Belgian dietitians' knowledge, perceptions and willingness-to-recommend of genetically modified food and organisms.
Europe
GMO
dietitian
perception
survey
willingness-to-recommend
Journal
Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association
ISSN: 1365-277X
Titre abrégé: J Hum Nutr Diet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8904840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2023
26 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
16
12
2022
accepted:
24
08
2023
medline:
26
9
2023
pubmed:
26
9
2023
entrez:
26
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Dietitians play a critical role in the public's relationship with food and are often overlooked as an important stakeholder group in the general debate about sustainable food. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one type of modern food source that could contribute to a more sustainable food system. This case study is the first to examine the knowledge, perception and willingness-to-recommend (WTR) genetically modified (GM) foods by dietitians in Europe. An online survey was addressed to all members of the Flemish Association of Dietitians (Belgium) in 2021, resulting in a sample of 98 valid responses. Multivariate linear regression included sociodemographic, knowledge, and attitudinal factors as the independent variables to explain dietitians' WTR. Flemish dietitians had limited knowledge of GMOs; only about half of the GM questions were answered correctly. Most dietitians (53%-76%) would recommend GMOs with positive effects on human nutrition or sustainability, whereas few dietitians (19%-27%) would recommend other GMO applications. Trust in GMO information sources and perceived GM benefits significantly influenced a positive WTR of GM foods. Predominant negative information about GM foods was significantly associated with dietitians' low trust and WTR such foods. Countering the predominantly negative portrayal with more neutral and factual information could improve trust, which in turn could positively influence dietitians' perceptions towards GMOs. By further examining the knowledge and perception of dietitians worldwide GMOs and gene-edited products, new insights could be could gathered into the positioning of this underexposed stakeholder group.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dietitians play a critical role in the public's relationship with food and are often overlooked as an important stakeholder group in the general debate about sustainable food. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one type of modern food source that could contribute to a more sustainable food system. This case study is the first to examine the knowledge, perception and willingness-to-recommend (WTR) genetically modified (GM) foods by dietitians in Europe.
METHODS
METHODS
An online survey was addressed to all members of the Flemish Association of Dietitians (Belgium) in 2021, resulting in a sample of 98 valid responses. Multivariate linear regression included sociodemographic, knowledge, and attitudinal factors as the independent variables to explain dietitians' WTR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Flemish dietitians had limited knowledge of GMOs; only about half of the GM questions were answered correctly. Most dietitians (53%-76%) would recommend GMOs with positive effects on human nutrition or sustainability, whereas few dietitians (19%-27%) would recommend other GMO applications. Trust in GMO information sources and perceived GM benefits significantly influenced a positive WTR of GM foods. Predominant negative information about GM foods was significantly associated with dietitians' low trust and WTR such foods.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Countering the predominantly negative portrayal with more neutral and factual information could improve trust, which in turn could positively influence dietitians' perceptions towards GMOs. By further examining the knowledge and perception of dietitians worldwide GMOs and gene-edited products, new insights could be could gathered into the positioning of this underexposed stakeholder group.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : None
Informations de copyright
© 2023 British Dietetic Association.
Références
UN. World Population Prospects 2019. 2019 [cited 2022 Sept 2]. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights.html
WFP. World Food Programme. [cited 2022 Sept 2]. Available from: https://www.wfp.org/
Gupta S, Brazier AKM, Lowe NM. Zinc deficiency in low- and middle-income countries: prevalence and approaches for mitigation. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2020;33:624-643.
UN. United Nations Sustainable Developmental Goal 2 (UN-SDG2). 2021 [cited 2022 Sept 4]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger
Van Der Straeten D, Bhullar NK, De Steur H, Gruissem W, MacKenzie D, Pfeiffer W, et al. Multiplying the efficiency and impact of biofortification through metabolic engineering. Nat Commun. 2020;11:5203.
Cohen SN, Chang ACY, Boyer HW, Helling RB. Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1973;70:3240-3244.
Raman R. The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: a review. GM Crops Food. 2017;8:195-208.
Klümper W, Qaim M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111629.
Uslu T. Advantages, risks and legal perspectives of GMOs in 2020s. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2021;15:741-751.
Mahaffey H, Taheripour F, Tyner WE. Evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of a global GMO ban. J Environ Protect. 2016;07:1522-1546.
Bertho L, Schmidt K, Schmidtke J, Brants I, Cantón RF, Novillo C, et al. Results from ten years of post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified MON 810 maize in the European Union. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0217272.
De Steur H, Blancquaert D, Strobbe S, Lambert W, Gellynck X, Van Der Straeten D. Status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops. Nature Biotechnol. 2015;33:25-29.
Qaim M. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural. ApplEcon Perspect Policy. 2020;42:129-150.
De Steur H, Stein AJ, Demont M. From golden rice to golden diets: how to turn its recent approval into practice. Glob Food Secur. 2022;32:100596.
