View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Advances in Knowledge and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms among Some Ghanaian Professionals

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Advances in Knowledge and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms among Some Ghanaian Professionals
Language: English
Authors: Mavis Owusuaa Osei-Wusu (ORCID 0000-0002-6160-4145), Moses Addo Nartey (ORCID 0000-0002-9379-3737), Remember Roger Adjei (ORCID 0000-0003-4524-1038)
Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2024 33(3):274-285.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Public Opinion, Genetics, Biotechnology, Knowledge Level, Age, Academic Achievement, Influences, Preferences, Merchandise Information, Food, Nutrition
Geographic Terms: Ghana
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-023-10081-w
ISSN: 1059-0145
1573-1839
Abstract: The adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ghana has raised a lot of public concerns and mixed feelings among some Ghanaians. Our present study, therefore, explored the current knowledge of the general public on GMOs, their perceptions, and factors that influence their understanding of GMOs. A total of 200 Ghanaians were interviewed using an online semi-structured questionnaire to solicit information on their knowledge of GMOs. The findings of the study showed that most Ghanaians (183 out of 200) are aware of GMOs. Age and level of education significantly influenced consumers' awareness of GMOs. The results also revealed that most of the participants have a medium to a high level of knowledge of GMOs; however, limited information about GMOs is available to the public. About 61% of the respondents are willing to consume GMOs when made available in Ghana. Also, the findings of the study showed that the respondents would prefer GM-labelled products. The educational level of the respondents significantly influenced their knowledge and understanding of GMOs. The study recommends that scientists and various media platforms provide a platform to address the concerns of the public on GMOs and occasionally engage them in GMO-related issues and their role in addressing food insecurity and malnutrition.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1424724
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHiq9-WIAtPVOwmkOYjAIg8AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHyYVe_0Im51jUOQeQIBEICBm7vP9m93q-OYlB224fnVqpea8YHnlEAojGto4L_iUV38tvuVz-I8d6y_Cv-z31Hd0ebfg4FelTHFUBoX6009lTxXd0glAFMnsxmGNVqeRVI1lGEl81bwtpI2GvLwb1bnnrZaQjqCmlRd0vIT6jrE93TsgdS0UaQICGjucCvYx9yzQ6-zjrEZ0wTPi4T2NjC2P2rZiZX341oY8IIx
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177251298;4n601jun.24;2024May17.07:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177251298-1">Advances in Knowledge and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms Among Some Ghanaian Professionals </title> <p>The adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ghana has raised a lot of public concerns and mixed feelings among some Ghanaians. Our present study, therefore, explored the current knowledge of the general public on GMOs, their perceptions, and factors that influence their understanding of GMOs. A total of 200 Ghanaians were interviewed using an online semi-structured questionnaire to solicit information on their knowledge of GMOs. The findings of the study showed that most Ghanaians (183 out of 200) are aware of GMOs. Age and level of education significantly influenced consumers' awareness of GMOs. The results also revealed that most of the participants have a medium to a high level of knowledge of GMOs; however, limited information about GMOs is available to the public. About 61% of the respondents are willing to consume GMOs when made available in Ghana. Also, the findings of the study showed that the respondents would prefer GM-labelled products. The educational level of the respondents significantly influenced their knowledge and understanding of GMOs. The study recommends that scientists and various media platforms provide a platform to address the concerns of the public on GMOs and occasionally engage them in GMO-related issues and their role in addressing food insecurity and malnutrition.</p> <p>Keywords: Acceptance; Awareness; Biotechnology; Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); Knowledge</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10081-w.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Many countries in the world particularly within the African continent are food insecure. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated between 720 and 811 million people in the world faced hunger in 2020 and 98% of this population resided in developing countries (FAO, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). Moreover, the United Nations has projected the world population to possibly reach 10 billion by 2050 (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref2">45</reflink>]), an increase of almost 2 billion. Interestingly, more than half of this global population increase is predicted to occur in Africa, with Sub-Saharan Africa which includes Ghana predicted to double its population by 2050 (Asante & Amuakwa-Mensah, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]). Food demand, additionally, is projected to increase by 78% worldwide by 2050 (Elferink & Schierhorn, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). This is likely to be compounded by the rise in the importation of food and animal feed products from around the world to Ghana (Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]). This means global agriculture production must focus on robust technologies to intensify food security. Modern technologies, including biotechnology, could offer ways of increasing productivity to meet the expected increasing food demand for the growing population (Kilaru & Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Agricultural biotechnology does not only focus on the production of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but also supports traditional breeding processes and developments of transgene-free crops for the provision of plants with desired traits such as stress resistance, improved yield, and added nutritional value (Sawicka et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]; Zafar et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref8">50</reflink>]). In a broad sense, GMOs are organisms (either plant, animal, or microbes) that have had one or more of their genetic materials (DNA) altered whereby it does not occur naturally (World Health Organization WHO, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]; National Human Genome Research Institute, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]). These improvements and/or alterations rely on biotechnology methods such as genetic modification and gene editing which usually achieve the development of desired traits within a shorter period than with the use of traditional breeding methods (Zafar et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref11">50</reflink>]). Despite the benefits of biotechnology to agriculture, some concerns hinder acceptance by some portions of the Ghanaian public and globally. The acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) throughout the world differs greatly. Cultural, economic, and political issues, among other things, have had an impact on how different nations and regions view and regulate genetically modified organisms. It is crucial to remember that people have a variety of opinions about GMOs, and public opinion may be nuanced and complex (Lamichhane, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]). Some of these opinions may be based on religion, culture, ignorance, or inaccurate information from media channels. Earlier studies however show the interest in acquiring more information on GMOs by the public (Chagwena et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>GMO promoters assert that a variety of advantages include higher crop yields; greater nutrient content; improved resistance to pests, diseases, and severe environmental conditions; and the possibility to solve issues with global food security. These promoters emphasize the extensive scientific testing and regulatory scrutiny that GMOs have received and view biotechnology tools as important instruments for enhancing agricultural practices and feeding the expanding world population (Arcieri, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]). Recently, a study has highlighted the economic benefits of GMOs especially in poor countries. In the study, it was discovered that the use of GMO seeds eliminated the need for 3.4% additional cropland for cultivation to maintain the global agricultural supply at the 2019 level (Hansen & Asger, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>GMOs are, nevertheless, the subject of some worry and criticism. The concerns of opponents include possible hazards to the environment and human health, the strengthening of corporate control over the food system, the possibility of genetic tainting of non-GMO crops, and the paucity of long-term studies on the effects of GMOs. Continuous arguments regarding human health and the safety of GM foods include increased risks of cancers, kidney disease, obesity, celiac disease, diabetes, and allergies. However, there has not been any scientific evidence, yet, that GMOs are unsafe (Teferra, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]). A comparison of the rates of these conditions in the USA, for example, where GMOs are high in the food supply to the UK, where essentially no GMOs are consumed, shows no significant differences. This is not to say the fear of the unknown is not a matter of concern, it is, but the involvement of the FDA in countries like the USA has always ensured the safety of GM