European Commission survey finds 42% willing to buy foods containing ingredients made using micro-organisms

Some 42% of Europeans would buy a food containing an ingredient produced using micro-organisms if it met EU safety standards and was clearly labeled, while 54% would be unwilling, according to a new European Commission survey examining public attitudes toward food innovation.

• 42% would buy a product containing an ingredient made using micro-organisms, with willingness ranging from 74% in the Netherlands to 19% in Cyprus.
• 51% identify mandatory clear labeling as a measure that would most increase confidence, followed by independent safety assessment at 38%.
• Reduced use of pesticides, fertilizers or antibiotics is the most frequently selected benefit that could encourage regular consumption, at 35%.

The Special Eurobarometer, published on October 26, surveyed 26,456 people aged 15 and over across all 27 EU member states between May 22 and June 24, 2026. It explored perceptions of innovative foods, ingredients and crops, including potential benefits, concerns and willingness to purchase.

The question about an ingredient produced using micro-organisms revealed substantial national differences. Willingness to buy reached 74% in the Netherlands and 64% in Sweden, compared with 22% in Greece and 19% in Cyprus. The description supplied to respondents specified compliance with EU safety standards and clear labeling, conditions that still left a majority across the EU unwilling to purchase.

The question offers a more specific indication of consumer interest than the survey’s broader findings on food innovation. However, its wording does not identify a particular fermentation technology, so the results should not be treated as a direct measure of acceptance of precision fermentation.

Across the wider category of innovative foods, Europeans expressed greater support for potential practical benefits than enthusiasm for the products themselves. Some 68% agreed that food innovation could give farmers and producers additional tools to address climate change, pests, resource scarcity and supply disruptions. A further 70% agreed that innovation in food systems could create opportunities for research, skills and jobs in Europe.

Overall attitudes were more cautious. Just 39% held a positive view of innovative foods, while 51% had a negative view. Nearly three quarters, 72%, said they did not feel well informed about innovative foods, ingredients and crops.

Views differed sharply according to respondents’ perceived knowledge. Among those who felt well informed, 72% had a positive opinion, compared with 27% among those who did not. The findings establish an association between feeling informed and positive attitudes, rather than demonstrating that providing more information would itself change purchasing decisions.

When asked what would most increase their confidence in consuming innovative foods, 51% selected mandatory clear labeling explaining production methods, composition and origin. Independent safety assessment beyond the producer’s own data followed at 38%, ahead of European Food Safety Authority approval at 36% and regular public reporting on safety findings at 34%.

In a separate question, 85% agreed that innovative food products should have clear and distinct names and transparent information about how they are produced, what they contain and where they come from.

The survey also distinguished between benefits people already associate with innovative foods and benefits that might encourage them to consume those products regularly.

Reduced pressure on natural resources was the most frequently mentioned existing association, selected by 27%. Food security and improved consumer choice through clear information and labeling each received 25%, followed by healthier or more nutritious options at 23%. Opportunities for European research, innovation and employment were selected by 21%.

Asked which potential benefits would make them more willing to consume innovative foods regularly, respondents most often chose reduced use of pesticides, fertilizers or antibiotics, at 35%. Animal welfare benefits followed at 23%, while lower environmental impact and a better nutritional profile each received 22%.

Comfort also varied with age, education and location. More than half of respondents under 39 felt comfortable with innovative foods, compared with 34% of those aged 55 and over. Comfort was higher among people who completed their education at 20 or later than among those who left school at 15.

The Commission said the findings would inform research, policy and communication, including its Food 2040 framework, which emphasizes consumer involvement and real-world testing during innovation development.

Among the product examples tested, fruits and vegetables from crops adapted to drought, pests or extreme weather received the highest acceptance. Half of respondents said they would feel comfortable with those products.

If you liked this, check these out...‍

• EIT Food study finds consumers willing to try precision fermentation, but trust remains a hurdle

• Europeans warm to food innovation but appetite for cultivated meat and precision fermentation falls

• EIT Food study says Europe’s protein future depends on circular self-reliance