European Consumers Fear Pesticides More Than Gene-Edited Watermelon, Survey Finds

European shoppers appear far more worried about pesticide residues on their watermelon than about the gene-editing techniques used to breed it. That is the central finding of a new discrete choice experiment covering 1,218 consumers in Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom, published in the journal Agriculture & Food Security. The study, conducted through an online survey in January 2025, found that between 22 and 27 percent of consumers across the three countries reject precision-bred watermelon outright, while conventional pesticide use drew stronger and more consistent aversion than any alternative production technology tested.

The researchers, from a Spanish university team, presented participants with a series of hypothetical purchasing decisions involving watermelons described by four attributes: genetic selection, pesticide strategy, production method and price. Respondents chose between three watermelon alternatives and an opt-out option across eight choice tasks. Crucially, the pesticide attribute had three levels: conventional synthetic pesticides, pesticides permitted in organic farming, and so-called zero-residue pesticides, which leave no detectable chemical traces on the fruit at harvest. The genetic attribute was either absent from the label or flagged the fruit as a precision-bred organism, described in the survey as a variety developed using modern biotechnology that produces changes which could also occur through natural processes or traditional breeding, and explicitly not a genetically modified organism.

Watermelon was chosen deliberately. It is widely consumed in all three countries, typically eaten raw, which the authors note may heighten perceived risk, and it requires intensive pesticide control during cultivation. Participants had to be at least 18 years old, responsible for more than half of their household’s food purchases, and buy watermelon at least monthly during the production season. Quotas on gender and age were applied during recruitment, and respondents who completed the survey too quickly were excluded to filter out inattentive answers.

The statistical backbone of the study was a mixed logit model estimated directly in willingness-to-pay space, which allowed the team to express consumer preferences in euros per kilogram for Spain and Germany and pounds per kilogram for the United Kingdom. The results were striking. Spanish consumers strongly rejected precision-bred watermelon, with a marginal willingness to pay of minus 1.47 euros per kilogram. UK consumers were mildly negative at minus 0.10 pounds per kilogram, while German consumers showed no statistically significant aversion at all, with an estimate of minus 0.13 euros per kilogram that was not distinguishable from zero.

Pesticide preferences told a different story. Every alternative to conventional pesticides commanded a significant premium in all three countries. Spanish consumers were willing to pay 2.83 euros per kilogram extra for watermelon grown with organic-certified pesticides. In the UK, zero-residue pesticides led, at 1.69 pounds per kilogram, and in Germany the premium for zero-residue fruit reached 5.04 euros per kilogram, the largest single preference recorded in the study. Overall, consumers valued zero-residue strategies more highly than organic-certified ones, suggesting that residue-related concerns, rather than a preference for organic ideology as such, drive much of the aversion to conventional spraying.

To probe differences among individuals, the team also ran latent class logit models, which sort consumers into behavioural segments. In each country a three-cluster solution emerged. A “safety oriented” minority, comprising 21.6 percent of Spanish, 22.0 percent of UK and 27.0 percent of German respondents, disliked precision breeding and showed the highest premiums for both organic-certified and zero-residue pesticides. Larger neutral or unconcerned majorities, roughly half to three-fifths of each sample, showed no significant preference for most attributes, indicating that opposition to gene editing is concentrated in a distinct and relatively limited segment rather than spread across the population.

The interaction models added further texture. Health-conscious attitudes significantly increased willingness to pay for zero-residue watermelon in all three countries, with the largest effects in Germany and the UK. Food technology neophobia reduced the premium for zero-residue pesticides in Spain, and chemophobia, a general fear of chemicals in food, raised it among Spanish respondents. In Germany, more educated consumers were willing to pay significantly more for zero-residue produce. Pro-environmental attitudes, by contrast, showed no significant relationship with pesticide preferences anywhere, which the authors interpret as evidence that rejection of conventional pesticides is driven mainly by personal health concerns rather than environmental ones.

The regulatory context gives these findings practical weight. In the European Union, genome-edited crops currently fall under the strict GMO framework of Directive 2001/18/EC following a 2018 ruling by the Court of Justice, but in March 2025 the Council of the EU adopted a negotiating mandate that would exempt gene-edited plants which could also have been produced through traditional breeding from GMO rules. The United Kingdom has already taken a permissive route under its Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Act. Notably, the study found that acceptance of precision breeding was broadly similar across the three countries despite these divergent regulatory regimes, with rejection rates in the UK, operating under lighter rules, closely matching those in Spain and Germany under the stricter EU framework.

The authors argue that this pattern supports labelling policies focused on the characteristics of the final organism rather than the breeding process, since precision-bred crops could in principle also be produced conventionally. They estimate that explicit labelling would likely trigger rejection by roughly 22 to 27 percent of consumers depending on the country, a proportion that mirrors Eurobarometer figures showing 27 percent of Europeans concerned about GM ingredients. On the pesticide side, they suggest that promoting zero-residue strategies deserves careful evaluation within EU policy, noting that the European Commission plans to accelerate biopesticide approvals under an upcoming 2026 Biotech Act, an approach they caution may not fully align with consumer preferences given biopesticides’ higher costs and sometimes lower efficacy.

The study comes with clear limitations the authors themselves flag. It covered only three countries, relied on a hypothetical online choice experiment rather than real purchasing behaviour, and focused on a single crop. The authors call for replication with experimental auctions or real-choice experiments and for extension to other European countries and under-studied world regions. They also stress that consumer acceptance, while politically important, should not be the sole basis for regulation, and that decisions on gene editing and pesticides must rest on current scientific evidence about impacts on human health and the environment. Within those bounds, however, the message is unambiguous: for most of the European watermelon buyers surveyed, the residue on the rind matters far more than the lab bench that bred the fruit.

Subject of Research: European consumer perceptions of precision-bred watermelon and alternative pesticide strategies

Article Title: Navigating innovation and risk: evaluating European consumer perceptions of gene editing and pesticide use in watermelon production

Article References: García, Á., Nieto-Villegas, R., & Rabadán, A. (2026). Navigating innovation and risk: evaluating European consumer perceptions of gene editing and pesticide use in watermelon production. Agriculture & Food Security, 15(1), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-026-00622-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40066-026-00622-y

Keywords: gene editing, precision breeding, pesticides, watermelon, consumer preferences, discrete choice experiment, zero-residue pesticides, organic farming, food technology neophobia, EU regulation, willingness to pay, food safety