The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0034-6659.htm

NFS
35,3
Genetically modified foods:
the effect of information
Anthimia M. Batrinou, Evangelia Dimitriou and Dionisios Liatsos
School of Food Technology and Nutrition, Technological Educational
148 Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece
Vassiliki Pletsa
GMO Detection Unit, Institute of Biological Research and Biotechnology,
National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – This paper examines the attitudes of young Greek University students towards
genetically modified (GM) foods and studies the effect of appropriate information in shaping this
attitude.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was distributed to 433 Greek students of the
Technological Educational Institute of Athens during the academic year 2003-2004. Results were
processed by SPSS 11.0.
Findings – The survey reveals that although Greek University students are more informed than the
general population about genetic modification issues, still a large proportion (48 per cent) are unaware
of what is exactly a GM plant and 55.3 per cent believe that GM foods may impose risks for public
health and the environment. However, after reading a short informative statement the ‘‘negative’’
attitude of respondents is decreased by 15.5 percentage units and the ‘‘positive’’ attitude is increased
by 13.2 percentage units. These results show that appropriate information could affect the
acceptability of a technological innovation. Future research is required to investigate how scientists
could intervene in order to make the GM issue clear on a scientific basis.
Originality /value – The findings of this study could be useful to those who are seeking to elucidate
the complex issue of GM food acceptance and have an interest in establishing communication between
the scientific community and the public, such as regulatory authorities, the industry or academics.
Keywords Food products, Genetic modification, Greece, University students
Paper type Research paper

Nutrition & Food Science
Vol. 35 No. 3, 2005
pp. 148-155
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0034-6659
DOI 10.1108/00346650510594895
Introduction
Almost a decade after the expansion of genetically modified (GM) foods in the markets
all over the world, Europe still remains skeptical towards the adoption of this new
technology for the production of crop plants. While supporters state that approved GM
foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts on the basis of what is known as
‘‘substantial equivalence’’ (Millstone et al., 1999) and that they provide solutions to
global problems in agriculture and nutrition (Harlander, 2002), opponents consider that
the safety of GM foods and crops has not been established yet (Moseley, 2002).
Public distrust towards GM technology in Europe can be attributed to a variety of
reasons such as lack of confidence in biotechnology companies and regulatory
authorities (mainly due to recent food scandals such as the BSE) and mostly the feeling
that GM food products may not be safe while offering no real benefit to the consumer
(Arntzen et al., 2003; Bonny, 2003). Concerns mainly derive from anxieties regarding
potential effects of the breakdown of normal gene barriers, the safety of genetically
modified foods consumption (i.e. could they harm the immune system and/or increase
the risk of cancer and other diseases?) and the use of marker genes that confer
antibiotic resistance which could be transferred from animal food to human pathogens.
Considering the limitations of the current detection methodology (Ahmed, 2002) and
mainly due to the fact that long-term studies are indeed needed to evaluate the possible Genetically
effects of GMOs’ release in public health and the environment, consumers’ concerns on
this issue are absolutely justifiable. However, the fear has been enhanced by extensive
modified foods
negative media coverage of the subject, and by the sometimes misleading claims of
some large food retailers in Europe that directed their demands for bans against GM
ingredients and feed (Kalaitzandonakes and Bijman, 2003). Information about the
potential risks of genetic modification of foods is reaching individuals mainly by the
news media supported by NGOs (Greenpeace, 2001) During the period 1998-2004 in
149
Greece, as in most European countries, the news media were emphasizing mostly the
potential negative aspects, sometimes with revolting comments such as ‘‘spider genes
in our food’’. Moreover, any scientific publication indicating adverse health or
environmental effects e.g. by a consumption of a GM potato (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)
or the effect of GM corn to monarch butterflies (Losey et al., 1999) immediately drew
immense international attention even if these findings were criticized by subsequent
publications. It is therefore of no surprise the fact that the public has adopted a
negative attitude towards GM foods (as indicated by the Eurobarometer surveys)
(Gaskell et al., 2003).
It is evident that the development and future success of biotechnology and GM
technology in particular relies directly on public perceptions and the attitude of the
consumers (Frewer, 2003; Hails and Kinderlerer, 2003). In general the European public
opinion accepts the biomedical applications of biotechnology but massively rejects the
GM technology applied on food as the benefits so far are not at all clear (Eurobarometer,
1997; Eurobarometer, 2000). On the other hand it is true that public perception towards
the GM issue has been mainly formed by non scientists, as the arguments of the
scientific community hardly ever reach the public. This growing public distrust
towards a new and potentially promising technology has created the need to enhance
the communication between the public and the scientific community. Scientists should
find a way to intervene in order to make the whole issue clear on a scientific basis
(EMBO, 2000). This conflict, lacking common sense and polarized as it stands so far,
could lead to wrong policies concerning the development of the European
biotechnology industry (Feehan, 1999) and consequently the potential benefits of this
technology (i.e. for European economy as well as the third world) (Hails and
Kinderlerer, 2003; Human Development Report, 2001). This is the reason why many
European countries are trying to establish a dialogue about genetically modified foods.
A recent example is the case of United Kingdom where a national debate has been
organized by an independent steering board (GM Debate, 2003) to investigate the
public views on genetic modification and GM crops with the scope to engage the public
in shaping the future GM policy.
Within the above context, in this survey, the attitude of University students towards
GM foods is examined as well as the effect of appropriate information in shaping this
attitude. It was thought important to study the attitude of this particular segment of
the population (young individuals with scientific background) as it has the potential of
influencing the future developments in this rapidly expanding field.

