Inside theroom: emotions, hopes and red linesfromexploratoryco-creationwithcitizens
Most people do not meet biotechnology in a lab or a policy paper. They meet it in the supermarket, on social media or in headlines about crises and controversies. That is why B-Trust deliberately invited citizens into a very different setting: small, facilitated co-creation sessions where they could take their time, ask questions and talk about what really matters to them.
In these sessions, participants from different ages, backgrounds and countries sat around the table with one simple starting point: “What does this mean for you, your food, your environment and your sense of control?”, instead of making the conversation about being pro or contra.
When people have space to talk, “Do you trust biotechnology?” stops being an abstract question and becomes a conversation about everyday life, power and fairness.
What worries people – and what feels non-negotiable
Across sessions, some themes appeared again and again repeatedly. Many participants felt uneasy about technologies they perceived as “unnatural” or “overprocessed”, too far from what they consider proper food. This was not just nostalgia. It was tied to deeper questions about long term health effects, impacts on ecosystems and what happens if things go wrong.
Corporate power was another recurring concern. People worried about a future where a few companies control seeds, data or key technologies, leaving farmers and consumers with fewer choices. Even when they saw potential benefits, they questioned who would really win, who would carry the risks and whether inequalities would grow.
Regulation and public oversight mattered as well. Many participants expressed an expectation of zero risk, or at least a very low tolerance for uncertainty, and therefore look to public authorities to set clear rules, monitor impacts over time and act transparently when new evidence emerges. Freedom of choice came up frequently: honest labelling, clarity on where biotech is used and the ability to opt out if they are not comfortable.
Taken together, these concerns form a set of “red lines” for many citizens. They are less about individual products and more about the kind of food system and innovation model people are willing to accept.
What can change when people get time, context and honest answers
The sessions also showed that attitudes are not frozen. When citizens have time to explore concrete cases, rather than debating biotechnology in general, many move from blanket judgments to more nuanced positions.
For example, some participants who started with strong scepticism became more open to applications that clearly reduce pesticide use, support climate resilience or cut food waste, as long as these come with strong safeguards and transparency. Others distinguished more sharply between medical and agricultural uses, or between biotech in food and biotech in materials such as packaging or textiles.
However, even when perceptions shifted, the underlying conditions for trust did not disappear. People still insisted on societal benefit, clear rules, independent oversight, meaningful roles for farmers and communities, and honest communication that does not oversell benefits or hide trade-offs.
Why these conversations matter for governance
For B- Trust, these citizen sessions are not a side activity. They feed directly into the project’s co-creation methodology and its broader work on principles and trust-building measures. Insights from the room help refine how cases are presented, which questions are asked in surveys and how trust barriers are grouped and addressed.
The stories and emotions shared by participants are later compared with quantitative results from a large consumer survey. This combination of in-depth conversations and broader data helps B-Trust understand not only what people think, but why they think it, and under which conditions they might support or reject certain biotech pathways.
If Europe wants biotechnology that serves people and the planet, it cannot afford to treat citizens as an afterthought. Bringing them into the conversation early, listening carefully to their hopes and red lines and reflecting this in governance choices is not just “good communication”. It is part of how trust is built in practice.
By Sofía Ros (Cluster FOOD+i), B-Trust communication lead
The article was prepared in close collaboration with the teams behind B-Trust deliverables D2.2, D1.3 and D2.4, including Veerle Rijckaert and Charlotte Boone (Alice down the rabbit hole).
This article builds on publicly available B-Trust deliverables, in particular D2.2 Report consumer co-creation sessions, D1.3 Finetuned co-creation methodology and D2.4 Regional and summarising reports on the quantitative consumer validation.
When citizens sit down with biotechnology: what we learned from B-Trust consumer sessions
Inside the room: emotions, hopes and red lines from exploratory co-creation with citizens
Most people do not meet biotechnology in a lab or a policy paper. They meet it in the supermarket, on social media or in headlines about crises and controversies. That is why B-Trust deliberately invited citizens into a very different setting: small, facilitated co-creation sessions where they could take their time, ask questions and talk about what really matters to them.
In these sessions, participants from different ages, backgrounds and countries sat around the table with one simple starting point: “What does this mean for you, your food, your environment and your sense of control?”, instead of making the conversation about being pro or contra.
When people have space to talk, “Do you trust biotechnology?” stops being an abstract question and becomes a conversation about everyday life, power and fairness.
What worries people – and what feels non-negotiable
Across sessions, some themes appeared again and again repeatedly. Many participants felt uneasy about technologies they perceived as “unnatural” or “overprocessed”, too far from what they consider proper food. This was not just nostalgia. It was tied to deeper questions about long term health effects, impacts on ecosystems and what happens if things go wrong.
Corporate power was another recurring concern. People worried about a future where a few companies control seeds, data or key technologies, leaving farmers and consumers with fewer choices. Even when they saw potential benefits, they questioned who would really win, who would carry the risks and whether inequalities would grow.
Regulation and public oversight mattered as well. Many participants expressed an expectation of zero risk, or at least a very low tolerance for uncertainty, and therefore look to public authorities to set clear rules, monitor impacts over time and act transparently when new evidence emerges. Freedom of choice came up frequently: honest labelling, clarity on where biotech is used and the ability to opt out if they are not comfortable.
Taken together, these concerns form a set of “red lines” for many citizens. They are less about individual products and more about the kind of food system and innovation model people are willing to accept.
What can change when people get time, context and honest answers
The sessions also showed that attitudes are not frozen. When citizens have time to explore concrete cases, rather than debating biotechnology in general, many move from blanket judgments to more nuanced positions.
For example, some participants who started with strong scepticism became more open to applications that clearly reduce pesticide use, support climate resilience or cut food waste, as long as these come with strong safeguards and transparency. Others distinguished more sharply between medical and agricultural uses, or between biotech in food and biotech in materials such as packaging or textiles.
However, even when perceptions shifted, the underlying conditions for trust did not disappear. People still insisted on societal benefit, clear rules, independent oversight, meaningful roles for farmers and communities, and honest communication that does not oversell benefits or hide trade-offs.
Why these conversations matter for governance
For B- Trust, these citizen sessions are not a side activity. They feed directly into the project’s co-creation methodology and its broader work on principles and trust-building measures. Insights from the room help refine how cases are presented, which questions are asked in surveys and how trust barriers are grouped and addressed.
The stories and emotions shared by participants are later compared with quantitative results from a large consumer survey. This combination of in-depth conversations and broader data helps B-Trust understand not only what people think, but why they think it, and under which conditions they might support or reject certain biotech pathways.
If Europe wants biotechnology that serves people and the planet, it cannot afford to treat citizens as an afterthought. Bringing them into the conversation early, listening carefully to their hopes and red lines and reflecting this in governance choices is not just “good communication”. It is part of how trust is built in practice.
By Sofía Ros (Cluster FOOD+i), B-Trust communication lead
The article was prepared in close collaboration with the teams behind B-Trust deliverables D2.2, D1.3 and D2.4, including Veerle Rijckaert and Charlotte Boone (Alice down the rabbit hole).
This article builds on publicly available B-Trust deliverables, in particular D2.2 Report consumer co-creation sessions, D1.3 Finetuned co-creation methodology and D2.4 Regional and summarising reports on the quantitative consumer validation.
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