Most health professionals and health students believe GM foods are unsafe
Background:
Genetically modified (GM) foods and crops are a controversial subject. There is controversy in many regards including the safety of GM foods, whether the current regulations are sufficient, whether or not GM foods should be labeled, if people are willing to consume GM foods and if there should be a moratorium on GM foods and/or crops.
Purpose:
To determine the consensus of opinion among individual health professionals and health students, between the years 2009-2019, on safety, regulation, labeling, willingness to eat GM foods and their beliefs about a moratorium on GM foods and/or crops.
Data Sources and Selection:
Electronic literature systematic search using Google Scholar and Google search engines. Manual reference checks of all articles related to surveys of health professionals from around the world, with regards to their opinions on GM foods and crops.
Data Extraction:
28 relevant surveys of health professionals and health students were found regarding opinions about GM food safety between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 8 different countries.
12 relevant surveys of health professionals and health students were found regarding opinions about GM food labeling between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 4 different countries.
19 relevant surveys of health professionals and health students were found regarding opinions about willingness to consume GM food between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 7 different countries.
10 relevant surveys of health professionals and health students were found regarding opinions about support for GM food and crop production between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 4 different countries.
5 relevant surveys of health professionals and health students were found, between the years 2009 to 2019, regarding opinions about the regulatory process or agencies that regulate GM foods and crops. These surveys represented health professionals from 3 different countries.
Results:
In at least 92.9% of surveys about GM food safety the majority of health professionals and health students either believe GM foods have health risks, or are neutral or unsure about the safety of GM foods.
In 100% of surveys about GM food labeling the majority of health professionals and health students believe GM food products should be labeled.
In 89.5% of surveys about the willingness to consume GM foods the majority of health professionals and health students were unwilling or unsure about consuming GM foods, or would choose non-GMO foods over GM foods.
In at least 80% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not support GM foods and/or GM crop production in their respective countries, or are unsure.
In 100% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not believe the regulatory process is adequate for GM foods and/or crops or were unsure about the adequacy.
Conclusion:
The results of this systematic review indicate that the common claim that there is a consensus among health professionals that GM foods are as safe and healthy as their conventional counterparts is not supported by the available evidence. Based on the results of this systematic review a clear consensus among individual health professionals emerged. The consensus among health experts is that GM foods currently on the market cannot presently be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts. This is either due to lack of evidence of safety, or because of a consensus in the scientific literature from animal studies that at least some GM foods currently on the market may be unsafe compared to their conventional counterparts. Surveys indicated that health professionals and health students surveyed do not generally support GM foods or their production and are generally unwilling to consume, or unsure about consuming, GM foods. Health professionals surveyed do, however, overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling of GM foods and better regulations for GM foods. Further surveys of individual health professionals from around the world are necessary as the search results of this systematic review only identified surveys of health professionals from 8 countries.
However, these results are also supported by a systematic review of statements by health groups regarding their opinions on GM food safety (GMO Free Florida 2022). A systematic review of the scientific evidence also supports this consensus since in the majority of relevant animal feeding studies using the popular GM soy GTS 40-3-2 adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects were reported (GMO Free Florida 2022b). Health groups also overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling of GM foods and better regulations for GM foods. There is also general support for a moratorium on at least some GMOs which is consistent with this systematic review of surveys regarding the opinions of individual health professionals (GMO Free Florida 2022).
Based on the evidence from systematic reviews, we call upon the health community, who are the experts on health, to continue to inform the public of the potential harms from GM foods and to choose non-GMO and organic foods to avoid those potential harms. We urge the governments of the world to impose a moratorium on all GM foods until each GM food has been demonstrated as safe in independent long-term and multigenerational chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies using both rodents and non-rodents comparable to humans. We also call upon all who have published papers claiming that there is a consensus that all GM foods on the market are safe to provide corrections, or formally retract their papers if necessary. Our systematic reviews indicate this claim is not supported by the consensus, nor does it appear this claim was ever supported by the consensus.
A precautionary approach should be taken especially since there is now a consensus among health groups and individual health professionals that GM foods currently on the market cannot be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts at this present time, and a consensus in the scientific literature that some GM foods currently on the market may be unsafe compared to their conventional counterparts.
Disclaimer: Neither GMO Free Florida, our fiscal sponsor GMO Free USA, nor any person acting on behalf of GMO Free Florida or GMO Free USA are responsible for the use, actions or decisions taken as a result of the information in this report. The views expressed in this report are those of the unpaid volunteers who authored this report and are not necessarily the views of GMO Free Florida or GMO Free USA. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Introduction:
GM foods are also referred to as genetically engineered (GE) or bioengineered (BE) foods. These include foods derived from organisms modified through techniques such as transgenesis, intragenesis, cisgenesis, zinc finger proteins, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, and clustered, regularly interspaced, short, palindromic repeats. The process of genetic modification can result in unexpected consequences, potentially causing the plant to produce toxins, create foreign proteins, or other unanticipated results (Ho 2013, Wilson 2006, Dona 2009, Rang 2005, Mesnage 2016, Eckerstorfer 2019). GM foods and crops are, therefore, a controversial subject. There is controversy in many regards including the safety of GM foods, whether the current regulations are sufficient, whether or not GM foods should be labeled, if people want to consume GM foods and if there should be a moratorium on GM foods and/or crops.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the largest general science group in the world with over 120,000 members consisting of scientists, as well as college and high school students (American Association for the Advancement of Science 2014). The AAAS members have backgrounds ranging from agriculture, biological, medical, chemistry, earth, engineering, math, computer, physics, astronomy, social, behavioral and other sciences. In a 2014 survey of only AAAS members it was determined that 88% of the 3,748 members surveyed believed that GM foods were safe to consume (Funk 2015). In the original report, 50% of the members surveyed were placed in one category labeled according to their backgrounds as, “Agriculture, Biological or Medical Sciences” (Funk 2015).
In an elaboration of the original AAAS report, for an unknown reason, the scientists in this same category, representing 50% of members surveyed, were relabeled as, “Biomedical sciences” (Pew Research Center 2015). Due to this discrepancy it is unclear if the 1,802 members listed as, “Biomedical sciences” in the elaborated report also include scientists with backgrounds in agriculture, plant biology or other biological sciences unrelated to human health. According to the elaborated report, of this “Biomedical sciences” group, 91% believed GMOs are generally safe to consume (Pew Research Center 2015). Other recent surveys, however, have different results such as a survey of Polish scientists from 2014-2015. In this survey it states, “In the present study, over 50% of polled Polish researchers were against the production and distribution of GM foods, contrary to the US where scientists largely consider these products as safe” (Rzymski 2016).
