,
Group B has lower values than C, but however high. Conversely, the introduction of
human genes into animals (Use 1) and the transfer of genes into plants to increase their
resistance (Use 2) have low values for Groups A and B and values above neutral for
Group C (significantly different from A and B).
In the following question, the survey asked participants how much they agreed
with some opinions about biotechnology. Some of these items repeated concepts already
expressed in the previous question, but the setting was different, as was the scale used,
from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
Statistical treatment conducted on the three groups’ responses led to the results shown
in Figure 9. Groups A and B are almost indifferent to Opinion 1, “Modifying foods during
production is harmful to health”, while Group C partially disagrees (significantly different
from A and B). The three groups agree in expressing the need to deepen biotechnological
knowledge in the food sector to understand its long-term effects (Opinion 2). Groups A
and B agree on the need for scientists to clarify the risks/benefits of biotechnology in the
food sector (Opinion 3). In this regard, Group C differs from the others by showing a lower
score, towards only partial agreement with the statement. Groups partially agree that, if
well used, biotechnology leads to high-value products (Opinion 4). Group C, however,
differs from A, agreeing more with the statement. The three groups are equally neutral with
respect to Opinion 5 “Biotechnologies are sometimes the only remedy for food problems”.
The groups are neutral about “Biotechnologies increase productivity while respecting the
environment” (Opinion 6). Here, C differs from B with a slightly higher score. Finally, they
agree equally on the influence of scientific knowledge of new processes on the consumer
(Opinion 7).
It is interesting to note that with respect to three out of seven topics proposed in this
question, the three groups do not have significantly different opinions. In the remaining
four questions, the differences are minimal in three cases and always concern Group C. It,
in fact, differs as follows:
From Group A on Opinion 4 (if well used, biotechnology can add value to products).
From Group B on Opinion 6 (biotechnology increases productivity while respecting
the environment).
From both Group A and Group B on Opinion 3 (Scientists need to be clearer about the
risks/benefits of biotechnology in food).
This may perhaps be explained by a better average knowledge of the field that prompts
Group C, on the one hand, to trust innovations more, and on the other hand, to clarify that
scientists are not always able to provide certain clear and detailed information.
Finally, Group C differs greatly from both A and B in Opinion 1 “Modifying food
during production is harmful to health”, showing that more awareness and more effective
communication with people less knowledgeable about the topic is needed.
Foods 2023,
Foods 12, 1808
2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
12 of 20
of 19

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Responses
Responses relating thethe agreement
agreement with
with some
some statements
statements regarding
regarding biotechnologies.
biotechnologies. The
three Groups
three GroupsAreAreAA(middle
(middleschool or high
school school
or high diploma),
school B (bachelor’s
diploma), or master’s
B (bachelor’s degree,degree,
or master’s PhD—
PhD— humanities culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). used:
humanities culture), and C (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, PhD—scientific culture). Scale Scale
1 = completely
used: disagree;
1 = completely 2 = disagree;
disagree; 3 = partially
2 = disagree; disagree;disagree;
3 = partially 4 = neutral;
4 =5neutral;
= partially
5 =agree; 6 = agree;
partially agree;
67 =
= completely agree. Tukey’s
agree; 7 = completely testTukey’s
agree. at the 5% level
test of significance
at the 5% level of was conducted.
significance wasSignificant
conducted. differ-
Sig-
ences were shown as asterisks on respective graphs, where * p-value ≤ 0.033 and *** p-value ≤ 0.001.
nificant differences were shown as asterisks on respective graphs, where * p-value ≤ 0.033 and
*** p-value ≤ 0.001.
It is interesting to note that with respect to three out of seven topics proposed in this
question,
3.4.3. the three
Relevant groups do
Information fornot have significantly
Choosing Biotech Foodsdifferent opinions. In the remaining
four The
questions,
surveythe differences
asked are minimal
how relevant in three cases
some information wasand
for always concern
consumers Group C.
in choosing It,
food
in fact, differs
obtained as follows:
through biotechnology on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (essential). The
From
results Group A
are shown in on Opinion
Figure 10. 4 (if well used, biotechnology can add value to products).
From Group B on Opinion 6 (biotechnology increases productivity while respecting
the environment).
From both Group A and Group B on Opinion 3 (Scientists need to be clearer about
the risks/benefits of biotechnology in food).
 communication with people less knowledgeable about the topic is needed.