Methodology
A questionnaire was distributed to Greek students of the Technological Educational
Institute of Athens during the academic year 2003-2004. Total number of respondents
was 433 with average age 20 years (SD = ±2.4) and the majority of them (73.4 per cent)
were residents of the metropolitan area. The questionnaire examined degree
NFS of knowledge of respondents, acceptance of biotechnological applications, their
35,3 opinion regarding the safety of GM foods and how this opinion is changed when
information is provided, their consumer attitude and the reliability of sources
of information (Tables I–VI). Results were processed by the statistical program.
SPSS 11.0.

150 Results and discussion

Degree of knowledge
The knowledge of respondents regarding basic biological issues (such as if the food we
eat contains DNA or if a tomato has genes) is relatively high (>60 per cent of
respondents gave right answers) (Table I). According to the results of the
Eurobarometer 2002 for 15 European countries, the degree of biological knowledge of
the general population is much lower (35 per cent of right answers) with Greece having
the lowest percentage (17.5 per cent) (Gaskell et al., 2003). It is of interest, however, that
a relatively high percentage of respondents (48 per cent) were not aware of what
exactly is a genetically modified plant (that is a plant with ‘‘foreign’’ genes) and had
confused it with eg. a plant that was grown with hormones (39 per cent). Moreover, a
very small percentage (5 per cent) admits that they ‘‘do not know’’ what a GM plant is.
This is characteristic of the misperceptions that exist in many issues regarding novel
foods and indicates the lack of adequate information that reaches consumers.

Acceptance
A number of current and future applications of genetic modification in foods were
evaluated according to whether they were beneficial, risky, or ethically accepted
(Table II). In each application a short piece of information was given e.g. for the insect-
resistant corn (Bt-corn) there was a note that ‘‘it contains a bacterial gene, it produces
its own biopesticide and does not need spraying with chemical insecticides’’. The
results show that applications with a direct benefit for the consumer have a higher
acceptance by the respondents, such as rice enhanced with vitamin A and iron,
vegetable oil with less saturated lipid acids, or eggs with lower cholesterol. More than

Percentage of right answers

Table I.
Degree of knowledge on Food contains DNA 61
biological issues Tomato has genes 74
(percentage) A GM tomato has a foreign gene 52

Ethically
Type of genetically modified food Beneficial Risky accepted
Rice with vitamin A and iron 89 24 80
Healthy oil 85 30 77
Egg with lower cholesterola 82 34 74
Table II. Insect resistant corn 71 52 59
Acceptance of various Dry climate tolerant potatoa 62 43 69
types of genetically Herbicide tolerant soyabean 62 60 58
modified foods
a
(percentage) Note: Hypothetical biotechnological applications
80 per cent of respondents consider these applications as beneficial and ethically Genetically
accepted, with relatively low risk (<35 per cent).
Among the two most widespread GM plants globally, insect-resistant corn has a
modified foods
higher acceptance (71 per cent) than herbicide-tolerant soyabean (62 per cent) but both
applications are considered more risky than the other. GM soyabean has been
extensively criticized since the first days it was imported in Europe from USA and as a
result consumers have not been persuaded of the benefits of this GM product.
Cultivation of GM corn, on the other hand, has resulted in reductions of chemical 151
insecticides (Carpenter et al., 2002) and recent findings in Britain suggest that GM corn
do not have more negative effects on biodiversity than conventional corn (Hawes et al.,
2003). Although it is unlikely that respondents were aware of these developments, the
fact that GM corn has not been linked with many negative comments, has probably
contributed to the higher level of acceptance. Overall, these variations in acceptance of
different GM applications reinforce the view that each GM product should be judged
separately on a case-by-case basis (UK Government, 2003).

