Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Variables Affecting Secondary School Students’ Willingness to Eat Genetically Modified Food Crops

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A large-scale cross-sectional study (N = 4002) was set up to determine Flemish secondary school students’ willingness to eat genetically modified food (WTE) and to link students’ WTE to previously identified key variables from research on the acceptance of genetic modification (GM). These variables include subjective and objective knowledge about genetics and biotechnology, perceived risks and benefits of GM food crops, trust in information from different sources about GM, and food neophobia. Differences between WTE-related variables based on students’ grade level, educational track, and gender were analyzed. The students displayed a rather indecisive position toward GM food and scored weakly on a genetics and biotechnology knowledge test. WTE correlated most strongly with perceived benefits and subjective and objective knowledge. The results have clear implications for education, as they reiterate the need to strengthen students’ scientific knowledge base and to introduce a GM-related debate at a much earlier stage in their school career.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the rather low scale reliability of perceived benefits.

References

  • Aerni, P. (2013). Resistance to agricultural biotechnology: the importance of distinguishing between weak and strong public attitudes. Biotechnology Journal, 8(10), 1129–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, M. A., Mejicano, G., Anderson, W. M., & Gruppen, L. (2010). Building a competency-based curriculum: the agony and the ecstasy. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(3), 439–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M., & Coole, H. (2012). Experimenter confirmation bias and the correction of science misconceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(4), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Hassan, Z., Ibrahim, M., & Ibrahim, R. (2014). Gender effect on awareness and attitude toward genetically modified foods and medicine. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 12(1), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bialek, W., & Botstein, D. (2004). Introductory science and mathematics education for 21st-century biologists. Science, 303(5659), 788–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blancke, S., Van Breusegem, F., De Jaeger, G., Braeckman, J., & Van Montagu, M. (2015). Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in plant science.

  • Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food – results of a cross-National Survey. J Consum Pol, 24(1), 23–61. doi:10.1023/A:1010950406128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce Traill, W., Yee, W. M., Lusk, J. L., Jaeger, S. R., House, L. O., Morrow Jr., J., et al. (2006). Perceptions of the risks and benefits of genetically-modified foods and their influence on willingness to consume. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section C, 3(1), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, A. (2005). Understanding of genetic information in higher secondary students in Northeast India and the implications for genetics education. Cell Biology Education, 4(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-F. (2008). An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods. British Food Journal, 110(6), 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-F. (2011). The gender gap in food choice motives as determinants of consumers’ attitudes toward GM foods in Taiwan. British Food Journal, 113(6), 697–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-F., & Li, H.-L. (2007). The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2007). Are perceptions of ‘risks’ and ‘benefits’ of genetically modified food (in) dependent? Food Quality and Preference, 18(2), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Font, M., & Gil, J. M. (2009). Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: a cross country study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(6), 399–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovey, T. M., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. (2008). Food neophobia and ‘picky/fussy’eating in children: a review. Appetite, 50(2), 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunwell, J. M. (2014). Genetically modified (GM) crops: European and transatlantic divisions. Molecular Plant Pathology, 15(2), 119–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2000). Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector; P. 42 Glossary - Term and Definitions

  • Economidis, I., Cichocka, D., & Högel, J. (2010) A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). European Commission, Belgium.

  • Eurobarometer. (2005). Social values, science and technology. Special Eurobarometer 225/Wave 63.1. Brussels: TNS Opinion & Social.

  • Everett, R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York.

  • Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., van der Lans, I. A., Fischer, A. R., Reinders, M. J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X., et al. (2013). Public perceptions of Agri-food applications of genetic modification—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(2), 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P., Esmer, Y., . . . Hampel, J. (2010). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 Winds of change?

  • Gelamdin, R. B., Alias, N., & Attaran, M. (2013). Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on biotechnology education: a review on publications in selected journals. Life Science Journal, 10(1), 1210–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, A., Goto, K., Wolff, C., & Giovanni, M. (2013). Food, health and values: the effects of attitudes and behaviors regarding sustainable food practices on overall diet quality among college students. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff, G. (1993). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education: WW Norton & Company.