As far as we are aware, no systematic review of the opinions of experts on health, the medical and public health community, regarding this subject has ever been conducted. In the absence of such a systematic review claims of a consensus are largely speculative. We, therefore, performed a systematic review of surveys from around the world of individuals in the fields of medicine or public health, and students in such fields. The goal of our systematic review was to determine the state of opinion about: 1. the safety of GM foods, 2. the adequacy of GM food regulations, 3. the labeling of GM foods, 4. the willingness to consume GM foods compared to non-GMO foods, 5. whether or not GM foods and/or crops should be produced.
Results and Discussion: See Supplementary Table Report 2
GM Food Safety
28 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about GM food safety between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 8 different countries. In at least 92.9% (26/28) of surveys about GM food safety the majority of health professionals and health students either believe GM foods have health risks, or are neutral or unsure about the safety of GM foods (Supplementary Table Report 2).
Health Practitioner Surveys on GM Food Safety
Taken together, the surveys reviewed on GM foods and health risks indicate that health professionals and health students either believe GM foods have health risks, or are neutral or unsure about whether they have health risks. This result is consistent with our systematic review of health groups which finds 91.5% with statements on GM food safety and no known conflicts of interest question the safety of GM foods (GMO Free Florida 2022). This suggests that the claim that there is consensus among health professionals that GM foods are as safe and healthy as their non-GMO counterparts is not supported by the available evidence. Based on the results of this systematic review, however, a clear consensus among health groups and individual health professionals emerged. The consensus among health experts is that GM foods currently on the market cannot presently be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts. This is either due to lack of evidence of safety, or because of a consensus in the scientific literature that at least some GM foods currently on the market may be unsafe compared to their conventional counterparts (GMO Free Florida 2022b).
The claim that there is consensus that GM foods are as safe and healthy as their non-GMO counterparts has largely been based on a single survey of select AAAS members (Funk 2015). Our systematic review, however, indicates that in at least 92.9% of surveys (26 of 28) about GM food safety the majority of health professionals and health students either believe GM foods have health risks, or are neutral or unsure about the safety of GM foods. In the 1 other survey, however, 45% of those surveyed believed that GM foods had health risks and 45% believed that GM foods had benefits (Ayande 2015). It is unclear what the remainder of the respondents answered. If at least 6% answered that they were unsure if GM foods have health risks then none of the surveys would agree with the AAAS scientists and students surveyed.
In general, health professionals and students largely believed GM foods were unsafe for human consumption. This result is interesting because medical and public health groups largely stated they were unsure about the safety of GMOs (GMO Free Florida 2022). Names of individual health practitioners were kept private in the surveys, whereas those involved in statements made by medical and public health groups were often made public. This may indicate that health practitioners could privately believe GM foods are unsafe, even if their public statements only question the safety of GM foods. This could be caused by a fear of retaliation for expressing concern about GM foods, which some scientists and health professionals have stated that they have experienced (Dewey 2017, Lotter, 2009, Glenna, 2015; Seralini, 2014).
Health Professional Opinion vs. Public Opinion
Pew surveys of the general public in the U.S. consistently find around half or more of the respondents believed GM foods were not safe to eat, or were unsure about the safety of GM foods (Funk 2015, Pew Research Center 2016, Kennedy 2018, Kennedy 2020). This indicates that the general public in the U.S. appears to have an opinion similar to health professionals in most surveys. One possibility for the similarity is that the general public may trust the information on GM foods coming from health professionals. The general public may then base their opinions on those of health professionals. In a 2019 survey, for example, Americans were asked who they most trusted for information about which foods to eat or avoid. Most respondents indicated they most trusted conversations with registered dietitians and nutritionists or personal healthcare professionals for this information (Lewin-Zwerdling 2019). This is not surprising, because health professionals are the experts on food and health issues. In the same survey, most consumers indicated that health websites and scientific studies were the sources they would use to look for information about GM foods (Lewin-Zwerdling 2019). The opinion of Americans surveyed about GM foods is consistent with the results of our systematic review which indicates most health groups believe there is not enough evidence that GM foods currently on the market are safe (GMO Free Florida 2022). It is also consistent with the result of our systematic review which indicates most animal feeding studies using the popular GM soy GTS 40-3-2 suggest adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects. (GMO Free Florida 2022b)
Interestingly, there is a correlation between public opinion regarding the safety of GM foods, as reported by Kennedy 2020, and the countries where most of the relevant animal feeding studies using the popular GM soy GTS 40-3-2 were conducted. According to our results, most of these studies were conducted in Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Poland and China. (GMO Free Florida 2022b) Kennedy 2020 surveyed adults in 20 countries, not including Ukraine or China, and determined the countries with the highest percent of the population believing that GM foods were unsafe were Russia (70%), Poland (67%) and Italy (62%). This may indicate that, along with advice from health professionals, the public around the world are also relying on scientific studies when looking for information about GM foods.
Although about half of Americans believe GM foods are unsafe or unsure of their safety, these countries may have a higher percentage of the population who believe GM foods are unsafe compared to Americans because many more animal feeding studies have been conducted in their countries. Also, some of these studies are not available in English and would, therefore, not be readable for most Americans looking for information about GM foods in the scientific literature (GMO Free Florida 2022b). While our review only looked at GTS 40-3-2, and unnamed glyphosate tolerant soy, and not other GM foods, it would be expected that the public is most aware of studies on GTS 40-3-2 as it is one of the most grown GM crops internationally, is the most analyzed, having the greatest number of animal health studies, and is approved for consumption by the second most number of countries (GMO Free Florida 2022b).
GM food labeling
12 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about GM food labeling between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 4 different countries. In 100% of surveys about GM food labeling the majority of health professionals and health students believe GM food products should be labeled (Supplementary Table Report 2).
Health Practitioner Surveys on GMO Labeling
For all surveys with questions pertaining to GM food labels, the majority of health professionals and health students indicated their support for the labeling of GM foods. This is consistent with the position statements, reports and other documents by health groups from various countries around the world which indicated about 95.2% believed GM food labeling should be mandatory. This rose to about 98.8% when groups with a conflict of interest were eliminated. (GMO Free Florida 2022).