Adenle AA, De Steur H, Hefferon K, Wesseler J. Two decades of GMOs-how can the new technology help meet SDGs? In: Adenle A, Hall J, Moors E, Panell D, Editors. Science, Technology and Innovation for Meeting Sustainable Development Goals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 401-422.
Napier JA, Haslam RP, Tsalavouta M, Sayanova O. The challenges of delivering genetically modified crops with nutritional enhancement traits. Nature Plants. 2019;5:563-567.
Garg M, Sharma N, Sharma S, Kapoor P, Kumar A, Chunduri V, et al. Biofortified crops generated by breeding, agronomy, and transgenic approaches are improving lives of millions of people around the world. Front Nutr. 2018;5:12.
Blancquaert D, Van Daele J, Strobbe S, Kiekens F, Storozhenko S, De Steur H, et al. Improving folate (vitamin B9) stability in biofortified rice through metabolic engineering. Nature Biotechnol. 2015;33:1076-1078.
Wesseler J, Zilberman D. The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environ Dev Econ. 2014;19:724-742.
Mannion AM, Morse S. Biotechnology in agriculture. Prog Phys Geogr. 2012;36:747-763.
Qaim M, Kouser S. Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS One. 2013;8:e64879.
Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50:1134-1148.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press; 2016.
Wu F. Mycotoxin reduction in bt corn: potential economic, health, and regulatory impacts. Transgenic Res. 2006;15:277-289.
Blancke S, van Breusegem F, de Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci. 2015;20:414-418.
Ammann K. Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops. Trends Biotechnol. 2005;23:388-394.
Kyndt T, Quispe D, Zhai H, Jarret R, Ghislain M, Liu Q, et al. The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: An example of a naturally transgenic food crop. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:5844-5849.
Matveeva TV, Otten L. Widespread occurrence of natural genetic transformation of plants by Agrobacterium. Plant Mol Biol. 2019;101:415-437.
Scott SE, Inbar Y, Wirz CD, Brossard D, Rozin P. An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annu Rev Nutr. 2018;38:459-479.
Amin L, Md Jahi J, Md Nor AR. Stakeholders' attitude to genetically modified foods and medicine. Sci World J. 2013;2013:1-14.
Boccia F, Covino D, Sarnacchiaro P. Genetically modified food versus knowledge and fear: a Noumenic approach for consumer behaviour. Food Res Int. 2018;111:682-688.
Christoph IB, Bruhn M, Roosen J. Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite. 2008;51:58-68.
Cui K, Shoemaker SP. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: a nationwide Chinese consumer study. NPJ Sci Food. 2018;2:10.
McPhetres J, Rutjens BT, Weinstein N, Brisson JA. Modifying attitudes about modified foods: increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes. J Environ Psychol. 2019;64:21-29.
Dexter C, Sithole B, Masendu R, Chikwasha V, Maponga C. Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards genetically modified foods in Zimbabwe. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2019;19:14752-14768.
Williams C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ. Canadian perspectives on food security and plant breeding. CABI Agric Biosci. 2021;2:15.
Kamrath C, Wesana J, Bröring S, Steur H. What do we know about chain actors' evaluation of new food technologies? A systematic review of consumer and farmer studies. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019;18:798-816.
McFadden BR, Lusk JL. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. FASEB J. 2016;30:3091-3096.
Delwaide AC, Nalley LL, Dixon BL, Danforth DM, Nayga RM, Van Loo EJ, et al. Revisiting GMOs: are there differences in european consumers' acceptance and valuation for cisgenically vs transgenically bred rice? PLoS One. 2015;10:e0126060.
Bourguignon D. The precautionary principle: definitions, applications and governance. EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service; 2016.
Guida A. The precautionary principle and genetically modified organisms: A bone of contention between European institutions and member states. J Law Biosci. 2021;8:1.
FDA Federal Register. Statement of policy-foods derived from new plant varieties. 1992.
Hess S, Lagerkvist CJ, Redekop W, Pakseresht A. Consumers' evaluation of biotechnologically modified food products: new evidence from a meta-survey. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2016;43:703-736.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? Brussels, Belgium: Publications Office; 2010.
Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, et al. Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2013;30:142-152.
Komoto K, Okamoto S, Hamada M, Obana N, Samori M, Imamura T. Japanese consumer perceptions of genetically modified food: findings from an international comparative study. Interact J Med Res. 2016;5:e23.
Wolf McGarry M, Bertolini P, Shikama I, Berger A. A comparison of attitudes toward food and biotechnology in the U.S., Japan, and Italy. J Food Distribut Res. 2012;43:1.
Pappalardo G, D'Amico M, Lusk JL. Comparing the views of the Italian general public and scientists on GMOs. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56:3641-3650.
Turker T, Kocak N, Aydin I, Istanbulluoglu h, Yildiran n, Turk y, et al. Determination of knowledge, attitude, behavior about genetically modified organisms in nursing school students. Gulhane Med J. 2013;55:297.