  • Hall, C., & Moran, D. (2006). Investigating GM risk perceptions: a survey of anti-GM and environmental campaign group members. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanegan, N. L., & Bigler, A. (2009). Infusing authentic inquiry into biotechnology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M. (1996). Context, cognition, and common method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Estrella, L., Depicker, A., Van Montagu, M., & Schell, J. (1983). Expression of chimaeric genes transferred into plant cells using a Ti-plasmid-derived vector. Nature, 303, 209–213.

  • Hossain, F., & Onyango, B. (2004). Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., et al. (2005). Objective and subjective knowledge: impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioforum, 7(3).

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klop, T., & Severiens, S. (2007). An exploration of attitudes towards modern biotechnology: a study among Dutch secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 761–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: a pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. W., & Ho, S. S. (2015). The perceived familiarity gap hypothesis: examining how media attention and reflective integration relate to perceived familiarity with nanotechnology in Singapore. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17(5), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, R., Wu, L., Shan, L., & Li, H. (2014). Consumer’s risk perception of genetically modified food and its influencing factors: based on the survey in Jiangsu Province, China. Open Biotechnology Journal, 8, 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses, 7(8), 4254–4281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, J., & Traill, W. B. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 179–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maeseele, P. A., & Schuurman, D. (2008). Biotechnology and the popular Press in Northern Belgium a case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication, 29(4), 435–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, M. D., Critchley, C. R., & Walshe, J. (2014). Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science, 0963662514542372.

  • Martínez-Gracia, M. V., Gil-Quýlez, M., & Osada, J. (2003). Genetic engineering: a matter that requires further refinement in Spanish secondary school textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1148–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, D. W., Knight, J. G., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D. K., Ermen, D. F., & Breitbarth, T. (2011). Social stigma and consumer benefits: trade-offs in adoption of genetically modified foods. Science communication, 1075547011428183.

  • Moerbeek, H., & Casimir, G. (2005). Gender differences in consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 308–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muela, F. J., & Abril, A. M. (2014). Genetics and cinema: personal misconceptions that constitute obstacles to learning. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(3), 260–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P., Lang, J. T., Sawicka, M., & Hallman, W. K. (2007). Culture and technological innovation: impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 191–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. M., & Hallman, W. K. (2013). Consumer risk perceptions and marketing strategy: the case of genetically modified food. Psychology & Marketing, 30(9), 739–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & O’Riordan, T. (2005). Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM nation? Public debate. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 467–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Zani, B. (2012). The prediction of intention to consume genetically modified food: test of an integrated psychosocial model. Food Quality and Preference, 25(2), 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokop, P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko, M., & Diran, C. (2007). Slovakian students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, F., Kennedy, J., & Wills, J. (2011). Consumers and new food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. (2004). How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable? Trends in Biotechnology, 22(3), 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E., Conti, J., & Harthorn, B. H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(11), 752–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnettler, B., Crisóstomo, G., Sepúlveda, J., Mora, M., Lobos, G., Miranda, H., & Grunert, K. G. (2013). Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite, 69, 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765–1785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. M. (2010). Gender differences in knowledge and attitude towards biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 642–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2012). Using the genetics concept assessment to document persistent conceptual difficulties in undergraduate genetics courses. Genetics, 191(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solli, A., Bach, F., & Åkerman, B. (2014). Learning to argue as a biotechnologist: disprivileging opposition to genetically modified food. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Inc.

  • Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, L. Y.-F., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36(3), 352–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usak, M., Erdogan, M., Prokop, P., & Ozel, M. (2009). High school and university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. (2015). Tracking and sense of futility: the impact of between-school tracking versus within-school tracking in secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 782–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdurme, A., & Viaene, J. (2003a). Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness, 19(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdurme, A., & Viaene, J. (2003b). Exploring and modelling consumer attitudes towards genetically modified food. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

JM is supported by a PhD scholarship from Ghent University (project COM12/PWM/006 05C00612).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Biotechnology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Jasmien Maes & Godelieve Gheysen

  2. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Jasmien Maes, Jeroen Bourgonjon & Martin Valcke

  3. Headquarters, VIB, Coupure links 653, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Jasmien Maes

Authors
  1. Jasmien Maes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen Bourgonjon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Godelieve Gheysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Valcke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmien Maes.