Willingness to consume GM food
19 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about willingness to consume GM food between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 7 different countries. In 89.5% (17/19) of surveys about the willingness to consume GM foods the majority of health professionals and health students were unwilling or unsure about consuming GM foods, or would choose non-GMO foods over GM foods (Supplementary Table Report 2).
Health Practitioner Surveys on Willingness to Consume GM Food
It would be expected that if American health professionals believed GM foods were as safe as their conventional counterparts they would be much less likely to purchase non-GMO foods than the general public. In a paper using Nielsen Homescan data from 2016, however, it was observed that health professionals were no less likely to purchase non-GMO milk or eggs, from animals not fed GM feed or given recombinant bovine growth hormone, than other consumers (Björkegren 2018). This is consistent with the results of our systematic review of health professionals surveyed. The results of which indicate in 89.5% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students were unwilling or unsure about consuming GM foods, or would choose non-GMO foods over GM foods.
Support for GM crop/food production
10 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about support for GM food and crop production between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 4 different countries. In at least 80% (8/10) of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not support GM foods or GM crop production in their respective countries, or are unsure (Supplementary Table Report 2).
Health Practitioner Surveys GM Food/Crop Moratorium
In 8 out of 10, or at least 80%, of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not support GM foods or GM crop production in their respective countries, or are unsure. In 1 survey of medical students, however, 48% were against the production and distribution of GM foods and no data was provided for the remainder of respondents (Ryzmski 2016). If even 3% answered that they were unsure about the production and distribution of GM foods then this would leave only one survey in favor of GM food or crop production.
This one notable exception was a survey by the United Soybean Board which indicated that 61% of dietitians surveyed view biotechnology as a positive method for food production (United Soybean Board 2012). Biotechnology can include any technology that uses biological systems, organisms, or derivatives. For example, baking yeast-leavened bread is considered a form of biotechnology for food production (Shewry 1995). It is unclear what definition of biotechnology the participants surveyed were given and if this survey applies specifically to GM foods. The United Soybean Board also has a conflict of interest as they are involved with promoting GM soy. It is, therefore, unclear if any surveys supported GM food or crop production. These results are fairly consistent with the position statements, reports and other documents from medical and public health groups from various countries around the world (GMO Free Florida 2022). The results indicated about 61.8% believed there should be a moratorium on all or some GMOs, however, this rose to about 77.8% when groups with a conflict of interest were eliminated.
Regulations of GMOs
5 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about the regulatory process or agencies that regulate GM foods and crops between the years 2009 to 2019. These surveys represented health professionals from 3 different countries. In 100% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not believe the regulatory process is adequate for GM foods and crops, or were unsure about the adequacy (Supplementary Table Report 2).
Health Practitioner Surveys Regulation of GM Food/Crops
Surveys of health professionals and students regarding whether or not current regulations on GMOs were adequate were more limited than the other topics included in our review, with only 5 total surveys. Of these 5 surveys, however, the majority of health professionals and students surveyed either do not believe the regulatory process is adequate for GM foods and crops or were unsure about the adequacy. This result is consistent with the position statements, reports and other documents by medical and public health groups from various countries around the world (GMO Free Florida 2022). Those results indicated that 74.3% of such groups believed that the current regulatory process for GMOs is insufficient, however, this rose to about 92.9% when groups with a conflict of interest were eliminated. It is also consistent with recent reviews which suggest the regulations for GM foods are inadequate (Miyazaki 2019, Hilbeck 2020).
Data Not Included
It should be noted that some of the data from Zajac 2012 and Yurttaş 2017 were not included in our systematic review because some of the data that appeared in the graphs and the text of the paper did not seem to match and it was unclear which was correct.
Only surveys which presented data in percentage form were included. Surveys which presented data in graded scales, such as Likert, and did not also include a percentage were excluded. Therefore, some of the data from Yıkmış 2019 and all of the data from Abbasishavazi 2019 were not included in our systematic review as the data was not presented as a percent. Some surveys found in our search also pooled health professional data with non-health scientists and were also excluded as it could not be determined specifically what the health professionals or health students believed (Oğur 2017, Donnelly 2014, Shao 2014, Kaya 2013, Rozin 2012, Alarima 2011, Laux 2010).
Our systematic review only looked at surveys published in 2019 or earlier. However, during the writing of this paper we identified a few relevant surveys published after 2019 which are of interest. Several of these studies support the general conclusion of our systematic review and represent individuals from another 2 countries not previously surveyed (Amin 2021, Franco-Pérez 2020, Vieira 2020). However, 4 surveys, 3 conducted in the United States and 1 in Russia, only partially supported our conclusions (Lewis 2020, Shchekotikhin 2021, Tims 2021). In all 3 U.S. surveys, the majority of participants supported the labeling of GM foods. In 2 of 3 U.S. surveys the majority surveyed preferred or were willing to pay more for non-GMO foods or were unsure, with the third survey finding 51% would not be willing to pay more for a non-GMO banana. It is unclear whether this is because there are currently no GM bananas on the market in the U.S., or if they genuinely would not pay more for non-GMO foods in general. In the Russian survey 42.6% of medical students surveyed indicated they would not buy food with a GMO label, however, no data was given for any other responses. In the same Russian survey 51.8% of medical students surveyed believed GM foods currently on the market were definitely unsafe or likely unsafe and 48.2% gave a neutral response. The results of these surveys are mostly consistent with the results of this systematic review.
However, in all 3 of these U.S. surveys the majority of participants believed GM foods were safe to consume. In one survey (Lewis 2020) greater than 50% of students or graduates in the field of health sciences believed GMOs are just as healthy as traditional crops. In another survey of mostly pre-medical or pre-veterinary students, before taking a genetics course, 62% agreed or strongly agreed that “Bioengineered” foods are safe to eat, and 69% disagreed or strongly disagreed that “Genetically modified” foods were unhealthy. In a separate question most of the participants mistakenly believed bioengineered foods and genetically modified foods were different or were unsure if they were different. However, since the survey questions yielded similar results it suggests a genuine belief that GM foods are not harmful.