Safety
Regarding the safety of genetically modified foods, a very small percentage (4.3 per cent)
considers GM foods to be safe and 18.2 per cent consider them to be ‘‘probably safe’’
(Table III). The majority feels that GM foods are probably risky (48.6 per cent) or not
safe at all (6.7 per cent). These results show that there is a widespread belief that GM
foods may impose health risks, despite the fact that the major GM varieties (soyabean
and corn) are approved by the European Community for human consumption since
1997 (Europa, 2004). However, this percentage of respondents that consider GM food as
risky (total 55.3 per cent) is lower than the 75 per cent of Greek respondents of the
Eurobarometer 2002 that feel that GM foods are not safe for consumption (Greece is the
country with the most ‘‘negative’’ attitude in the European Community). Therefore,
these results suggest that young individuals with a scientific background have a more
positive attitude towards GM foods than the general population.

Effect of information
Results are differentiated when respondents were asked to answer again the same
question about safety after reading a short informative statement. This statement was
as follows:
Approved genetically modified foods do not cause more allergies than conventional foods
nor are indications that they are harmful to human health-as stated by an official Agency of

Before information After information

Positive Positive
Safe 4.2 40.9 5.1 54.1
Probably safe 18.5 27.1
Same risks as conventional
foods 18.2 21.9 Table III.
Negative Negative How safe do you
consider genetically
Probably risky 48.6 55.3 34.9 39.7 modified foods
Not safe 6.7 4.8 ( percentages)
NFS the USA (GAO, 2002). After hearing this statement and considering the fact that GM foods are
consumed by million of people the last decade without any negative effects to human health,
35,3 how safe are GM foods according to your opinion?
All percentages were moved to a more ‘‘positive’’ side (Table III). Negative attitude
(reflected by respondents that had chosen ‘‘not safe’’ or ‘‘probably risky’’) was reduced
by 15.4 units (from 55.1 per cent to 39.7 per cent) and positive attitude (answers
152 including ‘‘safe’’, ‘‘probably safe’’ and ‘‘same risks as conventional food’’) was increased
by 13.2 units (from 40.9 per cent to 54.1 per cent). Also, the percentage of respondents
that ‘‘do not know’’ whether GM foods are safe was increased after reading the
informative statement. These results show that even a short piece of information
from a relatively reliable source can influence the attitude of consumers although there
are no indications whether the buying behaviour would also be affected. However, it
is also evident that a concrete 40 per cent considers GM food to be risky regardless of
the flow of ‘‘positive’’ information.
The distrust towards GM foods is also demonstrated by the time of consumption
that is considered adequate to establish confidence in a GM food. 23 per cent of
respondents state that 25-30 years of consumption are needed in order to feel confident
that GM foods are safe and 25 per cent state that they will ‘‘never’’ feel confident.
Moreover, genetically modified foods are classified fourth in a hypothetical list of
nutritional risk factors (Table IV). Foods with dioxins are by far first in this risk list
and hormones as well as fatty foods are also considered more risky than GM foods.

Consumer attitude
Distrust on GM foods is also shown by the attitude of respondents towards GM
labeling of foods (in European Community labeling of GM foods is mandatory while
there are no GMO labelling requirements for foods marketed in the USA). Reactions
when facing a GM labeled food range from indifference (23 per cent) to total rejection
(15 per cent), but the majority of respondents (45 per cent) would remain skeptical
about a GM label. These results confirm that a GM food label would be a serious
marketing weakness for a food, compared to the conventional or organically grown
equivalents. Organically grown plants remain very high in respondents’ preferences
and price does not seem to affect this preference (only 6.5 per cent of respondents would
prefer to buy a GM tomato even if it was sold in one third of the price of an organically
grown tomato). Low price does not significantly affect consumer attitudes towards GM
foods. The negative attitude is mainly focused to the belief that GM foods are risky
(Table V) but also respondents agree that there is not adequate information about
this subject. Only few respondents consider GM foods to be unnatural or not necessary.