3.4.3. Relevant Information for Choosing Biotech Foods

The survey asked how relevant some information was for consumers in choosing
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 food obtained through biotechnology on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (essential).
13 of 19
The results are shown in Figure 10.

Figure
Figure10. 10.Responses
Responses ofof
Groups
Groups A, A,
B, and C toCthe
B, and to question, “How“How
the question, important is the following
important infor-
is the following
mation for you
information for in
you choosing foodfood
in choosing obtained through
obtained throughbiotechnology?”.
biotechnology?”. Scale
Scaleused:
used:1 1==not
notimportant
important
at
at all;
all; 22 == of
of little
little importance;
importance; 33 == of
of average
average importance;
importance; 44 == very
very important;
important; 55 == essential.
essential. Tukey’s
Tukey’s
test at the 5% level of significance was conducted. Significant differences were shown
test at the 5% level of significance was conducted. Significant differences were shown as asterisks on as asterisks
on respective
respective graphs,
graphs, where
where * p-value
* p-value ≤ 0.033,
≤ 0.033, ** ** p-value
p-value ≤ ≤0.002,
0.002,and
and*** p-value≤≤0.001.
***p-value 0.001.

Among
Among the the factors
factors influencing
influencing the the decision
decision to
to purchase
purchase biotech
biotech products,
products, thethe three
three
groups
groups attach great importance to the positive and negative effects on health and en-
attach great importance to the positive and negative effects on health and the the
vironment
environment (average value
(average of 4.2).
value The opinions
of 4.2). on scientists
The opinions follow,follow,
on scientists with an average
with of 4.1,
an average
but with
of 4.1, Group
but C, as compared
with Group to A, having
C, as compared more confidence
to A, having in science.
more confidence in science.
Slightly
Slightly less
less important
important isis the
the technology
technology used
used for
for production
production (average
(average value
value 3.9).
3.9). The
The
opinions
opinions ofof friends/acquaintances
friends/acquaintancesand andthe
theinternet/social
internet/socialnetworks
networksare areof
oflittle
littlerelevance,
relevance,
with
with Group
Group C C deeming
deeming them
them less
less relevant
relevant than
than Groups
Groups A A and
and B.B.

3.5. Celiac Disease Awareness and Propensity to Purchase Products with “Detoxified” Gluten
The survey continues with a section relating to the knowledge of celiac disease, the
acceptance of biotechnological methods to obtain products with gluten rendered harmless,
and the propensity to purchase such products.
We asked all the participants questions on these issues, not just celiacs, to see if there is
a difference in perception between those forced to buy gluten-free products and those who
can choose to buy them. As already mentioned, nowadays, many people, despite not being
celiac and knowing that gluten-free products are, on average, more expensive than those
containing gluten, prefer the former as they consider them healthier. Having to evaluate
the awareness of celiac disease, we also assessed it in non-celiac people.

3.5.1. Celiac Disease Awareness

Survey results show that 19% of participants are directly affected by celiac disease or
have celiac family members in their household.
A total of 79% have friends, acquaintances, or relatives who are affected by celiac
disease and therefore are aware of the problems associated with this disease. This aspect
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 14 of 19

is confirmed by the fact that 78% choose “It is a disease with a genetic predisposition, the
causes of which are still debated, which can be kept under control by a gluten-free diet” as
the definition that best describes celiac disease. However, there is a 20% share who confuse
celiac disease with an intolerance or allergy.
Regarding its diffusion in Italy, consumers show a certain lack of information, inde-
pendently from education: only 17% of the target choose the correct option (about 1%); 28%
opt for “2–9%”, 27% arrive at “10–25%”, and 11% say “26–40%”.
As can be imagined, celiac participants are more aware than non-celiacs of what celiac
disease is. However, they do not know how widespread celiac disease is in Italy.
Groups A, B, and C do not differ for all the questions in this section.