In a survey of the same students after completing the genetics course, 83% agreed or strongly agreed that “Bioengineered” foods are safe to eat, and 75% disagreed or strongly disagreed that “Genetically modified” foods were unhealthy (Tims 2021). As before the genetics course, most of the participants mistakenly believed bioengineered foods and genetically modified foods were different or were unsure if they were different after the genetics course. While these results are not consistent with the results of our systematic review, if all of these surveys were incorporated into our systematic review it would not change the overall result, as the majority of health professionals in the overwhelming majority of surveys would still believe GM foods were not safe or were unsure about their safety. It should be noted, however, that as surveys conducted after 2019 were not included in our systematic search using Google Scholar, there may be other surveys from 2020-2022 that are not included here.
Health Practitioner Opinions Education, Experience and Knowledge
Some evidence suggests that beliefs about GM foods may be shaped by a health professionals’ health education, and experience, which may lead them to better recognize the risk of GM foods (Savas 2014, Kaya 2016). Some specific information given to health professionals and food safety experts, or students, however, may make them slightly less concerned (McDaniels 2017, Stadler 1998, Tims 2021), or slightly more concerned (Donnelly 2014) about GM foods.
In one survey included in this review, dietitians in the United States with the greatest knowledge of GMOs were also the most likely to oppose using GM foods and crops (Vogliano 2012). On the other hand, another survey concluded that those who are more knowledgeable about GMOs had a more positive attitude towards GM food (Ebuehi 2012). Some of the knowledge questions asked, however, were largely misleading. For example, in Ebuehi 2012 respondents were given statements such as, “Genetic modification (GM) increases product yield” and, “GM organisms grow faster”. Yet, there is evidence that GTS 40-3-2, a type of GM soy, has equal or lower yields compared to non-GMO soy (Elmore 2001, Gordon 2007, Quarles 2017). However, if those who were surveyed responded “No” or “I don’t know” to these questions they were marked as being incorrect. It is also not likely that knowledge of GM farming practices, such as crop yields or which countries grow the most GM crops, that were asked on some surveys would translate to knowledge about the health risks of GM foods. For example, we would not expect a physician’s knowledge about tobacco yields or which countries grow the most tobacco to reflect their knowledge on the harms from smoking or chewing tobacco.
However, in one survey it was concluded that those in the field of agriculture had greater knowledge of GM crops than those in the field of health sciences (Lewis 2020). This questionnaire also contained some errors. For example, one question asked was, “How many GMO crops have been approved for commercial use in the US?” and according to the survey the correct answer was 11 (sweet corn, field corn, soybean, cotton, canola, potato, papaya, summer squash, alfalfa, apple and sugar beet). Yet, this does not include other crops which have been approved for commercialization in the past such as the Flavr Savr™ tomato (USDA 2021).
Another question asked was, “Do GMOs change the nutritional value of the food?” and according to the survey the correct response was, “Sometimes”. Yet, according to Caius Rommens, the developer of several GM potatoes currently on the market, when it comes to nutritional differences between GM foods and their near-isolines, “there always are” (Frisch 2019). We are also unaware of any studies comparing a GM crop to its isoline or near-isoline where every nutrient tested for was identical. As far as we are aware, every GM crop tested in publicly available studies had some difference in some nutrients, even if it was a small difference. Therefore, GMOs generally do change the nutritional value of food to some degree. While it is unclear how this would have altered the results of the knowledge portion of that survey, in another survey it was concluded that doctors had a greater knowledge of GMOs than all other fields participating which included experts in agriculture, biology and food industry (Honari 2020). This is not surprising as GMOs have been used in commercial medicine for a longer period of time than they have been used in other fields such as commercial agriculture.
Further surveys should be done to gauge if a health professional’s knowledge about GMOs is correlated with attitude about GM foods. Questions should be based on general knowledge of GMOs as well as questions related to GM foods and health, instead of farming-based questions which would not reflect a health practitioner’s knowledge about the health impact of GM foods.
Vast Difference Between AAAS Members and Health Practitioners
The claim that there is consensus that GM foods are as safe and healthy as their non-GMO counterparts has largely been based on a single survey of select AAAS members (Funk 2015). The survey of AAAS members, which reported that 88% of its respondents believe GMO food is safe, represents the greatest endorsement of this belief in any survey found in our search results. The results of the survey of AAAS members is, therefore, not consistent with other surveys of individual health professionals.
Possible explanations for the vast difference between AAAS scientists/students and health professionals/students from around the world may be at least partly due to differences in the response rate. The AAAS member survey had an 18.8% response rate (3,748/19,984) which is the lowest of all of the reported response rates for the other surveys of health professionals in this systematic review. A low response rate may indicate non-response bias, i.e., mostly those with a strong opinion filled out the survey, which may distort the result. Evidence to support this comes from the fact that nearly half of the scientists and science students who filled out the survey were labeled as biomedical scientists (Pew Research Center 2015). At the time the Pew survey was administered the California Biomedical Research Association had the following statement on their website:
“The use of genetically modified organisms represents an enormous advance in the science of biological and medical research, and GMOs are playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new smedicines” (California Biomedical Research Association Undated).
The use of bold writing to emphasize the word, “enormous” indicates that the California Biomedical Research Association does indeed have a strong opinion. Since California is the most populous state in the U.S. it is possible many of the biomedical scientists surveyed were from California or were familiar with this statement. The California Biomedical Research Association’s website at the time also stated:
“Wide-sweeping legislation, intended for agricultural crops, is predicated on fear and inaccurate claims, and threatens to ban the presence and use of all GMOs. Such a widespread ban essentially puts significant medical advances at risk, is detrimental to the discovery of new therapies, treatments, and cures, and threatens to reverse progress made over the last several decades” (California Biomedical Research Association Undated).
The California Biomedical Research Association appears fearful that bans on agricultural production of GMOs, as was occurring in some California counties, would cause a ban on GMOs used in biomedical research. This fear was unfounded as the legislation regarding agricultural bans specifically exempted GMOs used in biomedical research (Smart Voter 2004). The California Biomedical Research Association appears to have realized this fear was unfounded as their 2018 position no longer contains the above statement or any similar messaging (California Biomedical Research Association 2018). This may indicate that the American biomedical scientists that took the Pew survey believed, as the California Biomedical Research Association did, that the concern about GMOs in agriculture would harm their own research. They may have, therefore, based their opinion on their own unfounded fear rather than the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, on the safety of GM foods.
