What happensto trust whencitizensget time, context and honestanswers
Most people do not arrive at a conversation about biotechnology as blank sheets. They bring fragments of news, supermarket impressions, social media debates and past controversies. By the time they walk into a room for a citizen session, many already carry a mix of curiosity and discomfort.
In B-Trust, these starting points and prejudices are not treated as a problem to fix, but as essential input. The consumer co-creation sessions are designed to work with people’s initial perceptions, not around them, and to see how those perceptions shift, or stay firm, when they have time, context, and honest dialogue.
Trust does not appear because we ask for it. It grows, or erodes, in the details of how people understand what is on the table and how they feel treated in the process.
Before: “I do not trust this”
At the beginning of the sessions, three patterns often emerge.
First, many participants express a general discomfort with the idea of biotechnology in food. They might associate it with “unnatural” processes, hidden risks or a sense that “we are moving too fast”. This is rarely based on detailed knowledge, but it is very real as an emotional baseline.
Second, there is a strong concern about control. People worry about who decides how technologies are used, who benefits economically and what happens if something goes wrong. The picture is often dominated by large companies and distant decision makers, with farmers and citizens seen as having little say.
Third, confusion is common. Participants often interpret biotechnology differently from how experts define it and are not always aware of the diversity of methods and application areas it covers. This gap in understanding shapes how risks and benefits are perceived from the outset.
This is the “before” that B-Trust takes seriously. The sessions are not about correcting people, but about creating the conditions for a more informed and specific conversation.
During: concrete cases, space to ask and light touch feedback
The turning point comes when the discussion moves from “biotechnology in general” to concrete cases. Instead of debating an abstract technology, participants explore specific examples, what problems they aim to address and what kinds of risks, benefits and trade-offs they involve.
Facilitators provide neutral, accessible information and make space for questions. Importantly, they do not push for consensus. Participants are invited to voice worries, doubts and questions as they arise.
Short questions at key moments capture perceived understanding, comfort with the information received and willingness to continue the conversation in the future. These light touch signals complement the facilitators’ observations about tone, engagement and the types of issues that dominate the room.
After: more nuance, clearer conditions
By the end of a session, many participants have not become supporters of every biotech application, and that is not the goal. What does change, often, is the quality of their views.
Some people who arrived with a blanket “I do not trust this” position begin to distinguish between applications. They may remain uncomfortable with certain uses in food, while seeing more value in applications that reduce pesticide use, improve resilience to climate impacts or are used in materials rather than directly in what they eat. Others become more precise about the conditions under which they might accept a given technology, for example clear labelling, strong regulation and visible benefits for farmers, the environment, etc.
For B-Trust, these shifts matter. Increased understanding of concrete cases, greater willingness to stay engaged and clearer articulation of red lines are treated as intermediate outcomes on the pathway towards more trustworthy governance models, and a more informed public dialogue.
In some cases, participants maintain a firm rejection of certain applications even after detailed discussion. This is valuable intelligence, not a failure. It signals where trust barriers are rooted in deeper values or worldviews that cannot be addressed by information alone, and where governance measures will need to go beyond communication.
For research projects, institutions and companies, the lesson is straightforward. If we want to understand and work with public perceptions of biotechnology, we need to move past one-off surveys and binary questions. Giving citizens time, context and honest answers will not magically produce support, but it will generate a more solid basis for decisions, dialogue and long-term governance.
By Sofía Ros (Cluster FOOD+i), B-Trust communication lead
The article was prepared in close collaboration with the authors of B-Trust deliverables D2.2, D1.2 and D1.1, including Veerle Rijckaert and Charlotte Boone (Alice down the rabbit hole), and Mattia Forni and Harshita Thakare (LAMA).
This article builds on publicly available B-Trust deliverables, in particular D2.2 Report consumer co-creation sessions, D1.2 MEL Report (M12) and D1.1 Theory of Change.
From discomfort to understanding: how information and dialogue reshape consumer perceptions
What happens to trust when citizens get time, context and honest answers
Most people do not arrive at a conversation about biotechnology as blank sheets. They bring fragments of news, supermarket impressions, social media debates and past controversies. By the time they walk into a room for a citizen session, many already carry a mix of curiosity and discomfort.
In B-Trust, these starting points and prejudices are not treated as a problem to fix, but as essential input. The consumer co-creation sessions are designed to work with people’s initial perceptions, not around them, and to see how those perceptions shift, or stay firm, when they have time, context, and honest dialogue.