Percentage
Table IV. Foods with dioxins 79.2
Nutritional risks Foods with hormones 45.3
(percentage of Fast food 43
respondents that Genetically modified foods 36.7
consider risky the Fatty foods 34.4
following factors) Foods with preservatives 23.1
Source and reliability of information Genetically
The mass media (TV and newspapers) consist by far the major source of information of modified foods
respondents, although they consider them to be the least reliable (Table VI). Moreover,
scientific magazines are a significant source of information about GM issues and
scientists along with the European Community Committees are considered as the most
reliable sources. Ecological Organizations and Consumer Unions have also high level of
reliability. However, there is a complete distrust towards industry. 153

Conclusions
The study reveals that although Greek University students are more informed than the
general population about genetic modification issues, still a large proportion (48 per
cent) are unaware of what is exactly a genetically modified plant and therefore of the
real scientific arguments concerning this issue. The majority of respondents (55.3 per
cent) believe that genetically modified foods may impose risks (this percentage,
though, is smaller than the 74.5 per cent of the general population that consider
genetically modified food not to be safe-according to Eurobarometer 2002) but they are
unable to justify the reasons while they do ignore most of the potential benefits. What
is of interest, however, is a significant shift in percentages that is observed after the
respondents read a short informative statement. The ‘‘negative’’ attitude is decreased
by 15.5 percentage units and the ‘‘positive’’ attitude is increased by 13.2 percentage
units. These results show that appropriate information could affect the acceptability of
a technological innovation.
The main question arising is what is exactly appropriate information. The results
reveal that although information about GM issues is provided mainly through the
mass media, this source is considered the least reliable (1.6 per cent), as it is very often

Percentage
GM foods are risky 46
There is not adequate information 38.1
There is no trust to regulatory authorities 23.1
GM foods are ‘‘unnatural’’ 14.3 Table V.
GM foods are not necessary 8.3 Factors shaping the
There has not been effective marketing 5.8 negative public attitude

Percentage
Scientists 52.9
European Community Committee 52.7
Greek Ministry of Health 36.7
FDA 34.6
Ecological Organization 27.5
European Consumer Union 24.5
Church 2.1 Table VI.
Mass Media 1.6 Reliability of sources of
Industry 0.7 information
NFS biased emphasizing mainly on the risks leading very often to a state of panic and
35,3 wrong strategies (Hails and Kinderlerer, 2003). Also, in agreement with the attitude of
the European public as a whole, there is a complete distrust towards biotechnology
industry which is not at all unreasonable. The private sector accounts for more than 80
per cent of international biotechnology research therefore genetically modified seeds
are under corporate control and patent protection and hence very expensive especially
for third world countries which cannot afford this technology. For all those reasons
154 public opinion in Europe considers the GM technology the perfect means for
biotechnology industry to impose its interests on the whole range of agricultural
production. (Stauss, 2000; Leisinger, 2000; Altieri, 2000)
Respondents would be skeptical towards a potential GM food label and would
certainly prefer an organic food versus a GM food even if the price were three times
more. Therefore, in the opinion of the public, GM food products, would be stigmatized
if placed on the market with a GM food label, and would be less competitive than
conventional products. However, viability according, also, to the results of this study, if
the GM products possess a clear benefit for public health (e.g. rice enhanced with
vitamin A) they would be highly accepted (>80 per cent). Other applications such as
herbicide-tolerant soyabean are considered less beneficial and ethically accepted as
their potential environmental benefits have never been explained on a scientific basis
and hence have never been evident to the public.
Therefore in order to establish a market for GM food products, it is imperative that
public acceptance should increase and the feeling of trust should prevail. Adequate
and objective information could play an important role in bridging the gap between
science and the public but scientists should really take over this great responsibility.