Another possibility for the substantial difference may be the field of biomedicine itself. In 1 other survey of biomedicine students, 73% surveyed supported the consumption of GM foods (Quesada 2014). According to the same survey, however, only 57% of biomedicine students used biotechnology concepts in their courses. In comparison, 100% of nursing students and 67% of nutrition students used biotechnology concepts in their courses and were less supportive of the consumption of GM foods (Quesada 2014).
Another possibility for the dramatic difference between the opinion of the AAAS scientists surveyed and all other surveys of health experts is the questionnaire. It is unclear if the AAAS members surveyed were given a definition of “genetically modified” and if they understood that most GM foods are sprayed with or manufacture pesticides (United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 2015). It appears unlikely that some of the AAAS members were aware of this as their opinions on the safety of GM foods and the safety of consuming foods grown with pesticides differ (GM Watch 2015).
Another problem with the survey question is that it only allowed for 2 possible answers. Those surveyed were unable to mark, “unsure” for example, and it was unclear how certain they were about their answer. If the options would have included, for example, “strongly agree”, “agree” and “somewhat agree” this would have told us more about how confident they were with their answer. If most of the AAAS scientists only somewhat agreed then this would have put them closer to the opinion expressed in the majority of surveys of health professionals. Such a scenario would have called into doubt the claim of a consensus that GM foods currently on the market are safe rather than be used to support it.
Another possibility is that the demographic of the AAAS members surveyed may have influenced the results. The AAAS members surveyed were all Americans, most were white (83%) and male (71%). According to a Pew survey of the general public, white American men were more likely to believe GM foods were safe compared to other demographics (Funk 2015). In another survey, educated white American men were more likely to defer to a scientific authority when they had low levels of information on GM foods (Brossard 2007). The AAAS member survey did not attempt to measure knowledge on GM foods. However, since this survey was of AAAS members, one scientific authority they would be likely to defer to, if their level of knowledge was low, would be the AAAS Board of Director’s statement. The AAAS Board of Directors’ statement contains some of the strongest language of any position statement, claiming that every other respected organization agrees that GM foods are safe (American Association for the Advancement of Science 2012).
Yet another possibility is that some Americans may simply be unaware of the long-term research on GM foods because, based on the results of our systematic review, it appears little, if any, of this research has been done in the United States. According to our search results, of the relevant medium and long-term animal studies using GTS 40-3-2 or an unnamed glyphosate tolerant soy found, all were conducted by researchers from Asia, Europe and South America (GMO Free Florida 2022b). A lack of knowledge of the scientific evidence may explain why some Americans may believe GM foods are safe.
Limitations – Current Consensus
Surveys of medical and public health professionals can only provide a snapshot of opinions at a given time. As opinions are dynamic and not static it is not possible to say an opinion at a given time extends beyond that time period or is still a current opinion. The same could be said, however, about the 2014 AAAS member survey, since new evidence may change the opinions of members surveyed. For example, many GM crops, such as GTS 40-3-2 soy, are modified to be tolerant of the herbicide glyphosate when directly sprayed. Studies suggest GM soy has higher levels of glyphosate residue compared to non-GMO soy (Bohn 2014, Bohm 2008). In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen (Fritschi 2015). Such a report might have altered the opinion of those surveyed.
In order to consider if a consensus has existed at any given time, however, a review of surveys provides important information. Due to the large agreement in surveys over a 10 year period reviewed, and that this review is largely consistent with the results of our systematic review of health groups (GMO Free Florida 2022) and a consensus in the scientific literature on GTS 40-3-2 (GMO Free Florida 2022b), we can conclude that the results of this review, for all intents and purposes, represents the current consensus.
Limitations – Search Terms
Another limitation of this systematic review is the search terms used were all in English. Search terms in other languages might identify more surveys indicating health professionals believe GM foods are safe, shouldn’t be labeled, are properly regulated and there shouldn’t be a moratorium on such foods or crops. However, because most of the scientific literature has abstracts or summaries in English and would, therefore, likely be detected using our search terms, we believe it is unlikely that using non-English search terms would have significantly altered the results of this systematic review.
Conclusion:
The claim that there is a consensus that GM foods currently on the market are as safe and healthy as their conventional counterparts has been largely based on a single survey of AAAS scientists. Low response rate, poor questioning, demographic, deference to the AAAS Board and lack of knowledge of the scientific evidence may explain the vast difference between the AAAS members surveyed and surveys of health professionals from around the world. Taken together, surveys of medical and public health professionals and students, the experts on human health, do not support the claim that GM foods currently on the market are as safe and healthy as their conventional counterparts.
This systematic review of health professional surveys does, however, indicate a consensus exists on the safety of GM food. The consensus among health experts is that GM foods currently on the market cannot presently be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts. This is either due to lack of evidence of safety, or because of a consensus in the scientific literature that at least some GM foods currently on the market may be unsafe to consume compared to their conventional counterparts (GMO Free Florida 2022b).
Health professionals surveyed indicated that they do not generally support GM foods or production and are generally unwilling to consume, or unsure about consuming, GM foods. Health professionals surveyed do, however, overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling of GM foods and better regulations for GM foods. These results are largely consistent with the position statements, reports and other documents by health groups from various countries around the world (GMO Free Florida 2022). Further surveys of health professionals from around the world are necessary as the results of this systematic search only identified surveys of health professionals from 8 countries.
Method:
We performed a systematic review for each of the following questions:
Do individual health professionals and health students believe genetically modified foods on the market are safe or nearly safe, there is not enough evidence to determine if genetically modified foods on the market are safe (neutral, unsure), or there is enough evidence to determine that genetically engineered foods on the market are slightly, moderately or very unsafe?
Do individual health professionals and health students believe current regulations for genetically modified foods are sufficient (excluding labeling), current regulations for genetically modified foods are not sufficient (excluding labeling) or current regulations for genetically modified foods are too restrictive (excluding labeling)?
Do individual health professionals and health students believe labeling of genetically modified ingredients should be mandatory, unsure or neutral about labeling of genetically modified ingredients or labeling of genetically modified ingredients should only occur if the Ingredient is not substantially equivalent?
Do individual health professionals and health students believe there should be a moratorium on all or some GM foods, plants or animals, should there not be a moratorium on all or some GM foods, plants or animals, or are unsure about a moratorium on all or some GM foods, plants or animals?
Do individual health professionals and health students believe they are willing to consume GM foods, they are unwilling to consume GM foods or they are unsure if they are willing to consume GM foods, when compared to non-GMO foods?