products before they hit the market. Moreover, countries considering or promoting the consumption of GMOs have put in place measures to ensure their safety for consumption ("GMOs and food safety", [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]). Due to the above, some critics have targeted other reasons to reject GMOs contending that GMOs prioritize profit over sustainability and biodiversity, and they support alternative methods of agriculture such as organic or agroecological farming (Domingo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previously in Ghana, the issues with accessibility and acceptance of GMOs were the lack of expertise and policy in the production, management, and regulation of GM organisms in Ghana. However, the absence of policy was curtailed when the Biosafety Act 831, 2011, led to the establishment of the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) and the implementation of its regulations in 2019 (Akinbo et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). The act was established to oversee the decision-making, development, transfer, and handling of GMOs in order to protect the environment, biodiversity, and humans and animals against health risks. Moreover, some Ghanaian researchers at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) had been vigorously working on the development of GM crops such as the Bt (<emph>Bacillus thuringiensis</emph>) cowpea which is resistant to the pod borer insect (<emph>Maruca vitrata</emph>), and the nitrogen-efficient water-efficient salt-tolerant (NEWEST) rice. The non-GMO beans during cultivation are vulnerable to destruction by the pod borer which can cause devastating yield losses of between 20 and 80% (Addae et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]). The Bt cowpea was developed using the <emph>cry1Ab</emph> gene from <emph>B. thuringiensis</emph> by the CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (CSIR-SARI); the introduced gene confers resistance to the <emph>M. vitrata</emph>. It has recently been approved for both environmental and commercial release (Russell Nicely, USDA, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]), while the NEWEST rice is under confined field trials at CSIR-Crop Research Institute (CSIR-CRI). The major concern now is in the public acceptance of the approved GM crop (Bt cowpea) and other prospective crops. The perception of the public on GMOs according to a study by Ampadu-Ameyaw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]) showed there was high (72% of respondents) awareness, knowledge, and understanding of GMOs among three elite communities in Ghana's capital, Accra. It was evident from the study conducted by Ampadu-Ameyaw and team that media and television, followed by awareness workshops, were the major means of accessing information on GMOs by the respondents.</p> <p>Pending the approval of the Bt cowpea in Ghana, the Alliance for Science, Ghana, undertook engagements at various levels to involve the public in the decision-making of the NBA through workshops. During these engagements, it was realized that knowledge of GMOs among some populace within the University communities was not high; hence, we conducted a study to determine the awareness and knowledge of GMOs among some professionals, especially educators since they are deemed the core for knowledge sharing. Our study sought to explore the current knowledge and awareness of some professionals on GMOs and to suggest solutions to the scientific community on what public concerns to address via research, and to focus on educating the public on the benefits of GMOs, as well as the preferred platforms to effectively educate the public.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-3">Related Studies on Public Awareness of GMOs</hd> <p>Several studies have investigated the public awareness of GMOs globally in the past. These studies assessed the knowledge and perceptions of individuals focusing on life science students (Rathod & Hedaoo, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]) and consumers (Sajiwani et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]; Wunderlich & Gatto, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]; Popek and Halagarda, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref26">31</reflink>]; Bonah et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]; Ampadu-Ameyaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]). Despite the growth in studies on public awareness, knowledge, and perception towards GM foods globally, few or limited studies have been conducted in developing countries in the world. For example, in Zimbabwe, a study by Chagwena et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]) reported that there was a poor and limited level of knowledge of GMOs among respondents. Also, the respondents showed negative attitudes towards the consumption of GM foods. These responses were attributed to religious beliefs, limited knowledge, misconceptions, or wrong information on GMOs. A study conducted by Mnaranara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]) on the public perception of Tanzanians towards GM foods indicated that 49.1% of their sampled population had a fair level of awareness of GMOs with males dominating. In addition, most of the respondents with appreciable awareness levels had obtained some form of formal education such as tertiary degrees (bachelor, master, and PhD). Results also showed that most of the respondents had a strong perception towards the benefits to be derived by society when GM foods are accepted. Moreover, a recent study has shown there is a significant economic gain in the use of GMOs for crop production, saving the use of extra land for crop production, and also increasing economic gains for especially poor countries. In the study of Ampadu-Ameyaw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]) on Ghanaians' awareness, it was reported that there is inadequate knowledge among elite respondents on GMO awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the national biosafety framework. However, this study focused on three elite communities in Accra only; moreover, the study of Ampadu-Ameyaw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]) focused on the awareness of the populace on GMOs and the national biosafety framework under their specific occupations and not on the general landscape. Comparatively, the above studies adopted different research techniques and approaches in addressing the research questions and objectives of their study and presented our research interest in the study of the public awareness, knowledge, and perception towards GM foods in Ghana.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-4">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177251298-5">Participants</hd> <p>As of 2021, the population of Ghana was estimated as 30.83 million with an annual growth of 2.1% with youth (within the age group of 15–35 years) dominating. Ghana has a high literacy rate of about 69.8%; this represents people who can read and write in English and one Ghanaian language. Moreover, about 73.1% of persons aged 12 years and older own a functional information and communications technology (ICT) device. This reflects strongly in the use of smart mobile phones which is predominant among males in urban communities. Most persons (68.2%) in Ghana have access to the Internet via different ICT devices (Ghana Statistical Service, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]). Per the total population of Ghana, only 8.8 million people have access to social media, and it is used widely by a diverse group of people (Sasu, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]). And the platforms common to most social media users in Ghana are Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. Considering the accessibility of ICT devices and the ease in disseminating information, we depended on electronic mail and social media outlets to conduct the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-6">Study Design</hd> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out among literate Ghanaian adults with access to ICT devices and the Internet. A structured questionnaire was developed after reviewing other relevant studies (Hwang & Nam, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>] ; Wunderlich et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref36">49</reflink>]; Dexter et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref37">10</reflink>]) on consumers' awareness, knowledge, and perception towards GMOs. The questionnaire was pretested (<emph>n</emph> = 15) to identify the weaknesses and errors. Afterwards, the necessary corrections and validations were carried out. The questionnaire included both open- and closed-ended questions focusing on the demographic characteristics of the respondents (e.g., sex, age, marital status, the highest level of education, religion, and occupation), and information on the knowledge and perception of the consumers, for example, consumers' understanding of GMOs, sources of information on GMOs, and labelling of GMO food. The questionnaire is attached as a supplementary document (S1).</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-7">Data Collection</hd> <p>This study employed the use of primary data. The responses were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire through an online self-administered survey system (Google Forms) in June 2022. The Google form link was shared via various social media platforms (WhatsApp groups/personal chats, Telegram, Facebook, Twitter) and electronic mail. The use of the online survey limited the number of respondents to those with Internet access, especially the youth; this may have sidelined some respondents who reside in rural areas with limited or no Internet access from participating in the study. The questionnaires were self-administered anonymously by the respondents who were all Ghanaians. A piece of consent information was provided at the start of the questionnaire before the respondents filled out the Google form. The questionnaire was developed to gather information on consumers' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes toward the consumption of GM foods.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-8">Statistical Analyses</hd> <p>The collected data were coded into Microsoft Excel 2016 for analysis. All statistical analyses were carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. (IBM, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools such as <emph>t</emph>-test, chi-square, frequencies, percentages, and standard deviations as well as linear regression. The significance of discrete independent variables concerning the dependent variable was examined using the chi-square test. We carried out the comparison between the variables using a <emph>t</emph>-test at a 5% probability level. The results were presented in tables and figures. The analysis of the perception and the factors influencing consumer's awareness of GM foods are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-9">Perception of Consumers Towards the Consumption of GM Foods</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics were employed in analyzing the perception of consumers towards the consumption of GM foods. The perception of the respondents was measured using some general perception statements to determine the likelihood of respondents' acceptance and interest in the consumption of GMOs using a Likert scale with 5 points. The 5-point Likert scale was given as 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = undecided, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. The mean score of the perceptions of the consumers based on the 5-point Likert scale was then calculated using the formula.</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msup><mrow /><mo>″</mo></msup><mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi mathvariant="normal">s</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">c</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi><mo>=</mo><mover accent="true"><mi mathvariant="normal">x</mi><mo>¨</mo></mover><mfrac><msub><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mi><mi>f</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">ij</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></msub><mi>n</mi></mfrac><msup><mrow /><mo>″</mo></msup></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <emph>x</emph> = ranked value of perception of the consumers (<emph>i)</emph> on the 5-point Likert scale.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<emph>i)</emph> = perception of the consumers</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>f</emph> = the overall number of respondents assigning the value <emph>x</emph> to a perception statement of the consumer (<emph>i)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> <emph>n</emph> = the total number of respondents</item> </ulist> <p>However, the overall perception index (PI) was calculated as:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>P</mi><mi>I</mi><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mi>m</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>s</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mover accent="true"><mi mathvariant="normal">x</mi><mo>¨</mo></mover><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mrow><mi>t</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>n</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>m</mi><mi>b</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>o</mi><mi>f</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>p</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>p</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>s</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>m</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>s</mi></mrow></mfrac></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-10">Factors Influencing Respondents' Awareness of GMOs</hd> <p>The factors influencing respondents' awareness of GMOs were assessed using linear regression. The regression model was specified as:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>Y</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>=</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>0</mn><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>1</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>A</mi><mi>g</mi><mi>e</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>2</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>m</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>s</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>s</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>3</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>e</mi><mi>d</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>l</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>l</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>v</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>l</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>4</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>r</mi><mi>e</mi><mi>l</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>g</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>5</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>O</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>c</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>p</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>β</mi><mn>6</mn><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>i</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>f</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>r</mi><mi>m</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>n</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>a</mi><mi>b</mi><mi>o</mi><mi>u</mi><mi>t</mi><mspace width="0.277778em" /><mi>G</mi><mi>M</mi><mi>O</mi><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mo>+</mo><mspace width="0.222222em" /><mi>ε</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <emph>Y</emph> = dependent variable; <emph>β0</emph> = constant term; <emph>β1, β2, β3, β4, β5,</emph> and <emph>β6</emph> are the coefficients that determine the impact of each independent variable on the dependent variable; <emph>εi</emph> represents the error term.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177251298-12">Demographic Characteristics of Respondents</hd> <p>The socio-economic characteristics of the respondents concerning their awareness of GM foods is presented in Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2. Among the 200 respondents interviewed, 183 respondents were aware of GM foods and 17 were unaware of GM foods. The sex of the respondents did not significantly affect (<emph>P</emph> = 0.181) their awareness of GM foods. However, the majority of the respondents were males (61%), whereas 37.5% were females. Concerning the awareness based on the sex of the respondents, out of the 183 individuals who indicated awareness, 62.3% were males while 36.6% were females. There was parity with respect to the unawareness level of both sexes. The age of the respondents significantly influenced (<emph>P</emph> = 0.005) the awareness of the respondents in the study. The majority of the respondents (126 representing 68.9%) within the age group of 30–39 were aware, followed by 40–49 years (26 representing 14.2%). Nonetheless, with respect to the age of respondents who are unaware of GM foods, respondents within the age group of 20–29 (41.2%) and 30–39 (41.2%) formed the greater proportion in this category (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Demographics and consumer awareness of GM foods</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><bold>Variables</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Category</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Unaware (</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold> = 17)</bold></p><p><bold>Percentage</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Aware (</bold><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold> = 183)</bold></p><p><bold>Percentage</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Total percentage</bold></p><p><bold><italic>N</italic></bold><bold> = 200</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>P</italic></bold><bold> value</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Sex</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>62.3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.181</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Prefer not to say</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Marital status</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Single</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>58.8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.159</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Married</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>41.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Divorced</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Separated</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Religion</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>No religion</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Traditional</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Islam</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Christianity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Hermeticism</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Occupation</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p>Student</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>41.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.145</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Health worker</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Business professional</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Educator</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33.3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Unemployed</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Civil servant</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Security personnel</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Others</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Author's construct (2022)</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Age of the respondents based on their various levels of awareness of GMOs</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 The highest level of education of respondents (the blue bar represents respondents who are unaware of GMOs, and the red bar indicates respondents who are aware of GMOs)</p> <p>Among the respondents who were aware (<emph>n</emph> = 183) of GM foods, (67.2%) were married, and 31.7% were single whereas among the respondents who were unaware (<emph>n</emph> = 17) of GM foods, 58.8% were single, and 41.2% were married (Table 1). Furthermore, Table 1 shows that most of the respondents (95%) were Christians. The respondents were mainly educators (32%), students (24%), health workers (15.5%), and business professionals (14%).</p> <p>The results show that the highest level of education significantly affected (<emph>P</emph> = 0.000) the level of awareness of the respondents (Fig. 2). Moreover, among the respondents who were aware, 35% hold a bachelor's degree, 34.4% hold a master's degree, and 20.8% have obtained a PhD.</p> <p>Within the group of participants who were unaware of GM foods, there are no individuals holding a PhD degree. Instead, 58.8% of them possess bachelor's degrees, while the remaining individuals have acquired master's degrees, diplomas, and senior high school (S.H.S) and junior high school certificates, constituting 11.8%, 5.9%, 11.8%, and 5.9%, respectively. However, 5.8% have received no formal education (Fig. 2).</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-13">Self-Reported Knowledge of GMO Food</hd> <p>There was a significant difference (<emph>P</emph> = 0.001) among all the variables considered for the respondent's knowledge of GMOs (Table 2). About 42% of the respondents have a medium understanding of GMOs, 31.0% reported a high level of understanding, 18.5% reported a low level of understanding, and 8.5% reported that they had no understanding. Most of the respondents (45%) reported that there was inadequate information about GMOs, with 29.5% indicating that there was enough information whereas 25.5% reported that they were unsure about such information. With regard to the safety of GMOs, about 33.3% of the respondents reported that GM foods are safe, 34.5% indicated that GM foods were not safe, and 32.5% were unsure. Again, 34% of the respondents showed no interest in buying GM foods, whereas only 32% indicated a willingness to buy GM foods. About 67% of the respondents in the past paid attention to some of the food labels, 30% paid attention to all the available labels, and 3% have never paid attention to food labels. The number of respondents who prefer GM-labelled products (52%) was significantly higher than those who do not request for labelling of GM foods (24%). The majority of the respondents (56%) were willing to discuss GMOs, 37.5% were not ready to discuss issues of GMOs, whereas 6.5% were undecided.</p> <p>Table 2 Respondents' self-reported knowledge of GM food</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><bold>Variables</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Frequency (</bold><bold><italic>N</italic></bold><bold> = 200)</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Percentage (%)</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold><italic>t</italic></bold><bold>-test</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Understanding of GMOs</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> None</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>46.284</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Low</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>84</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> High</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Adequate information about GMO</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>90</p></td><td align="left"><p>45.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.905</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Unsure</p></td><td align="left"><p>51</p></td><td align="left"><p>25.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Is GMO safe?</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>69</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.894</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Unsure</p></td><td align="left"><p>65</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Would you buy GM food?</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>68</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Maybe</p></td><td align="left"><p>68</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.107</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>64</p></td><td align="left"><p>32.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Attention to food labels</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> All</p></td><td align="left"><p>60</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.131</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Never</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Some</p></td><td align="left"><p>134</p></td><td align="left"><p>67.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Preference of GMO-labelled products</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Maybe</p></td><td align="left"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.361</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>104</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Discussion about GMO</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p>37.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Maybe</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.598</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>112</p></td><td align="left"><p>56.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>The main benefit of GMOs</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Food security</p></td><td align="left"><p>130</p></td><td align="left"><p>65.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.908</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Health</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Price</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Taste</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Consultation of farmers before approving GM crops</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Maybe</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.204</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>170</p></td><td align="left"><p>85.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Acquisition of information on the development of GM foods</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Print and online articles</p></td><td align="left"><p>115</p></td><td align="left"><p>57.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.391</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Radio</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Social media</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> TV</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Importance to health</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Low</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Medium</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> High</p></td><td align="left"><p>191</p></td><td align="left"><p>95.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>173.546</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Persuasion about the safety of genetically modified foods</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Celebrity</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.450</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Government</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Science</p></td><td align="left"><p>183</p></td><td align="left"><p>91.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Bought organic foods</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Maybe</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.825</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>164</p></td><td align="left"><p>82.0</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Consumed GM foods</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> No</p></td><td align="left"><p>79</p></td><td align="left"><p>39.5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.458</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>121</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.5</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Author's construct (2022)</p> <p>Food security (65%) was identified as the major benefit of GMOs followed by health (16%), price (11.5%), and taste the least (7.5%) among the main benefits of GMOs. The majority of the respondents (85%) also indicated that there is a need for consultation with the farmers before the approval of GM crops, while only a few (3.5%) of the respondents disagreed with the consultation of farmers. The participants indicated print media and online articles (57.5%) as their preferred source for the acquisition of information on GMOs, followed by social media (22.5%), television (14.5%), and radio (5.5%). Almost all the respondents (95.5%) reported that their health and that of their family are highly important to them, whereas only 0.5% stated otherwise. The data suggests respondents can only be persuaded about the safety of GM foods majorly through science (91.5%), government (7.5%), and minimally through celebrities (1%). Most of the respondents (82%) have bought GM foods before, while 15% were unsure as to whether they have bought some before; however, 3% have never bought GM foods. Also, 60.5% have consumed GM foods and 39.5% have never consumed GM foods.</p> <p>The logistic regression result is presented in Table 3. The result from the model showed that the sex, marital status, educational level, and religion of the respondents had a positive coefficient but were not significant in influencing participants' knowledge and awareness. Nonetheless, the educational level was positive and significant at a level of 5%.</p> <p>Table 3 Factors influencing respondents' knowledge and awareness of GMO</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><bold>Variables</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Coefficient</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Standard error</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Sig.</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Sex</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.415</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.563</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.461</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age (years)</p></td><td align="left"><p> −0.080</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.423</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.850</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Marital status</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.995</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.638</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.119</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Highest educational level</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.958</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.274</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.203</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.320</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.362</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Occupation</p></td><td align="left"><p> −0.041</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.164</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.804</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Information about genetically modified organisms</p></td><td align="left"><p> −0.319</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.345</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.355</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Constant</p></td><td align="left"><p> −5.893</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.519</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.019*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Number of observations</p></td><td align="left"><p>200</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Log-likelihood</p></td><td align="left"><p>91.837</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177251298-14">Consumer's Perception Towards the Consumption of GM Foods</hd> <p>Table 4 presents the results on the perception of respondents towards the consumption of genetically modified foods. Among the 200 respondents, 18% strongly agreed that it is very likely that GM food leads to a reduction in food prices, 26% agreed, 12.5% were indecisive, 33% disagreed, and 10.5% strongly disagreed. About 19.5% of the respondents were strongly convinced that GM foods are likely to lead to health problems for the population as a whole, 15% agreed, 18.5% were undecided, 26.5% of the respondents disagreed, and 20.5% strongly disagreed with the statement. Also, the majority of the respondents (41.5%) strongly agreed that GM food leads to an increase in global food security, 29.5% agreed, and the other respondents stated otherwise. About 29.5% of the respondents believed that GM food extends food shelf-life, 30% agreed, 4.5% were undecided, 27% disagreed, and 9.0% strongly disagreed with this assertion.</p> <p>Table 4 Perception of consumers towards genetically modified foods</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><bold>Perception statements</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Strongly agree</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Agree</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Undecided</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Disagree</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Strongly disagree</bold></p></th><th align="left"><p><bold>Mean score</bold></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="6"><p><bold><italic>n</italic></bold><bold> (%)</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>GM foods lead to a reduction in food prices</p></td><td align="left"><p>36 (18.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52 (26.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>25 (12.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>66 (33.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21 (10.05)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GM foods lead to health problems for the population as a whole</p></td><td align="left"><p>39 (19.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>30 (15.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>37 (18.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>53 (26.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>41 (20.5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.07</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GM foods lead to the creation of problems for the environment</p></td><td align="left"><p>48 (24.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>36 (18.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>43 (21.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>46 (23.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>27 (13.5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GM foods lead to an increase in the global food supply</p></td><td align="left"><p>83 (41.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>59 (29.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8 (4.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>40 (20.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>10 (5.0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GM food extends food shelf-life</p></td><td align="left"><p>59 (29.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>60 (30.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 (4.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54 (27.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>18 (9.0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Perception Index</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.14</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177251298-15">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177251298-16">Age and Educational Level Influence Consumer Awareness of GMOs</hd> <p>The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents included age, sex, marital status, occupation, educational level, and religion. It was intriguing to observe that some of the participants were cognizant of GMOs. It shows a lot of education has occurred over the past year, coupled with the inception of the NBA and the mandatory public involvement in the approval process of Bt cowpea, which recently paved the way for the engagement of scientists with stakeholders, farmers, students, and the general public.</p> <p>This survey also showed that the awareness of GM organisms was highly influenced by the age and educational level of respondents. According to this study, 133 out of 200 respondents were between the ages of 30 to 39 years, and 126 among them were privy to GMOs. It was evident that among all age groups, the number of people aware of GMOs superseded those unaware. As was observed in a previous study by Ampadu-Ameyaw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]), awareness of GMOs was higher in participants with a higher level of education. In our study moreover, unawareness of GMOs, as opposed to awareness among participants, declined while climbing the education ladder from bachelor' to doctorate level. It is suggested based on this study that, though the place of residence contributes to one's conversance with GMOs as shown by the group above 60 years which recorded no unawareness, the age and level of education are more important, and therefore, all three factors must be considered when assessing one's information on GMOs.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-17">Knowledge of Respondents on GMOs</hd> <p>The majority of the respondents had a medium to high level of knowledge of GMOs. This could be attributed to the respondents belonging to the post-senior high school category. Also, this suggests that the respondents are knowledgeable about GMOs as compared to a study conducted in Zimbabwe where the majority of the respondents have a low level of understanding and knowledge of GMOs (Chagwena et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). This finding is congruent with studies in Korea and among Americans which posit that consumers who belonged to the post-senior high school category had higher knowledge of GMOs (Hwang & Nam, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]; Schilling et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>]). Despite the high level of knowledge, the majority of the respondents reported that there was a dearth of information about GMOs. Generally, there is a scarcity of information about GMOs; moreover, the little information is available mostly online; thus, the notion that the younger generation is more exposed to worldwide information linked to social media and blogs contributed to reaching out to that category (Russo & Simeone, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]). Małyska et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref44">25</reflink>]) attributed the scarcity of information regarding GMO products sparingly to "scientific uncertainty" emanating from factors that bottleneck the development of biotechnology as reported by (Costa-Font & Gil, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>]; Costa-Font & Mossialos, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]). From the results obtained, there was a significant influence on the level of persuasion that would influence the general public on the safety of GMOs. Most of the respondents would rely strongly on information provided by science/scientists rather than relying on celebrities for information about GMOs. Additionally, the findings indicate there is a need to strengthen evidence-based science education through the use of social media and traditional media in educating the populace on the benefits of GM foods in society.</p> <p>Additionally, there are demands for mandatory labelling to ensure consumers' safety in choosing to consume GMOs or not. The public usually is unsure or feels unqualified to make judgments concerning biotechnology and would rather prefer to leave it to the professionals (McFadden & Lusk, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]). However, they reserve the right to know what they are buying and consuming. The number of respondents who prefer GM-labelled products was significantly higher than those who do not. Most consumers believe labelling would promote transparency and relieve the public of any doubts or misconceptions about forcing GMOs on individuals for producers' gain. However, despite the continuous demand by consumers for the labelling of GMO products, there is inadequate evidence of the knowledge of consumers on the characteristics of GMOs and the actual interpretation of the information provided on the labels (Wunderlich & Gatto, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref48">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, a study revealed consumers with little information about potential health and environmental problems related to GM foods are easily influenced to make alternating decisions after negative reports about human health, biosafety, and the environment appeared in various media outlets (Frewer et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]; Vilella-Vila & Costa-Font, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref50">47</reflink>]). This suggests public education in Ghana on the merits and demerits of GM foods is essential for decision-making and should hence be taken seriously. The survey showed most respondents preferred scientific articles for information on GMOs, followed by social media as the means for public education; this could be a result of most of the participants belonging to the elite group, and the fact that print and online articles are mostly based on research. Considering the inclination of both the young and old to social media activities lately, it will be a good avenue for information dissemination, whether in the form of scientific articles or videos (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]; Quadri et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study revealed that among the main benefits of GMOs, food security was a major benefit, followed by health, price, and lastly the taste of food. Respondents showed the most relevant problem of our world today; food insecurity can be partly solved by the acceptance of GMOs. This opinion seems to suggest that rather than worrying about GMO food safety and environmental sustainability, the world should be more concerned and focused on using innovative means to feed the increasing global population that is projected to be between 9.4 and 10.0 billion by 2050 and between 8.9 and 12.4 billion by 2100 (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref53">45</reflink>]). In the absence of modern science to enhance food security, the world faces a shortage of food supply by 70% (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>]). Moreover, a report by the UN in 2019 showed the increase in the Ghanaian population between 2019 and 2021 alone exceeded 1 million (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref55">44</reflink>]), an indication of the need for Ghana to embrace modern technology in Agricultural development. The population pressure, coupled with unsupportive leaders and a lack of modern scientific tools in developing countries, is more concerned with sustaining humanity. Our study also found that most of the respondents are willing to consume GMOs. The willingness to consume GMOs among the respondents of the study could be attributed to their high educational level and understanding of GMOs.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-18">Factors Influencing Respondents' Knowledge and Awareness of GMOs</hd> <p>Our study examined various variables that influence the respondent's knowledge and awareness of GM foods. The acceptance and attitude of consumers toward GMOs, governmental laws, and farmers' adoption of GMOs are all impacted by public knowledge and awareness of GMOs. Previous studies indicate that the public's understanding of genetic engineering as a biotechnology tool and GMOs is insufficient (Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). We found that the level of education of the respondents significantly influenced their knowledge and awareness of GMOs at a 5% probability level. The results of the study imply that the highly educated individuals have in-depth knowledge and awareness of GMOs; this confirms our a priori expectation for the study. Also, similar to studies by Munisi ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]), it has been demonstrated in our study that the majority of individuals' understanding and awareness increase the acceptance of GM food due to their high level of education.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-19">Perception of Consumers Towards Genetically Modified Foods</hd> <p>We examined the perception of consumers towards genetically modified foods. The level of agreement with the perception statements was used in computing the perception index for the present study. The majority of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that GM foods lead to a reduction in food prices. This suggests that consumers are aware that GM foods would not result in a reduction in the price of food commodities. However, the majority of the respondents indicated that GM foods could be of benefit to the growing population since it has the potential to enhance global food security. A similar observation was reported by Mohapatra et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]) who suggested that GM foods could result in high-yielding crops. It is also believed that GM foods would offer several significant benefits to world food security (Lamichhane, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]). Moreover, Africa's attempt to alleviate poverty, malnutrition, and food insecurity may depend on the use of new Agricultural techniques such as Genetic modification used in the development of GMOs (Gbashi et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]). It is however important that consumers understand the significant contribution GM offers to enhance food security and sustainable development, without any known threat to their overall well-being for its acceptance. Furthermore, the respondents were of diverse views that GM foods could lead to the creation of environmental problems, yet, strongly agreed that the same could extend the shelf life of food. This conforms with the work of Uzogara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref61">46</reflink>]) that certain crops now have better organoleptic quality and shelf life because of genetic modification (GM). It is worth noting that respondents' perception indicated some level of appreciation of the merits GM contributes to the life of food crops by reducing postharvest losses. Improvement of shelf life is one of the major benefits that can be derived from GM foods to ensure food security. The response by participants regarding the perception of GM foods as a cause of health problems was interesting, considering the fear of the unknown is one of the main deterrents for GMO acceptance. It was reported by Harrison et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]) that the willingness of US consumers to buy GM foods declined as their perceptions of risk to human health and the environment increased, and the minimal effects of the risk index indicated that fears regarding health and environmental threats are the most important factors affecting consumer acceptance in the USA. The majority (47%) of the respondents in this study on the other hand believed that GM foods would not result in any negative health implications when consumed. This shows an improvement in the perception of individuals on GMOs over the years. However, since a reasonable percentage (18.5%) is still uncertain, further studies which focus on further exploring the health implications of consuming GM foods in Ghana will be of great resource to educating the Ghanaian public. Concerns about GM foods' possible negative impacts on human health and environmental safety dominate discussions about them. However, per the mean score, the perception index was 0.14. This implies that with public education, most Ghanaians will come to appreciate the positive impact of GM foods.