Rzymski P, Królczyk A. Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO? Food Secur. 2016;8:689-697.
Savas HB, Doguc DK, Oren O, et al Medical doctors' perceptions of genetically modified foods. J Clin Anal Med. 2016;7:172-175.
Vogliano CT. Knowledge base and perception registered dietitians hold on the genetic modification of foods. Kent State University College; 2012.
Bruhn C, Earl R, American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: agricultural and Food Biotechnology. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:285-293.
Roberts KS, Boyle Struble M, McCullum-Gomez C, Wilkins JL. Use of a risk communication model to evaluate dietetics professionals' viewpoints on genetically engineered foods and crops. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:719-727.
Santerre CR, Machtmes KL. The impact of consumer food biotechnology training on knowledge and attitude. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21:174S-177SS.
Siegrist M, Hartmann C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat Food. 2020;1:343-350.
Verdurme A, Viaene J, Gellynck X. Consumer acceptance of GM food: a basis for segmentation. Int J Biotechnol. 2003;5:58.
Maes J, Bourgonjon J, Gheysen G, Valcke M. Variables affecting secondary school students' willingness to eat genetically modified food crops. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48:597-618.
Gaskell G, Allum N. Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels, Belgium; DG Research; 2003.
Mallinson L, Russell J, Cameron DD, Ton J, Horton P, Barker ME. Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate. Food Secur. 2018;10:1145-1161.
EFSA. Special eurobarometer 354 food-related risks. 2010 [cited 2022 Oct 21]. Available from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/reporten.pdf
Veeman M, Adamowicz W, Hu W. Risk perceptions, social interactions and the influence of information on social attitudes to agricultural biotechnology project report. 2005.
Kimenju SC, de Groote H, Bett C. Wanyama J. Farmers, consumers and gatekeepers and their attitudes towards biotechnology. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10:4767-4776.
Konan KN, Ananga AO, Dodo H. Reducing peanut allergy risks by means of genetic modification. 2015.
VBVD. Vlaamse beroepsvereniging voor diëtisten. [cited 2022 Sept]. Avaialble from: https://vbvd.be/
Sociale zaken, volksgezondheid enleefmilieu. Koninklijk besluit betreffende de beroepstitel en de kwalificatievereisten voor de uitoefening van het beroep van diëtist en houdende vaststelling van de lijst van de technische prestaties en van de lijst van handelingen waarmee de diëtist door een arts kan worden belast, 1997.
Liu M, Wronski L. Trap questions in online surveys: Results from three web survey experiments. Int J Mark Res. 2018;60:32-49.
Huang J, Qiu H, Bai J, Pray C. Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy genetically modified foods in urban China. Appetite. 2006;46:144-151.
Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy. 2008;33:99-111.
Andersen LB. The EU rules on labelling of genetically modified foods: mission accomplished? Eur Food Feed Law Rev. 2010;5:136-143.
Bawa AS, Anilakumar KR. Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns-a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2013;50:1035-1046.
Li M, Xu j, Gao Z, Tian H, Gao Y, Kariman K. Genetically modified crops are superior in their nitrogen use efficiency-a meta-analysis of three major cereals. Sci Rep. 2020;10:8568.
Kissoudis C, van de Wiel C, Visser RG, van der Linden G. Future-proof crops: challenges and strategies for climate resilience improvement. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2016;30:47-56.
De Steur H, Wesana J, Blancquaert D, Blancquaert D, Van Der Straeten D, Gellynck X. Methods matter: a meta-regression on the determinants of willingness-to-pay studies on biofortified foods. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2017;1390:34-46.
Van Horn LT, Wright L, Arikawa AY, Sealey-Potts C. Validity and reliability of a questionnaire measuring EBDPs among registered dietitian nutritionist. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2023;36:323-335.
Chan T, Drake T, Vollmer RL. A qualitative research study comparing nutrition advice communicated by registered dietitian and non-registered dietitian bloggers. J Commun Healthc. 2020;13:55-63.
Seibel K, De Mesmaeker M, Weiland F. CRISPR-Cas9 and its application potential in the brewing industry. Brew Sci. 2022;75:26-36.
Sprink T, Wilhelm R, Hartung F. Genome editing around the globe: an update on policies and perceptions. Plant Physiol. 2022;190:1579-1587.
Hingsamer M, Kulmer V, de Roode M, Kernitzkyi M. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of new plant breeding technologies: a case study of root chicory for inulin production. Front Genome Ed. 2022;4:9193924.
Ferrari L, Baum CM, Banterle A, De Steur H. Attitude and labelling preferences towards gene-edited food: a consumer study amongst millennials and Generation Z. Br Food J. 2021;123:1268-1286.
Strobbe S, Wesana J, Van Der Straeten D, De Steur H. Public acceptance and stakeholder views of gene edited foods: a global overview. Trends Biotechnol. 2023;41:736-740.
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Johan Lagerkvist C. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett. 2005;89:147-152.