Criteria for health professional surveys:
We included surveys of health professionals and health students. All surveys published before 2009 and after 2019 were excluded. Focus groups were excluded. Surveys that did not indicate the year surveyed, but were published between 2009 and 2019 were included. Only survey questions which presented data in percentage form were included. Survey questions which presented data in graded scales, such as Likert, and did not also include a percent were excluded. Survey questions which were not specific to the focused questions, and/or included other uses of genetic modification besides food and agricultural use, were excluded.
Rationale for health professionals surveys: To mimic the Pew/AAAS survey eligibility which, “includes those with B.S., degrees in progress, and unclear responses”. Focus groups are not confidential, therefore, a participant may not share their true beliefs if it conflicts with the beliefs of their institution, or if it conflicts with the beliefs of other participants. Question response data using graded scales were eliminated due to heterogeneity of data.
Google Scholar and Google searches were performed using the following terms:
“genetically modified foods” “survey” “doctors”
“genetically modified foods” “survey” “physicians”
“genetically modified foods” “survey” “nurses”
“genetically modified foods” “survey” “dietitians”
“genetically modified foods” “survey” “nutritionists”
All hits were examined within the first 10 pages of the Google and Google Scholar searches. This includes articles, blogs, conference papers, peer reviewed studies, etc. No language restrictions were applied. In cases where relevant references were mentioned those references were searched for using Google and Google Scholar. In cases where links to websites were provided but were no longer working, Internet Archive was used. This search was performed in January of 2020 by one reviewer and selections were made by that reviewer based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A second reviewer, who was blinded to the selections of the first reviewer, also independently made selections and only the selections made by both reviewers were used in this systematic review. In October of 2021 this same search and process was repeated. The data obtained from both search periods were used for this review.
Criteria for Surveys:
When percentage was given and/or the number of individuals surveyed was given:
Responses were categorized by Yes, No, Don’t Know/Neutral and the number of individuals that made such a response were entered into those categories. Data was then pooled by the number of individuals in each category. The total number surveyed allowed for percent of each group to be determined. If data for one category was complete, but data for another category was missing, the complete data was still used, but the missing data was left out.
References:
Note: If any of the links below are broken, place this before the url: https://web.archive.org/
For example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12344237086176188366
Would become: https://web.archive.org/https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12344237086176188366
Abbasishavazi, M., Hajimohammadi, B., & Hajebrahimi, Z. (2019). Predictors of Intention to Consume Genetically Modified Oil among Personnel of Community Health Care Centers in Yazd, Iran: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Community Health Research, 8(4), 211-219. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12344237086176188366
Adana, F., Gezer, N., & Öğüt, S. (2014). Sağlık Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinin Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalara İlişkin Bilgi ve Görüşleri. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5498242126890026880
Alan, B. (2019). The Determination of Information and Attitudes of Health Information Teacher Candidates About Genetically Modified Organisms. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, Vol: 10, Issue: 37, pp. (955-967). Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20191020200954/http://www.ijoess.com/Makaleler/1252506216_17.%20955-967%20fikriye%20kırbağ%20zengin.pdf
Alarima, C. I. (2011). Knowledge and perception of genetically modified foods among agricultural scientists in south-west Nigeria. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(6), 77-88. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5008727072469930175
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. Available from: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2014). Interested in Winning a AAAS Membership? Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20150922100106/http://www.aaas.org/tech-i/win
Amin, R., Khan, S., Zeb, T.F., Ali, S., Baqai, N., Baqai, M. and Shuja, S., (2021). Knowledge and attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) food among health sciences university students in Karachi, Pakistan. Nutrition & Food Science. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12602349034090123162&hl=
Ayande, R.E. & Hayford, F. (2015). Genetically modified organisms; the dietitian’s take (2). Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20170916030438/https://www.cropsresearch.org/news-and-media/in-the-news/194-genetically-modified-organisms-the-dietitian-s-take-2
Björkegren, D. (2018). Nostalgic Demand. Available at SSRN 3220583. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=287993879161351731&hl=
Bohm, G.M.B., Genovese, M.I., Pigosso, G., Trichez, D., and Rombaldi, C.V. (2008). Residues of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid and levels of isoflavones in BRS 244 RR and BRS 154 soybean. CienciaI E Tecnologia de Alimentos, 28, 192-197. Available from: https://gmoresearch.org/gmo_article/residues-of-glyphosate-and-aminomethylphosphonic-acid-and-levels-of-isoflavones-in-brs-244-rr-and-brs-154-soybean/
Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J., & Primicerio, R. (2014). Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food chemistry, 153, 207-215. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10458316578824084681&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10
Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=446131214513967359&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Burcu, Y. Z. (2017). Midwifery students’ knowledge and opinions about and behaviors towards biotechnology. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 10(2), 963. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8527974473490024025
California Biomedical Research Association (Undated). CBRA White Paper Genetically Modified Organisms and Biomedical Research. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20130514054216/http://www.ca-biomed.org/pdf/media-kit/fact-sheets/FS-GMO.pdf
California Biomedical Research Association (2018). Genetically Modified Organisms and Biomedical Research. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20200811161159/https://ca-biomed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FS-GMO.pdf
Daboer, J.C., Zaman, M., Birdling, N.N., Maigamo, N.Y., Orya, E.E., Idogho, J., Tagurum, Y.O., Banwat, M.E., Akosu, T.J., Chingle, M.P. and Zoakah, A.I., (2018). Knowledge and perception of genetically modified foods among medical doctors of Jos University Teaching Hospital Jos, Nigeria. Journal of Epidemiological Society of Nigeria, 2, pp.29-36. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6354073268561344816
Dewey, C. (2017). There’s drama on dietitian Twitter, and it’s exposing deep rifts in nutrition doctrine. Washington Post. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/28/theres-drama-on-dietitian-twitter-and-its-exposing-deep-rifts-in-nutrition-doctrine/?utm_term=.7735e5b3e5a5
Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 49(2), 164-175. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2941931847779947170&hl=
Donnelly, M. (2014). ‘The safety of GM food for consumption has yet to be proven’. Agriland Media Ltd. April 10. https://web.archive.org/web/20140416182253/http://www.agriland.ie/news/safety-gm-food-consumption-yet-proven/