Appendix. Questionnaire (Items per Construct)

Appendix. Questionnaire (Items per Construct)

Food Neophobia.

FN1

I am afraid to eat things I have never had before

FN2

I am very particular about the foods I will eat

FN3

I do not trust new foods

FN4

If I do not know what is in a food, I will not try it

FN5

I like foods from different countries

FN6

At dinner parties, I will try a new food

FN7

I will eat almost anything

FN8

I prefer food from a brand/type I am familiar with

Note. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Subjective knowledge about GMOs.

Ksubj1

I have heard about genetically modified crops

Ksubj2

I think that I know what genetically modified crops are

Ksubj3

I can explain what genetically modified crops are

Ksubj4

I am interested in genetically modified crops

Ksubj5

I know what this article is about (students received a picture and the title of an article in the newspaper “six to eight months in jail for potato activists”)

Note. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

True/false statements.

TF1

If a fish-gene is inserted in a tomato, the tomato will taste like fish (false)

TF2

A fault in your DNA will be automatically passed to your children (false)

TF3

E-numbers are indicated on the label of several food products. They indicate the presence of flavoring and coloring agents and preservatives. Also GMOs are indicated with an E-number (false)

TF4

Genetic modification of different crop varieties or cattle alters the DNA of the plant or animal (true)

TF5

The father determines the sex of the child (true)

TF6

In Europe, political authorities are not entitled to review the regulation related to genetically modified crops, only the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is empowered (false)

TF7

In Belgium, grocery stores sell many genetically modified food products (false)

TF8

Genetically modified bacteria are used on a large scale for the production of medicines, like insulin (true)

TF9

Plant-DNA can only alter through technical intervention by humans (false)

TF10

Genetically modified crops are always bigger than non-genetically modified crops (false)

TF11

Most of the soy products you find in Belgium are not genetically modified (true)

TF12

Traditional breeding of different crop varieties or cattle alters the DNA of the plant or animal (true)

TF13

There are no developing countries where genetically modified crops are grown (false)

Note. Each statement could be answered with ‘true’, ‘false’ or ‘I do not know’.

Perceived Benefits.

Ben1

Applying gene technology in food production can be used to solve environmental problems

Ben2

Applying gene technology in food production will reduce the price of food products

Ben3

Applying gene technology in food production will increase the product choice in supermarkets

Ben4

Applying gene technology in food production is necessary

Ben5

The use of genetic modification in the food production can help to solve the food shortage in third world countries

Note. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Perceived Risks.

Risk1

Applying gene technology in food production will have harmful consequences

Risk2

Genetically modified organisms are likely to interfere with wild species in nature

Risk3

Genetically modified food is unhealthy

Risk4

Nobody knows the long-term consequences on the environment and human health of applying gene technology in food production

Risk5

Applying gene technology in food production will only benefit the producer

Risk6

Applying gene technology in food production is unnatural

Risk7

Genetically modified foods are causing cancer

Risk8

Applying gene technology in food production is dangerous

Risk9

Genetic modification makes farmers dependent on large companies

Note. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Willingness to eat GM food crops.

WTE1

I am willing to eat food that contains genetically modified ingredients

WTE2

I am willing to eat genetically modified food if it was cheaper

WTE3

I am willing to eat genetically modified food if less pesticides were used to produce them

WTE4

I am willing to eat genetically modified food if it would reduce my ecological footprint

WTE5

I am willing to eat genetically modified food if it was healthier

WTE6

I am willing to eat genetically modified food if farmers could increase their profit

WTE7

How do you feel about eating this tomato (a short article about a purple tomato with health benefits)*

Note. Each item was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). * This item was measured on a five-point Likert-like scale, ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maes, J., Bourgonjon, J., Gheysen, G. et al. Variables Affecting Secondary School Students’ Willingness to Eat Genetically Modified Food Crops. Res Sci Educ 48, 597–618 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9580-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9580-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation