Level Of Awareness On Gmo
Tas, Balci, Yüksel and Sahin Yesilçubuk (2015) evaluated the awareness of GMFs of Turkish consumers living in Istanbul, Turkey that is using a consumer survey with 1,315 participants. Awareness of the consumers about GMOs and GMFs, willingness to purchase GMFs, accepting of GMFs by consumers and information sources were evaluated. The consumers were asked if they had ever heard about GMOs and GMFs. Among the respondents only 1 % had never heard about GMFs, while 21% have heard from the internet, 51% from television, 12% from newspaper, and 15% have heard at school.
Among the 1,325 respondents only 5 persons have heard from the radio. Statistical results displayed that the sources of information about GMFs have a significant difference in terms of gender, age, and education level. Another study of Ghasemi, Karami and Azadi (2013) on agricultural professionals’ insights toward GMFs in Southwest Iran utilized a deploy sample of 262 respondents. And most of the respondents resulted to have a few understanding and awareness about GMFs. They distinguish few benefits and dangers of GMFs. Their understanding of the benefits in individuals and institutions had positive effects on the behavioral intentions of the agricultural professionals. The results also revealed that the few awareness levels of the respondents had a negative impact on the behavioral intentions toward GMFs. Ghasemi et al. (2013) used ten issues to determine the awareness and knowledge about GMCs.
The first issue was whether ‘‘GMCs are the same as conventionally cross-bred crops’’, which is false. This issue shows 23. 8 % of the questions asked are correctly answered while 76. 2% are answered incorrect by the respondents. It simply shows that mostly of the respondents think that GMFs are also the same as hybrid crops. The second issue was ‘‘GMFs are the same as organic foods’’, which is false. The results show that almost 63. 7 % of the respondents answered correct, while the 36. 3 % answered incorrect. The third issue asked whether ‘‘GMCs are produced by taking genes from plant and animal species and transferring them into plants’’, which is true. The results show 66. 5 % of the professionals answered correct and 33. 5 % answered incorrect. Awareness is focused on the fourth issue; i. e. ‘‘some preferred features can be created in products by gene transfers’’, which is true. Mostly 90. 5 % of the respondents answered correct, and the 9. 5 % answered incorrect. The fifth issue was ‘‘non-GMFs does not contain any genes, while GMFs do’’, which is false. Nearly, two-thirds (62. 7 %) of the professionals answered this issue correctly and around one-third (37. 3 %) answered incorrectly. The sixth issue questioned whether ‘‘it is impossible to transfer animal genes into plants’’, which is false. Here, one-third (33. 7 %) of the respondents answered correctly and two-third (66. 7 %) answered incorrectly.
There is less awareness toward the seventh issue; i. e. ‘‘tomato modified by fish genes would taste fishy’’ which is false. Less than half (43. 9 %) of the professionals responded on this issue correctly while more than half (56. 1 %) answered wrongly. The eighth issue asked whether ‘‘GMFs can be distinguished from non-GM’’, which is false. Almost two-thirds (64. 4 %) of the respondents answered this question correctly and the rest (35. 6 %) answered incorrectly. The ninth issue questioned whether ‘‘all processed foods are made by using GM products’’, which is false. Most of the respondent (80. 5 %) answered this issue correctly and 19. 5 % answered wrongly. The tenth and last issue asked whether ‘‘recently Iran is also applying GM technology to produce crops’’, which is true. Almost two-third (65. 5 %) of the respondents answered to the last issue correctly and one-third (34. 5 %) answered incorrectly. The above findings show that most of the respondents hold some valid knowledge and awareness toward GMC (Ghasemi et al. , 2013).
In the study of Ayaz et al. (2011), 33. 7 percent of the participants (n =600) know about genetically modified foods. Goyal and Gurtoo (2011) even summarized that European countries have an overall negative attitude towards GMFs and that most developing countries are welcoming scientific innovation such as genetic engineering to feed the growing population and demands while being skeptical on safety issues. According to Bongoni (2016), GMFs controversy among Asians is rather limited. But some Asian societies such as India, though has shown openness in accepting GMFs, few consumer groups still do consider genetic modification as an act “against god” or “against the nature” and “with an unknown risk”. Several public demonstrations were held against GMFs in Japan because of a range of concerns from unknown ecological impact and from uncertain risk (Yamaguchi & Suda, 2010).
However, majority of the Asian societies and consumers are willing to purchase GMFs when there is an associated benefit, to the extent that sometimes they are even ready to pay higher for a better-quality product. Koreans showed strong fear against GMFs but when promised benefits are more willing to try GMFs. Ceteris paribus, when GM and non-GMF are comparable in price, Indians (especially middle-class households) chose to consume GMFs, e. g. golden rice or edible oil. The lower antagonism among the Asian societies towards GMFs can partly be explained by the fact that most consumers are unaware of the latest biotechnological advancements and the debates around GMFs (Bongoni, 2016)