Ebuehi, O.M., Ailohi, O.L. (2012). Genetically Modified (GM) Foods/Organisms: Perspectives of Undergraduate Medical and Dental Students of the College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, Food and Public Health, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 281-295. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5907638912136102231
Eckerstorfer, M. F., Heissenberger, A., Reichenbecher, W., Steinbrecher, R. A., & Waßmann, F. (2019). An EU perspective on biosafety considerations for plants developed by genome editing and other new genetic modification techniques (nGMs). Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12049981105055901807&hl=
Elmore, R. W., Roeth, F. W., Nelson, L. A., Shapiro, C. A., Klein, R. N., Knezevic, S. Z., & Martin, A. (2001). Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy–Faculty Publications, 29.(2001) Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines. Agronomy Journal 93: 408-412. https://web.archive.org/web/20211218015804/https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=748140327375305437
Ergin, A., Uzun, S. U., & Bozkurt, A. İ. (2015). Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi öğrencilerinin genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalarla ilgili bilgi ve görüşleri. Pamukkale Tıp Dergisi, (2), 92-98. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4793352210394589929&hl=
Franco-Pérez, E., Montesinos-López, O. A., Martínez, J. J. G., Palma, A. P., Salinas-Ruiz, J., & Carrillo, S. S. (2020). Perceptions and Attitudes of University Students of Five Mexican Public Institutions on the Labeling of Products Made with Genetically Modified Organisms. International Journal of Business and Management, 15(5). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11138041548517030833
Frisch, T. (2019). Interview: Dr. Caius Rommens Questions Biotechnology Safety. Eco Farming Daily. https://www.ecofarmingdaily.com/rethinking-pandoras-potatoes/
Fritschi, L., McLaughlin, J., Sergi, C.M., Calaf, G.M., Le Curieux, F., Forastiere, F., Kromhout, H., Egeghy, P., Jahnke, G.D., Jameson, C.W. and Martin, M.T. (2015). Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Red, 114(2). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16479976064946112541
Funk, C., Rainie, L., & Page, D. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3541336409388040058&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10
Glenna, L. L., Tooker, J., Welsh, J. R., & Ervin, D. (2015). Intellectual property, scientific independence, and the efficacy and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops. Rural Sociology, 80(2), 147-172. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=913906467479985480
GMO Free Florida (2022). Health Groups. Systematic Reviews. Available from: https://gmofreeflorida.com
GMO Free Florida (2022b). GM Soy. Systematic Reviews. Available from: https://gmofreeflorida.com
GMWatch (2015). Why did AAAS scientists disagree with health professionals on GMO safety? Available from: https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16342-why-did-aaas-scientists-disagree-with-health-professionals-on-gmo-safety
Gordon, B. (2007). Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans. Better Crops With Plant Food, Vol. XCI (91), No. 4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11516326458908082722
Hekmat, S., & Dawson, L. N. (2018). Students’ knowledge and attitudes towards GMOs and nanotechnology. Nutrition & Food Science. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12292732566621526794
Hilbeck, A., Meyer, H., Wynne, B., & Millstone, E. (2020). GMO regulations and their interpretation: how EFSA’s guidance on risk assessments of GMOs is bound to fail. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32, 1-15. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15626586483104959748
Ho, M. W. (2013). The new genetics and natural versus artificial genetic modification. Entropy, 15(11), 4748-4781. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11290094311944334911&hl=
Honari, H., Torabikia, M., & Aghaie, S. M. (2020). Investigating Awareness and attitude of relevant experts on transgenic products. Passive Defense Quarterly, 10(4), 1-11. https://www.magiran.com/paper/2094558?lang=en
Hossne, W. S. (2010). Opinião de alunos de graduação em nutrição sobre alimentos transgênicos. Revista – Centro Universitário São Camilo – 4(4):412-422. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8005695325609026121
Kaya, I. H., Poyrazoglu, E. S., Artik, N., & Konar, N. (2013). Academicans’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward GM-Organisms and–Foods. International journal of biological, ecological and environmental sciences, 2(2), 20-24. Available from: http://journalsweb.org/siteadmin/upload/71791%20IJBEES022052.pdf
Kaya, P. S., & Özge, A. K. A. R. (2016). Sağlık Eğitimi Alan ve Almayan Bireylerin Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Gıdalar Hakkındaki Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Tutumları. Samsun Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1) , 133-145. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/717758
Kennedy, B., Hefferon, M. and Funk, C. (2018). Americans are narrowly divided over health effects of genetically modified foods. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/19/americans-are-narrowly-divided-over-health-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/
Kennedy, B. and Thigpen, C.L. (2020). Many publics around world doubt safety of genetically modified foods. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/11/many-publics-around-world-doubt-safety-of-genetically-modified-foods/
Keskin, Y., Lüleci, N. E., Özyaral, O., Altıntaş, Ö., Sağlık, A., Lisar, H., Turan, A. ve Top, Y. (2010). Maltepe Üniversitesi tıp fakültesi öğrencilerinin genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar hakkında bilgi tutum ve davranışları / Knowledge attitude and behavior of the students in medical school of Maltepe University about genetically modified organisms. Maltepe Tıp Dergisi. 2(1), s 14-23. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15377491912227270052
Koçak, N., Türker, T., Kılıç, S., & Hasde, M. (2010). Assessment of knowledge, attitude and behavior level of medical school students about genetically modified organisms. Gulhane Medical Journal, 52(3), 198-204. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12398279790559516413
Kramkowska, M., Grzelak, T., & Czyżewska, K. (2012). Żywność genetycznie modyfikowana a postawy konsumentów. Bromat. Chem. Toksykol.”-XLV, 206-211. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1076877671126348999
Krewski, D., Turner, M. C., Lemyre, L., & Lee, J. E. (2012). Expert vs. public perception of population health risks in Canada. Journal of Risk Research, 15(6), 601-625. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3021333240121338048
Laux, C. M., Mosher, G. A., & Freeman, S. A. (2010). Factors Affecting College Students’ Knowledge and Opinions of Genetically Modified Foods. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(2), 2-9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12390042764689392490
Lewin-Zwerdling, A. (2019). Consumer Food Values, Trends, Attitudes and Drivers. Ag Outlook Forum. Available from: https://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2019/speeches/Alexandra_Lewin-Zwerdling.pdf
Lewis, M. (2020). How Opinion on Genetically Modified Organisms is Formed: Does Field of Study and the Year Education Was Completed Play a Significant Role in Forming This Opinion? (Bachelor Thesis). https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/7500
Lotter, D. (2009). The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, Volume 16, issue 1 (2009), pages 50-68. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1817052966224813944