References
Ahmed, F.E. (2002), ‘‘Detection of genetically modified organisms in foods’’, TRENDS in
Biotechnology, Vol. 20 No. 5, May 2002, pp. 215-23.
Altieri, M.A. (2000), ‘‘Can biotechnology end hunger? No: poor farmers won’t reap the benefits’’,
Foreign Policy, Summer, pp. 123-31.
Arntzen, C.J., Coghlan, A., Johnson, B., Peacock, J. and Rodemeyer, M. (2003), ‘‘GM crops: science,
politics and communication’’, Nature Review Genetic, Vol. 4, pp. 839-43.
Bonny, S. (2003), ‘‘Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in
France and Europe’’, Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 6 No. 1, available at:
www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol6/issue1/full/4/ (accessed 27 January 2004).
Carpenter, J., Felsot, A., Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D. and Sankula, S. (2002), ‘‘Comparative
environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soyabean, corn and
cotton crops’’, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA, available at:
www.cast-science.org
EMBO (2000), EMBO’s Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms and the Public, January 18,
2000, available at: www.embo.org
Eurobarometer (1997), ‘‘Les Europeens et la Biotechnologie Moderne’’, Eurobarometer 46.1,
Directorate – General Research, European Commission, Luxemburg.
Eurobarometer (2000), ‘‘Les Europeens et la Biotechnologie Moderne’’, European Commission.
Europa (2004), ‘‘Questions and answers on the regulation of GMOs in the European Union’’,
available at: europa.eu.int/comm/food
Ewen, S.W. and Pusztai, A. (1999), ‘‘Health risks of genetically modified foods’’, Lancet, Vol. 354,
pp. 684.
Feehan, T. (1999), ‘‘Battling with biotechnology’’, International Food Ingredients, January/ Genetically
February 1999, pp. 30-2.
Frewer, L. (2003), ‘‘Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods’’,
modified foods
Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 14 No. 5-8, pp. 319-32.
GAO (2002), ‘‘Genetically modified foods’’, Report to Congressional Requesters: GAO-02–566,
United States General Accounting Office, May.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N. and Stares, S. (2003), Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, 155
Eurobarometer 58.0. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project
Life Sciences in European Society, QLG7-CT-1999–00286, March.
GM Public Debate (2003), ‘‘GM nation? The public debate, a national debate on genetic
modification’’, UK Government, available at: www.gmpublicdebate.org.uk/
Greenpeace (2001) Annual Report 2001, available at http://archive.greenpeace.org/
AnnualReport_2001/geneticengineering.html
Hails, R. and Kinderlerer, J. (2003), ‘‘The GM public debate: context and communication
strategies’’, Nature Review Genetics, Vol. 4, pp. 819-25.
Harlander, S.K. (2002), ‘‘Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food
products: The American view’’, Toxicol Pathol, Vol. 30, pp. 132-4.
Hawes, C., Haughton, A.J., Osborne, J.L., Roy, D.B., Clark, S.J., Perry, J.N., Rothery, P., Bohan, D.A.,
Brooks, D.R., Champion, G.T., Dewar, A.M., Heard, M.S., Woiwod, I.P., Daniels, R.E., Young,
M.W., Parish, A.M., Scott, R.J., Firbank, L.G. and Squire, G.R. (2003), ‘‘Responses of
plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the farm
scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops’’, Phil.Trans.R.Soc.Lond.,
Vol. B 358, pp. 1899-1913, available at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/phil_bio/fse_content/
TB031899.pdf (accessed 27 January 2004).
Human Development Report (2001), ‘‘Making new technologies work for human development’’
statement by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director and lead author, HDR 2001 London, 10 July,
available at: www.undp.org/hdr2001
Kalaitzandonakes, N. and Bijman, J. (2003), ‘‘Who is driving biotechnology acceptance?’’, Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 21, pp. 366-9.
Leisinger, K.M. (2000), ‘‘Can biotechnology end hunger? Yes: stop blocking progress’’, Foreign
Policy, Summer, pp. 113-22.
Losey, J., Raynor, L. and Carte, M.E. (1999), ‘‘Transgenic pollen harms Monarch larvae’’, Nature,
Vol. 399, pp. 214.
Millstone, E., Brunner, E. and Mayer, S. (1999), ‘‘Beyond substantial equivalence’’, Nature,
Vol. 401, pp. 525-6.
Moseley, B.E. (2002), ‘‘Safety assessments and public concern for genetically modified food
products: the European view’’, Toxicol Pathol, Vol. 30, pp. 129-31.
Stauss, M. (2000), ‘‘When Malthus meets Mendel’’, Foreign Policy, Summer, pp. 105-12.
UK Government (2003), ‘‘Field work: weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops’’, July,
available at: www.number-10.gov.uk/su/gm