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-20">Conclusion and Recommendations</hd> <p>In Ghana, the Alliance for Science, and researchers in both academia and research institutions have done a tremendous job over the past few years in educating the public on GMOs pending the BT cowpea approval. These engagements were mostly done in tertiary institutions and among farmers, and an extension of this to the general public should be encouraged as it will be beneficial to GMO awareness and knowledge distribution. We found out that most of the participants acquired information on GMOs and their related information from prints and online articles. Furthermore, safety information about GMOs would only be sourced from scientists. Moreover, there is still the potential to raise public understanding and build confidence in the acceptance of GMOs using scientific research and publications, which could be made available through various channels, especially via social media. Additionally, topics around GMO acceptance and consumption should be frequently discussed via the various media channels in Ghana and other developing nations; this will enhance the public's understanding as such discussions will help address any misconceptions raised by individuals. Many people throughout the world are still cautious or suspicious about GMOs, which might influence how well-liked GM products are on the market. Many GMO patents, according to some sceptics, are under the ownership of big biotechnology firms, which may restrict access to these technologies for smaller farmers. Because certain GMO seeds are patented, farmers must rely on companies to supply them with seeds. It is crucial to keep in mind that not all GMOs present the same difficulties because the exact issues might change based on the crop, trait, and intended usage. Additionally, legislative frameworks and popular perceptions of GMOs vary from nation to nation. While some countries have accepted GMOs, others have implemented tight restrictions or outright prohibitions. Global agricultural and environmental policy continues to be shaped by the continuous discussion over the advantages and concerns of GMOs.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to appreciate the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions in improving the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the respondents for their time in answering and participating in this research.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-22">Author Contribution</hd> <p>The authors contributed equally to this work.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-23">Availability of Data and Materials</hd> <p>Data would be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-24">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177251298-25">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-26">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>All participant consent to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-27">Consent for Publication</hd> <p>All authors agree to the publication of this work.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-28">Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-29">Competing Interests</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-30">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0177251298-31">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0177251298-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Addae, P. C, Ishiyaku, M. F, Tignegre, J. B, Ba, M. N, Bationo, J. B, Atokple, I. D,. & Pittendrigh, B. R. (2020). Efficacy of a cry1Ab gene for control of Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in cowpea (Fabales: Fabaceae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 113(2), 974–979. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akinbo, O, Obukosia, S, Ouedraogo, J, Sinebo, W, Savadogo, M, Timpo, S,. & Ambali, A. (2021). Commercial release of genetically modified crops in Africa: Interface between biosafety regulatory systems and varietal release systems. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 605937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.605937</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ampadu-Ameyaw R, Essegbey GO, Amaning EO. Public awareness, participation and attitude toward the national biosafety framework and genetically modified organisms in Ghana. J. Biosaf Biosec. 2021; 3; 2: 147-153. 10.1016/j.jobb.2021.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arcieri M. Spread and potential risks of genetically modified organisms. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia. 2016; 8: 552-559. 10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asante FA, Amuakwa-Mensah F. Climate change and variability in Ghana: Stocktaking. Climate. 2014; 3; 1: 78-101. 10.3390/cli3010078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bonah, E, Issah, N. G, & Kunyangna, P. (2017). Consumer knowledge, perceptions and acceptance of genetically modified foods among residents in the Tamale Metropolis, Ghana. American Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Research, 4(3), 87–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chagwena, D. T, Sithole, B, Masendu, R, Chikwasha, V, & Maponga, C. C. (2019). Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards genetically modified foods in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 19(3), 14752–14768. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.86.17140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref46" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Costa-Font J, Mossialos E. Are perceptions of 'risks' and 'benefits' of genetically modified food (in) dependent?. Food Quality and Preference. 2007; 18; 2: 173-182. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref45" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Costa-Font M, Gil JM. Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance of genetically modified (GM) food in Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study. Food Quality and Preference. 2009; 20; 6: 399-409. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dexter, C, Sithole, B, Masendu, R, Chikwasha, V, & Maponga, C. (2019). Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards genetically modified foods in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development,19(03), 14752–14768. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.86.17140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domingo JL. Health risks of GM foods: Many opinions but few data. Science. 2000; 288; 5472: 1748-1749. 10.1126/science.288.5472.1748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elferink, M, & Schierhorn, F. (2016). Global demand for food is rising. Can we meet it. Harvard Business Review, 7(04), 2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021 FAO, Ifad, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2021). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021 Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frewer, L. J, Miles, S. & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Anal: An International Journal, 22, 701–711.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gbashi, S, Adebo, O, Adebiyi, J. A, Targuma, S, Tebele, S, Areo, O. M,. & Njobeh, P. (2021). Food safety, food security and genetically modified organisms in Africa: a current perspective. Biotechnol. Genetic Engineering Reviews, 37(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02648725.2021.1940735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghana Statistical Service [GSS], (2021). Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census. General Report Highlights. Volume 3 https://census2021.statsghana.gov.gh/gssmain/fileUpload/reportthemelist/Volume%203%20Highlights.pdf. Accessed 6 Jun 2023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> GMOs and Food Safety. (2017). Science of GMOs - College of Ag, Health and Natural Resources. https://gmo.uconn.edu/topics/gmos-and-human-health/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen CW, Wingender AM. National and global impacts of genetically modified crops. American Economic Review: Insights. 2023; 5; 2: 224-240. 10.1257/aeri.20220144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison R, Boccaletti S, House LO. Risk perceptions of urban Italian and United States consumers for genetically modified foods. AgBioforum. 2004; 7; 4: 195-201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang H, Nam SJ. Differences in multidimensional poverty according to householders' gender and age in South Korea. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2020; 15; 1: 147-165. 10.1007/s11482-018-9668-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> IBM Corp. Released (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilaru, A. & Peterson, C. (2022). Agricultural biotechnology: A vital tool to address food security and climate change. Feed The Future.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamichhane SA. Genetically modified foods-Solution for food security. Journal, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology. 2014; 5; 1: 43-48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee G, Choi AD, Michos ED. Social media as a means to disseminate and advocate cardiovascular research: Why, how, and best practices. Current Cardiology Reviews. 2021; 17; 2: 122-128. 10.2174/1573403X15666191113151325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Małyska A, Maciąg K, Twardowski T. Perception of GMOs by scientists and practitioners–The critical role of information flow about transgenic organisms. New Biotechnology. 2014; 31; 2: 196-202. 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McFadden BR, Lusk JL. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal. 2016; 30; 9: 3091-3096. 10.1096/fj.201600598</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mnaranara, T. E, Zhang, J, & Wang, G. (2017). Public perception towards genetically modified foods in Tanzania. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 27(2), 589–602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohapatra AK, Priyadarshini D, Biswas A. Genetically modified food: Knowledge and attitude of teachers and students. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2010; 19; 5: 489-497. 10.1007/sl0956-010-9215-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munisi, J. O. (2020). Assessing Tanzanian public knowledge on genetically modified organisms and its potential use in providing food security (Doctoral dissertation, Mzumbe University).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Human Genome Research Institute. (2023). Genetically modified organism (GMO). Genome.gov. https://<ulink href="http://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetically-Modified-Organism">www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetically-Modified-Organism</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popek, S, & Halagarda, M. (2017) Genetically modified foods: Consumer awareness opinions and attitudes in selected EU countries. International Journal of Consumer Studies,41(3), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quadri, M. O, Oluwasina, O. O, & Adebiyi, A. O. (2021). The Role of Social Media in Information Dissemination in the Pandemic Era. MiddleBelt Journal of Library and Information Science, 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rathod, D, & Hedaoo, R. P. (2022). Assessment of knowledge and attitudes on genetically modified foods among students studying life sciences. Cureus, 14(12), e32744. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, L. (2014). Engaging the public in policy research: Are community researchers the answer?. Politics Government, 2(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v2i1.19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell Nicely, Staff of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service. (2022). Ghana: BT Cowpea approved for environmental and market release. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. https://<ulink href="http://www.fas.usda.gov/data/ghana-bt-cowpea-approved-environmental-and-market-release">www.fas.usda.gov/data/ghana-bt-cowpea-approved-environmental-and-market-release</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russo C, Simeone M. The growing influence of social and digital media: Impact on consumer choice and market equilibrium. Br Food J. 2017; 119; 8: 1766-1780. 10.1108/BFJ-05-2017-0283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sajiwani, J. W. A, & Rathnayaka, R. M. U. S. K. (2014). Consumer perception on genetically modified food in Sri Lanka. Advances in Research, 2(12), 846–855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sasu, D. D. (2022). Topic: Social media in Ghana. Statista. https://<ulink href="http://www.statista.com/topics/9778/social-media-in-ghana/#topicOverview">www.statista.com/topics/9778/social-media-in-ghana/#topicOverview</ulink>. Accessed 2 Jun 2023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawicka, B, Umachandran, K, Nasir, N. A. N, & Skiba, D. (2020). Alternative and new protein sources. In Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals (pp. 109–137). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42319-3_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schilling, B. J, Hallman, W. K, Adelaja, A. O, & Marxen, L. J. (2002). Consumer knowledge of food biotechnology. A descriptive study of US residents (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Food Policy Institute, 2002). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.18183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, J. (2020). Biotechnology and Other New Production Technologies. Accra: United State Department of Agriculture.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teferra TF. Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not?. A Review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021; 9; 9: 5324-5331. 10.1002/fsn3.2499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2013). World must sustainably produce 70 per cent more food by mid-century – UN report. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/12/456912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423). Available at https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2022). World population prospects - Population division - United Nations. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uzogara SG. The impact of genetic modification of human foods in the 21st century: A review. Biotechnology Advances. 2000; 18; 3: 179-206. 10.1016/s0734-9750(00)00033-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vilella-Vila M, Costa-Font J. Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics. 2008; 37: 2095-2106. 10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> WHO. (2021). Food, genetically modified. World Health Organization (WHO). https://<ulink href="http://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified">www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition. 2015; 6; 6: 842-851. 10.3945/an.115.008870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zafar, S. A, Zaidi, S. S. E. A, Gaba, Y, Singla-Pareek, S. L, Dhankher, O. P, Li, X,. & Pareek, A. (2020). Engineering abiotic stress tolerance via CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. Journal of Experimental Botany, 71(2), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz476</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mavis Owusuaa Osei-Wusu; Moses Addo Nartey and Remember Roger Adjei</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref62"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1424724
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Advances in Knowledge and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms among Some Ghanaian Professionals
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mavis+Owusuaa+Osei-Wusu%22">Mavis Owusuaa Osei-Wusu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6160-4145">0000-0002-6160-4145</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moses+Addo+Nartey%22">Moses Addo Nartey</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9379-3737">0000-0002-9379-3737</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Remember+Roger+Adjei%22">Remember Roger Adjei</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4524-1038">0000-0003-4524-1038</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Science+Education+and+Technology%22"><i>Journal of Science Education and Technology</i></searchLink>. 2024 33(3):274-285.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Opinion%22">Public Opinion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Genetics%22">Genetics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biotechnology%22">Biotechnology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age%22">Age</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Merchandise+Information%22">Merchandise Information</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Food%22">Food</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nutrition%22">Nutrition</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ghana%22">Ghana</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10956-023-10081-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1059-0145<br />1573-1839
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ghana has raised a lot of public concerns and mixed feelings among some Ghanaians. Our present study, therefore, explored the current knowledge of the general public on GMOs, their perceptions, and factors that influence their understanding of GMOs. A total of 200 Ghanaians were interviewed using an online semi-structured questionnaire to solicit information on their knowledge of GMOs. The findings of the study showed that most Ghanaians (183 out of 200) are aware of GMOs. Age and level of education significantly influenced consumers' awareness of GMOs. The results also revealed that most of the participants have a medium to a high level of knowledge of GMOs; however, limited information about GMOs is available to the public. About 61% of the respondents are willing to consume GMOs when made available in Ghana. Also, the findings of the study showed that the respondents would prefer GM-labelled products. The educational level of the respondents significantly influenced their knowledge and understanding of GMOs. The study recommends that scientists and various media platforms provide a platform to address the concerns of the public on GMOs and occasionally engage them in GMO-related issues and their role in addressing food insecurity and malnutrition.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1424724
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1424724
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10956-023-10081-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 274
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Opinion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Genetics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biotechnology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Merchandise Information
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Food
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nutrition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ghana
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Advances in Knowledge and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Organisms among Some Ghanaian Professionals
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mavis Owusuaa Osei-Wusu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moses Addo Nartey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Remember Roger Adjei
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1059-0145
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1839
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Science Education and Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1