3.5.2. Consumer Opinion on Celiac Products

Relating to the possibility of finding gluten-free products with the same qualities as
those containing gluten, 53% think it is difficult, while 30% believe it is possible.
Regarding the degree of satisfaction with celiac products, 40% of consumers believe
that gluten-free food has reached an acceptable quality level for consumption. However,
38% believe they cost too much. A total of 27% say that “something is missing, even if it
does not look bad”. A total of 23% cut it short by saying they are glad they do not have
this problem. Some consumers state it is the current trend for non-celiacs (18% of answers).
Small shares of the sample interviewed assert they are more digestible (12%) or, on the
contrary, contain unhealthy additives (13%). A total of 19% of consumers answered that
they did not have a precise opinion.
No significant differences were found between Groups A, B, and C for all the questions
in this section.

3.5.3. Consumer Opinion on Using Biotechnology for Celiac Products

The last part of the section dedicated to celiac disease asks questions relating to the
use of biotechnology in the specific case of gluten-free products.
Figure 11 illustrates the pie charts relating to the results of the questions submitted to
the respondents.
For these questions, the chi-square test of independence (confidence interval = 95%)
showed no correlation between the answers and the level and type of education, except for
question e. In this case, (p-value of 0.001), the willingness to pay more for the product with
detoxified gluten is related to belonging to the three Groups A, B, and C.
Furthermore, interesting results emerge from Figure 11.
Regarding the use of biotechnology to make gluten in products intended for celiacs
harmless in some way, 81% of the sample is in favor. However, the percentage of consumers
drops if you ask them if they are in favor of tasting it themselves (65%), since the number
of uncertain respondents increases (33%).
Concerning the propensity to purchase such products with “detoxified” gluten, only
57% would buy it, 38% are doubtful, and 5% do not want to.
Regarding the possible price of products with detoxified gluten, 35% of consumers
would pay 10–25% more, 27% would spend up to 10% more, and 7% would be willing to
spend more than 25%. A total of 31% do not know.
If they were not celiac, 27% would still be willing to buy products with detoxified
gluten, but only if they knew they were good for their health. A total of 24% would not
buy them, but 20% would do so without condition. A total of 19% are uncertain, and 11%
do not know.
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 Foods 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure 11. Pie charts relating the questions on the biotechnology use for gluten-free products.
Figure 11. Pie charts relating the questions on the biotechnology use for gluten-free produ
4. Discussion
For these questions, the chi-square test of independence (confidence interv
The online snowball sampling method made it possible to carry out our survey
showed no correlation between the answers and the level and type of educatio
during a period of the pandemic crisis, which severely limited the development of research
for question e. In this case, (p-value of 0.001), the willingness to pay more for the
activities. This method is considered sufficiently reliable, produces moderate bias, and is
with detoxified gluten is related to belonging to the three Groups A, B, and C.
especially helpful if it is difficult to reach the subjects of the survey [16–18].
An ad hoc panel Furthermore, interesting
of initial participants wasresults emerge
selected. These from Figure
initial 11.
participants were
Regarding the use of biotechnology to make
asked to share the link to the survey questionnaire with friends, relatives, colleagues, gluten in productsetc. intended fo
harmless in some way, 81% of the sample is in favor.
Although many people still consider it inappropriate to use social networks to recruit However, the percentage of
ers drops if you ask them if they are in favor of tasting
participants for surveys and questionnaires, just as many publications attest to their ease of it themselves (65%), since
ber ofof
use and the possibility uncertain
reachingrespondents
large numbers increases
quickly.(33%).
After all, on a social network, it
Concerning the propensity
is possible and relatively cheap and fast to publish and promote to purchase such products withdirected
advertisements “detoxified” glu
57% would buy it, 38% are doubtful, and 5% do not
at a specific audience (characterized by region, age, or gender, for example) [19], whereas want to.
traditional methods, such Regarding the possible
as newspaper price of products
advertisements, with detoxified
flyers, letters, e-mail andgluten,
word of35% of co
would pay 10–25% more, 27% would spend
mouth, are inadequate for recruiting hard-to-reach, homogeneous demographic groups up to 10% more, and 7% for
would be w
spend
the chosen criterion, more
as well as than
often25%.
being Aslow
totaland of 31% do not [20].
expensive know. For example, Facebook
If they
itself, being used little by wereyoung,
the very not celiac,
conveys 27%messages
would still to a be willing
more adultto andbuy products with d
differently
demographically gluten, but only
characterized if they knew
population thantheyotherwere
socialgood for their
networks [21].health. A total of 24% w
buy them,
The results shown but 20%
in Section 3.1,would do so without
“Consumer condition.describe
Characteristics”, A total ofa 19%
sampleare of
uncertain,
do not know.
participants with a higher education level than the Italian average. In fact, according to
the Italian National Institute of Statistics, in 2019, only 62.2% of the Italian population had
4. Discussion
at least one secondary education qualification between the ages of 25 and 64, and only
The online
19.6% had a tertiary education snowball sampling
qualification method made
[22]. Furthermore, thereitispossible to carry out
a predominance of our sur
respondents withing a period of the pandemic crisis, which severely limited the development of
a scientific culture (61%). Despite the use of private channels and social
media, the level ofactivities.
education Thisof method
the sample is considered
interviewed sufficiently
is in line reliable,
with theproduces
profile ofmoderate
the bia
especially
user of the institutional helpful
channels we ifchose
it is difficult to reach
for the survey the subjects of
dissemination, the
i.e., survey
ENEA [16–18].
(Italian
National Agency for New An ad hoc panel of
Technologies, initialand
Energy participants
Sustainable wasEconomic
selected.Development)
These initial participa
asked to share the link to the survey questionnaire with friends, relatives,
social channels, FIDAF (Italian Federation of Doctors in Agriculture and Forestry), and colleag
Although many people still consider it inappropriate to use social networks to rec
Food Bank and Observatory on Dialogue in the agri-food sector.
ticipants for surveys and questionnaires, just as many publications attest to the
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 16 of 19

Most participants (78%), regardless of their education level and type, show a good
understanding of celiac disease and correctly correlate it with a gluten-free diet. However,
a fair portion of the respondents (20%) still confuses it with an intolerance or allergy to
gluten. Furthermore, the sample interviewed overestimates the percentage of celiacs in
Italy. Only 17% of respondents gave the correct answer. Among those who answered
correctly, there is a slight prevalence of respondents under 45 years of age.
This confusion mirrors the picture revealed by the Italian Celiac Association, a
spokesperson association for patients and their requests, which has been battling mis-
information about celiac disease since 1979. See, for example, the National Celiac Week,
conducted to increase awareness and debunk the fake news that circulates too much in the
Italian media [23].
The opinions of the participants on the ease of finding, the quality, and the cost of
gluten-free products are also in line with national sentiment and, even more, with the
data of Federconsumatori, an Italian non-profit association for the protection of consumer
rights [24].
Regarding the knowledge and perception of biotechnology in the food sector, our sur-
veyed sample differs by level and type of education. However, it does not vary depending
on the size of the city of residence.
Although some studies have shown that socio-demographic characteristics are less
and less relevant in the choice of food in developed countries [25], other research has
shown the opposite. Sajdakowska et al. (2018) observed a significant influence of these
characteristics on the acceptance of technologies used to nutritionally enhance grain prod-
ucts. In their study, less educated male participants and those from smaller cities and
rural areas were more supportive of using technologies to improve food. Well-educated
female participants and those living in larger cities were more reluctant [26]. Conversely,
Azodi et al. (2019) found no association between education level and positive opinion
about biotechnology [27]. Fernbach et al. (2019) argue that the more the extremism of the
opposition to genetically modified foods increases, the more objective knowledge of the
matter decreases. At the same time, self-perceived understanding increases [28]. On the
other hand, many studies have shown that higher education levels lead to greater attention
to health and better food choices [29]. This aspect can be decisive in the choice of gluten-free
biotech products by female consumers, who, it should be underlined, are more affected by
celiac disease than men. As proof of this, the annual report on celiac disease to Parliament
estimates that in 2020, 70% of Italian celiacs were women [30].
Beyond the sometimes contradictory results of some studies, many authors find
that high levels of education lead to more rational opinions, especially regarding the
risks associated with new technologies, and show a positive attitude toward genetic
technologies [31–34].
From the data in the literature, it seems that young people are more open to advanced
technologies [35] and that men are more enthusiastic about new technologies [26]. Since
Group C has a higher level of scientific education but is also younger and with a higher
proportion of males than A and B, the results obtained could be the fruit of opposing or
synergistic influences.
Overall, the literature shows that the acceptance of foods obtained with biotech-
nology is inextricably linked to the perception of risk and possible returns in terms of
health and the environment. The perception of naturalness and disgust are also important
factors [32–34,36–38]. We confirmed that biotechnologies’ acceptance increases if health
and environmental benefits are recognized. Our results show that this phenomenon is
independent of education level and gender.
It is interesting to note how our survey provides a very different picture from the
situation revealed in Italy by the research by Bucchi and Neresini (2004) [12]. Our results
show that consumer opinion has changed over 20 years on the usefulness of food biotech-
nology and moral acceptability. In 2003, the introduction of human genes into animals to
produce organs or tissues for transplants and to transfer genes into plants to make them
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 17 of 19

