4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

The impact of consumer food biotechnology training on knowledge and attitude

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 174S-177S

Publisher

AMER COLL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2002.10719262

Keywords

agriculture; food biotechnology; consumer acceptance; consumer education; genetically-modified organisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Consumer education is an important aspect in the adoption of any new technology. The objective of this work was to determine whether consumer's knowledge and attitudes would be influenced by a face-to-face presentation involving food biotechnology. Materials and Methods: Participants (576) were requested to complete a pre-test prior to receiving a 45-80 minute presentation, which was then followed by a post-test. Participants included members from a community organization, undergraduate and graduate college students and cooperative extension educators (county agents). Results: Following training, 98% to 99% correctly indicated that fruits and vegetables contain chromosomes and that foods from biotech crops were currently sold in grocery stores. Prior to training, only 31% felt that these crops were properly regulated by federal agencies, and only 25% were confident that bioengineering was unlikely to make an existing food allergenic. Following training, 83% felt that these crops were properly regulated, and 63% believed that biotechnology was unlikely to add new allergens to our food supply. In addition, 90% of those trained would eat or serve genetically-modified foods to their family, and 90% believed that they or their family would benefit from genetically-modified foods within the next five years. Conclusions: It is apparent from these results that when provided sound, science-based information, participants are more accepting of this technology and the regulatory process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available