Most debates around biotechnology start with lists of risks and benefits. On paper, these lists look neutral and manageable. In real life, they collide with people’s values, emotions and lived experience. That is where trust can be quietly built or quickly lost. 

B-Trust uses extended risk-benefit mappings to bridge that gap. Instead of treating risk as a purely technical concept, the project looks at how different actors perceive risks and benefits in concrete biotech cases and how this shapes their trust, acceptance and, ultimately, market uptake. 

Extended risk-benefit mappings turn static risk and benefit lists into living maps of hopes, fears and responsibilities. 

 At the starting line, each biotech case is analysed through a literature-based risk–benefit mapping. This covers scientific aspects related to health, safety and the environment, as well as socio-economic dimensions. By combining risks and benefits with an analysis of who is most affected and who has the most influence, we can prioritise which actors to involve. These mappings are then translated into plain language so that farmers, consumers and civil society organisations can actually work with them, not just be informed about them. 

The “extended” part comes when these literature-based risk-benefit mappings are taken into conversation. First it is decided what kind of engagement makes sense for each case. For some groups, a co-creation workshop is the right format. For others, such as e.g. environmental NGOs or umbrella organisations for organic farmers, in-depth interviews are more appropriate because they already hold strong public positions. Thus, through consumer and other stakeholder co-creation sessions and in-depth interviews, B-Trust listens to how different actors talk about each case. This includes what they hope the technology can solve, what they fear might go wrong, who they think will benefit and who they believe carries the risk. 

In a session on climate-resilient crops, for example, some participants initially framed the technology mainly as a tool to protect yields under extreme weather. As the conversation evolved, new concerns surfaced around seed dependence, local biodiversity and the role of big players in the value chain. For regulators or funding agencies, these are not side notes. They are early warning signals of potential trust barriers.