more resistant (Cases 1 and 2 in Figure 8) were considered, on average, not helpful; 52% of
the 994 interviewed at the time declared these uses morally unacceptable. Public opinion
has, therefore, changed in these aspects. However, the perception of the risk associated with
biotechnology remains the same in 2020, the year of our study, as in 2003. In addition, the
2003 survey recognized the scientific community’s high reliability in genetic technologies
but that it did not place much trust in public authorities. Our results testify that consumers
in 2020 trusted scientists and authorities. The high trust in public authorities can be a
phenomenon linked to the specific period of a health emergency, characterized by strong
cooperation between Science and Politics.

5. Conclusions
This study aimed to evaluate consumer awareness and acceptance of the use of
advanced biotechnologies, particularly to obtain gluten-free products.
It was directed at celiac and non-celiac consumers, as gluten-free diets have now
gained increasing popularity among the general population, athletes, and patients with
pathologies other than celiac disease.
The use of an online questionnaire, disseminated through telematic channels, al-
lowed us to reach a fairly large sample of respondents, which we certainly would not
have achieved with traditional administration methods, given the restrictions due to the
containment of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Overall, 64% of our respondents favor food biotechnology, provided it has beneficial
effects on health or the environment. Moreover, our results suggest that participants with
an objective need for alternative solutions welcome biotechnologies and biotech products.
We observed that the perception of biotechnology differs according to the level and
type of education. Participants with a scientific tertiary education recognize a higher
helpfulness of genetic technologies for producing organs or tissues for transplantation,
increasing plant resistance, or obtaining safe foods for people with food problems. They are
also more confident in the safety of genetic technologies in diagnostics and in producing
low-cost drugs from plants. On the other hand, higher education makes respondents more
critical of the harmfulness to the health of modified foods.
Regarding gluten-free products, 65% of the survey participants would taste food made
harmless through a biotechnological approach, and 57% would buy it, paying much more
than usual gluten-free foods.
Our results show a change in consumer opinion about the usefulness of food biotech-
nology and its moral acceptability compared to 20 years ago. There is no doubt, however,
that much still needs to be performed by the scientific community to disseminate in-
formation relating to genetic biotechnologies and the need for their use in many fields
in an effective and usable way, thus raising the level of awareness of consumers and
citizens in general.
A limitation of our study is the difficulty of interpreting the answers of the respondents,
only considering a few variables such as the level and type of education, gender, and age.
Individuals may respond differently depending on their background, religious beliefs,
values, political orientations, social class, and surrounding situations. Several factors can
therefore determine the acceptance of biotechnology.
The study of public opinion is, therefore, very complex and requires further investiga-
tion to effectively set up an awareness campaign on food biotechnology and its products
deriving from it.
A strategic role is played by the media, especially those most easily accessible to
people with lower or no educational qualifications who rely, much more than others, on
the internet and social networks.
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 18 of 19