Trust does not appear because we ask for it. It grows, or erodes, in the details of how people understand what is on the table and how they feel treated in the process.
Before: “I do not trust this”
At the beginning of the sessions, three patterns often emerge.
First, many participants express a general discomfort with the idea of biotechnology in food. They might associate it with “unnatural” processes, hidden risks or a sense that “we are moving too fast”. This is rarely based on detailed knowledge, but it is very real as an emotional baseline.
Second, there is a strong concern about control. People worry about who decides how technologies are used, who benefits economically and what happens if something goes wrong. The picture is often dominated by large companies and distant decision makers, with farmers and citizens seen as having little say.
Third, confusion is common. Participants often interpret biotechnology differently from how experts define it and are not always aware of the diversity of methods and application areas it covers. This gap in understanding shapes how risks and benefits are perceived from the outset.
This is the “before” that B-Trust takes seriously. The sessions are not about correcting people, but about creating the conditions for a more informed and specific conversation.
During: concrete cases, space to ask and light touch feedback
The turning point comes when the discussion moves from “biotechnology in general” to concrete cases. Instead of debating an abstract technology, participants explore specific examples, what problems they aim to address and what kinds of risks, benefits and trade-offs they involve.
Facilitators provide neutral, accessible information and make space for questions. Importantly, they do not push for consensus. Participants are invited to voice worries, doubts and questions as they arise.
Short questions at key moments capture perceived understanding, comfort with the information received and willingness to continue the conversation in the future. These light touch signals complement the facilitators’ observations about tone, engagement and the types of issues that dominate the room.
After: more nuance, clearer conditions
By the end of a session, many participants have not become supporters of every biotech application, and that is not the goal. What does change, often, is the quality of their views.
Some people who arrived with a blanket “I do not trust this” position begin to distinguish between applications. They may remain uncomfortable with certain uses in food, while seeing more value in applications that reduce pesticide use, improve resilience to climate impacts or are used in materials rather than directly in what they eat. Others become more precise about the conditions under which they might accept a given technology, for example clear labelling, strong regulation and visible benefits for farmers, the environment, etc.
For B-Trust, these shifts matter. Increased understanding of concrete cases, greater willingness to stay engaged and clearer articulation of red lines are treated as intermediate outcomes on the pathway towards more trustworthy governance models, and a more informed public dialogue.
In some cases, participants maintain a firm rejection of certain applications even after detailed discussion. This is valuable intelligence, not a failure. It signals where trust barriers are rooted in deeper values or worldviews that cannot be addressed by information alone, and where governance measures will need to go beyond communication.
For research projects, institutions and companies, the lesson is straightforward. If we want to understand and work with public perceptions of biotechnology, we need to move past one-off surveys and binary questions. Giving citizens time, context and honest answers will not magically produce support, but it will generate a more solid basis for decisions, dialogue and long-term governance.
By Sofía Ros (Cluster FOOD+i), B-Trust communication lead
The article was prepared in close collaboration with the authors of B-Trust deliverables D2.2, D1.2 and D1.1, including Veerle Rijckaert and Charlotte Boone (Alice down the rabbit hole), and Mattia Forni and Harshita Thakare (LAMA).
This article builds on publicly available B-Trust deliverables, in particular D2.2 Report consumer co-creation sessions, D1.2 MEL Report (M12) and D1.1 Theory of Change.
B-Trust
Th B-Trust project aims to develop a transparent governance model that promotes the application of biotechnology in the agri-food and bio-based sectors. This model works towards improving industrial competitiveness and contribute to environmental, economic, and social sustainability, aligning with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Políg. Tejerías Norte C/ Los Huertos, 2 · 26500 Calahorra · La Rioja · Spain
Telephone: +34 941 63 95 00
Search
Recent Post
B-Trust recognised as “Best Biotechnology Trust & Co-Creation Governance Initiative 2026 – Europe”
abril 7, 2026From discomfort to understanding: how information and dialogue reshape consumer perceptions
marzo 26, 2026When citizens sit down with biotechnology: what we learned from B-Trust consumer sessions
marzo 11, 2026Co-creation in action: what we are learning from the B-Trust Biotech Co-Creation Cases
marzo 2, 2026Building trust step by step: how B-Trust sequences stakeholder interactions
febrero 19, 2026From risks to real conversations: How B-Trust maps trust barriers in biotechnology
febrero 9, 2026Categories