McDaniels, A. (2017). Opinions of GM Foods and Food Grown with Pesticides in Health and Non-health Major Undergraduate Students. The FASEB Journal 31.1 Supplement: 136-6.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8166891745882938562&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Mesnage, R., Agapito-Tenfen, S.Z., Vilperte, V., Renney, G., Ward, M., Séralini, G.E., Nodari, R.O. and Antoniou, M.N., (2016). An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process. Scientific reports, 6(1), pp.1-14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6477406195910091532&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Miyazaki, J., Bauer-Panskus, A., Bøhn, T., Reichenbecher, W., & Then, C. (2019). Insufficient risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered soybeans intended for import into the EU. Environmental Sciences Europe, 31(1), 92. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2683890541576867859
Oğur, S., Aksoy, A., & Yılmaz, Z. (2017). Knowledge Levels and Attitudes of University Students About Genetically Modified Organisms and Foods: Bitlis Eren University Example. Food and Health, 3(3), 97-108. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4764625650538057639
Pew Research Center (2015). An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views. July.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views
Pew Research Center (2016). The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science. December. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/
Quarles, W. (2017). Glyphosate, GMO Soybean Yields and Environmental Pollution. IPM Practitioner, 35(11/12), 1-9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8803010534233617897
Quesada, J. C. B., & Lembo, T. (2014). Percepção dos estudantes da área da saúde sobre biotecnologia e alimentos transgênicos. Journal of the Health Sciences Institute, 32(3), 229-234. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=295397224064522805
Rang, A., Linke, B., & Jansen, B. (2005). Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgene in Roundup Ready soybean. European Food Research and Technology, 220(3-4), 438-443. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2477275647936867897&hl=
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., & Shields-Argelès, C. (2012). European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite, 59(2), 448-455. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4150907062134044769
Rzymski, P., & Królczyk, A. (2016). Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO?. Food Security, 8(3), 689-697. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4585531333379341369
Savas, H. B., Gultekin, F., Doguc, D. K., Oren, O., Guler, M., & Demiralay, H. (2016). Medical Doctors’ Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods. Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine, 7(2), 172-175. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16702969692714475205
Shchekotikhin, V. P., & Zhibrova, T. V. (2021). The problem of awareness of modern students about GMOs. Medical and biological,clinical and social issues of health and human pathology VII All-Russian Scientific Conference of Students and Young Scientists with International Participation. Ivanovo, 2021. https://www.isma.ivanovo.ru/attachments/62354
Séralini, G. E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., & de Vendômois, J. S. (2014). Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), 13. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16392527655744288082
SERMO (2015). What physicians think about GMO labeling. https://web.archive.org/web/20150623140513/http://blog.sermo.com/2015/06/15/physicians-think-gmo-labeling/
Shewry, P. R., Tatham, A. S., Barro, F., Barcelo, P., & Lazzeri, P. (1995). Biotechnology of breadmaking: unraveling and manipulating the multi-protein gluten complex. Bio/technology, 13(11), 1185-1190. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9507847035275707979
Shao, Y. T., Cai, H. J., & Chen, G. (2014). Acceptance survey of GM food in China. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, 2(11), 846-849. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8370515666776540462
Smart Voter (2004). Measure B Prohibiting Growing Genetically Modified Organisms County of Marin http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/mrn/meas/B/
Stadler, D. D., Zhao, Z., Reeder, A. F., & Strohbehn, C. H. (1998). Impact of an Educational Seminar on Dietetic Students’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Foods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98(9), A33. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5748035220587206684
Tims, K. (2021). Scientific Knowledge Shaping Perceptions of Bioengineered Food Among Undergraduate Students. Available from: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1691&context=honors
Turker, T., Kocak, N., Aydin, I., İstanbulluoğlu, H., Yildiran, N., Turk, Y. Z., & Kilic, S. (2013). Determination of knowledge, attitude, behavior about genetically modified organisms in nursing school students. Gülhane Tip Dergisi, 55(4), 297. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=4012566779104506665
United Soybean Board (2012). New Study: Health Professionals Support Biotechnology’s Use In Food Products And Sustainable Farming. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-health-professionals-support-biotechnologys-use-in-food-products-and-sustainable-farming-148682965.html
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2015). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. July 09. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx
USDA (2021). Petitions for Determination of Nonregulated Status
Vieira, I., Brandão, TR, Pinto, E., & Silva, M. (2019). Characterization of the opinion, knowledge and perception of the training needs of Portuguese nutritionists in relation to genetically modified foods. Spanish Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14603701280135032052
Vieira, I., Brandão, T., Pinto, E. and Silva, M., (2020). A Survey Study Assessing Opinions, Knowledge and Training Needs of Physicians Concerning the Field of Transgenic Foods. Acta medica portuguesa, 33(4), pp.252-260. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10381984721222422380
Vogliano, C. T. (2012). Knowledge Base and Perception Registered Dietitians Hold on the Genetic Modification of Foods (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15936340573831658306
Wilson, A. K., Latham, J. R., & Steinbrecher, R. A. (2006). Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 23(1), 209-238. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12219212651561893601&hl=
Yıkmış, S. and Çöl, B.G., (2019). Research on Nutrition and Dietetic Undergraduates in Terms of Their Information Level and Views About Genetically Modified Organisms. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 7(1), pp.120-126. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5920552352908461071
Yılar Erkek, Z. & Okan, F. (2019). Ebelik Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalara (Gdo) Yönelik Bilgi Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi Determination Of Knowledge Levels For Genetically Modified Organism (Gmo) Of Midnight Nursing Students . Bozok Tıp Dergisi , 9 (1) , 76-88. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15302111879435770800
Yilmaz, B., Üner, A. K., & Ercan, A. (2015). Attitudes of university students regarding biotechnology and genetically modified foods. Journal of Academic Gastroenterology, 14(2), 64-71. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1732553443338741164
Yurttaş, M. & Aksan, Z. (2017). Sağlık Personeli Adaylarinin Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Gidalar İle İlgili Görüşleri. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (60), 374-382. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/abuhsbd/issue/32973/366507
Zajac, J., Chomoncik, M., Kolarzyk, E., & Ogonowska, D. (2012). Controversial issue in biotechnology–students’ opinions. Przeglad lekarski, 69(8), 459-462. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13055490361872451634
Kontrowersje wokół problemów biotechnologii w opinii studentów (uj.edu.pl)