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.S. and S.E.; methodology, P.S., S.E. and O.P.; software,
P.S., A.V., and R.P.; formal analysis; P.S., S.E., R.P. and S.M.; investigation, P.S. and S.E.; writing—
original draft preparation, P.S., R.P. and S.B.; writing—review and editing, S.E., A.V., S.M., R.P., C.M.,
C.L., O.P. and M.D.; supervision, S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Electronic informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved
in this study.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Catassi, C.; Verdu, E.F.; Bai, J.C.; Lionetti, E. Coeliac Disease. Lancet 2022, 399, 2413–2426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Palmieri, B.; Vadala’, M.; Laurino, C. Gluten-Free Diet in Non-Celiac Patients: Beliefs, Truths, Advantages and Disadvantages.
Minerva Gastroenterol. Dietol. 2019, 65, 153–162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. El Khoury, D.; Balfour-Ducharme, S.; Joye, I.J. A Review on the Gluten-Free Diet: Technological and Nutritional Challenges.
Nutrients 2018, 10, 1410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Shewry, P.R.; Tatham, A.S.; Barro, F.; Barcelo, P.; Lazzeri, P. Biotechnology of Breadmaking: Unraveling and Manipulating the
Multi-Protein Gluten Complex. Nat. Biotechnol. 1995, 13, 1185–1190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Shewry, P.R.; Halford, N.G.; Lafiandra, D. Genetics of Wheat Gluten Proteins. Adv. Genet. 2003, 49, 111–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. García-Molina, M.; Giménez, M.; Sánchez-León, S.; Barro, F. Gluten Free Wheat: Are We There? Nutrients 2019, 11, 487. [CrossRef]
7. Haridy, J.; Lewis, D.; Newnham, E.D. Investigational Drug Therapies for Coeliac Disease—Where to from Here? Expert Opin.
Investig. Drugs 2018, 27, 225–233. [CrossRef]
8. Caputo, I.; Lepretti, M.; Martucciello, S.; Esposito, C. Enzymatic Strategies to Detoxify Gluten: Implications for Celiac Disease.
Enzyme Res. 2010, 2010, 174354. [CrossRef]
9. Mahroug, H.; Ribeiro, M.; Rhazi, L.; Bentallah, L.; Zidoune, M.N.; Nunes, F.M.; Igrejas, G. How Microwave Treatment of Gluten
Affects Its Toxicity for Celiac Patients? A Study on the Effect of Microwaves on the Structure, Conformation, Functionality and
Immunogenicity of Gluten. Food Chem. 2019, 297, 124986. [CrossRef]
10. Sánchez-León, S.; Gil-Humanes, J.; Ozuna, C.V.; Giménez, M.J.; Sousa, C.; Voytas, D.F.; Barro, F. Low-Gluten, Nontransgenic
Wheat Engineered with CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 902–910. [CrossRef]
11. Baschieri, S.; Donini, M.; Lico, C.; Marusic, C.; Massa, S. Detoxified Gluten Protein for the Formulation of Food for Special Medical
Purposes. Italian Patent Application No. 102021000021194 2021.
12. Bucchi, M.; Neresini, F. Why Are People Hostile to Biotechnologies? Science 2004, 304, 1749. [CrossRef]
13. Evanega, S.; Conrow, J.; Adams, J.; Lynas, M. The State of the ‘GMO’ Debate—Toward an Increasingly Favorable and Less
Polarized Media Conversation on Ag-Biotech? GM Crops Food 2022, 13, 38–49. [CrossRef]
14. European Food Safety Authority. Food Safety in the EU; European Food Safety Authority: Parma, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9789294990822.
15. Johnson, T.P. Snowball Sampling: Introduction. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2014.
16. Leighton, K.; Kardong-Edgren, S.; Schneidereith, T.; Foisy-Doll, C. Using Social Media and Snowball Sampling as an Alternative
Recruitment Strategy for Research. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2021, 55, 37–42. [CrossRef]
17. QuestionPro Snowball Sampling: Definition, Method, Advantages and Disadvantages. QuestionPro 2021. Available online:
https://www.questionpro.com/blog/snowball-sampling/ (accessed on 8 February 2023).
18. Etter, J.F.; Perneger, T.V. Snowball Sampling by Mail: Application to a Survey of Smokers in the General Population. Int. J.
Epidemiol. 2000, 29, 43–48. [CrossRef]
19. Barnes, L.A.J.; Barclay, L.; McCaffery, K.; Rolfe, M.I.; Aslani, P. Using Facebook to Recruit to a National Online Survey Investigating
Complementary Medicine Product Use in Pregnancy and Lactation: A Case Study of Method. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2021,
17, 864–874. [CrossRef]
20. Whitaker, C.; Stevelink, S.; Fear, N. The Use of Facebook in Recruiting Participants for Health Research Purposes: A Systematic
Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e290. [CrossRef]
21. Ford, K.L.; Albritton, T.; Dunn, T.A.; Crawford, K.; Neuwirth, J.; Bull, S. Youth Study Recruitment Using Paid Advertising on
Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook: Cross-Sectional Survey Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019, 5, e14080. [CrossRef]
22. ISTAT Livelli-Di-Istruzione-e-Ritorni-Occupazionali. 2020. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/265056 (accessed
on 24 February 2023).
23. Associazione Italiana Celiachia Settimana Nazionale Della Celiachia—2022. Available online: https://www.settimanadellaceliachia.
it/2022/index.php (accessed on 5 September 2022).
Foods 2023, 12, 1808 19 of 19

24. Federconsumatori Salute: Prima Indagine Federconsumatori Sulla Celiachia in Italia. Unpublished work. 2016.
25. Dagevos, H. Consumers as Four-Faced Creatures. Looking at Food Consumption from the Perspective of Contemporary
Consumers. Appetite 2005, 45, 32–39. [CrossRef]
26. Sajdakowska, M.; Królak, M.; Zychowicz, W.; Jezewska-Zychowicz, M. Acceptance of Food Technologies, Perceived Values and
Consumers’ Expectations towards Bread. A Survey among Polish Sample. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1281. [CrossRef]
27. Azodi, C.B.; Dietz, T. Perceptions of Emerging Biotechnologies. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 114018. [CrossRef]
28. Fernbach, P.M.; Light, N.; Scott, S.E.; Inbar, Y.; Rozin, P. Extreme Opponents of Genetically Modified Foods Know the Least but
Think They Know the Most. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 251–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Viinikainen, J.; Bryson, A.; Böckerman, P.; Kari, J.T.; Lehtimäki, T.; Raitakari, O.; Viikari, J.; Pehkonen, J. Does Better Education
Mitigate Risky Health Behavior? A Mendelian Randomization Study. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2022, 46, 101134. [CrossRef]
30. De Stefano, S.; Silano, M.; de Martino, M. Relazione Annuale al Parlamento Sulla Celiachia—Italia 2020; Ministero della Salute: Rome,
Italy, 2022.
31. Cardello, A.V.; Maller, O.; Masor, H.B.; Dubose, C.; Edelman, B. Role of Consumer Expectancies in the Acceptance of Novel Foods.
J. Food Sci. 1985, 50, 1707–1714. [CrossRef]
32. Fischer, A.R.H.; Reinders, M.J. Consumer Acceptance of Novel Foods. In Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry: Tools for
Implementation, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021.
33. Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Consumer Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 343–350. [CrossRef]
34. Lucht, J.M. Public Acceptance of Plant Biotechnology and GM Crops. Viruses 2015, 7, 4254–4281. [CrossRef]
35. Perito, M.A.; Coderoni, S.; Russo, C. Consumer Attitudes towards Local and Organic Food with Upcycled Ingredients: An Italian
Case Study for Olive Leaves. Foods 2020, 9, 1325. [CrossRef]
36. Public Acceptance of Products of Plant Biotechnology and Genetically Modified (GM) Crops (1999-Upto Now). J. Nat. Sci. Res.
2022, 13. [CrossRef]
37. Cattaneo, C.; Lavelli, V.; Proserpio, C.; Laureati, M.; Pagliarini, E. Consumers’ Attitude towards Food by-Products: The Influence
of Food Technology Neophobia, Education and Information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 679–687. [CrossRef]
38. Saraiva, A.; Carrascosa, C.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Raposo, A. Natural Sweeteners: The Relevance of Food Naturalness for
Consumers, Food Security Aspects, Sustainability and Health Impacts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6285. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.