Abstract
The use of genetically modified food (GM food) is a common commodity in the modern world. There is often debate on the safety and labelling of these food items but how much do consumers actually know and are the views of consumers regarding the labelling of these food items? Our study provides new insights on the understanding of Singaporeans regarding the safety of consuming GM food, revealing a major lack of education amongst many Singaporeans in the understanding of what GM food is and its safety. Our findings give us the opportunity and knowledge to further improve and make decisions for creating public policies and education on GM food.
Introduction There has always been a constant debate regarding the safety in the use of biotechnology in food. Genetically modified foods or GM foods are food products genetically modified to have certain traits not normally found in nature and often modified for improvement in taste, reproducibility, convenience or nutrition. An example of such a food is seedless grapes, for the convenience of people who do not wish to deal with the numerous seeds from the grapes. The concern with these foods are the safety in consumption. In response to these concerns, many government associations such as the FDA (US Food and Drug Association) regulate the use of genetic modification for food for only safe and ethical modifications. In Singapore, AVA (Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore) regulates the import of these products. Both of these organizations also test for the safety in consumption in terms of illness, allergy (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2018). Many of the general public however, speculate GM food to be the source of illness or allergies and many other variations to this claim. In our study, we aim to understand the percentage of people who believe that we should be labelling these food items for safety reasons as well as if education on GM food to the general public is required. With this knowledge, we can deduce what method of approach will be recommended in improving the ability of Singaporeans to create well-informed choices in their diets. Materials and methods 2.1 Data collection and analysis Data was collected through an online survey via google forms with a total of 205 unique participants. The survey was conducted through 15 May 2018 to 25 May 2018 and analyzed with Minitab, Graphpad prism and Microsoft Excel. 2.2 Survey overview Questions prescribed to respondents are briefly described here. A total of eight questions were prescribed, six before a reading segment and two after. An article on facts on GM food was prescribed in the reading segment to supplement the remaining two questions. Questions are described as follows 1.) “How would you rate your understanding in Genetically Modified Food?”. This question is necessary in accessing the responder’s understanding on the topic varying on a 5-point scale. 2.) “What is the highest level of formal education in biology you possess?”. This question is necessary in accessing the demographic of the responder with response categories of “None”, “Primary school/ Elementary school”, “Secondary school/ High school”, “Junior College Education”, “ITE Education (In Biology)”, “Polytechnic Education (In Biology)”, “Undergraduate University Education (In Biology)”, “Graduate University Education (In Biology)”, “P.H.D/ Doctorate University Education (In Biology)” and “Others”. Responses under others were considered individually and recategorized into the existing categories or expressed in its own category as appropriate. 3.) “Where does most of your knowledge on GM foods come from?". This question allows us to access where possible misconceptions/knowledge on the topic may stem from, allowing us to come to a conclusion of what can be done to increase the public awareness and knowledge of GM food. 4.) “Should food with DNA be labelled in supermarkets?”. A question to test the responder’s comprehension on GM food. “Food with DNA” refers to all food that was once living. As such, this question also serves as a control for question 6. 5.) “Is genetically modified food harmful or dangerous to eat?”. A question to access the public’s opinion on the safety on GM food in regard to consumption. 6.) “Should GM food be labelled in supermarkets?” A question to investigate the opinions on the need for labelling of GM food in supermarkets. The reading segment was thereafter prescribed from an independently hosted website with a non-biased article written with factual information of GM food is given to the respondents (Soh et al). 7.) “How would you rate your understanding on GM food after reading the article?”. This question is necessary in accessing the respondent’s change in perception of his/her understanding of the topic on a 5-point scale. 8.) “Do you think knowledge on GM food be taught in formal education?”. A question to access the respondent’s opinion on the necessity for further educating consumers on GM Food. Results and discussion 3.1 Demographics Survey respondents cannot be heavily biased by high number of respondents studying in biology or are educated in the topic. As such, data was collected such that people with high levels of education on the topic (Tertiary education and above) may not fill up to more than 20% of the sample. In this survey, the total number of respondents with higher education in biology was 20%, fulfilling this boundary as shown in figure 1. Figure 1: Highest level or current level of formal education in biology possessed by respondents. Figure 2: Sources of knowledge on GM food. As shown in figure 2, a large proportion of 43% of individuals learnt about GM food primarily from the internet whilst a smaller 25% of people learnt about GM food primarily from schools. This indicates certain interest of people to be learning about GM food independently from formal education. Whilst this indicates interest, it also indicates the potential for false or misconceived information from the internet as well as a lack of essential facts and nutrition about GM food from schools. 3.2 Elucidating the need for more education on facts and nutrition of GM food. Figure 3: Arbitrary scores of understanding of the topic of GM food before and after an educational article was provided.
Two questions accessing the responder’s understanding on the topic of GM food varying on a 5-point scale was prescribed before the questions and after the questions along with a short article written on facts on GM food (Soh et al) as described earlier in detail in section 2.2.
Figure 3 illustrates the change in arbitrary score of understanding on GM food and there is an obvious shift from the lower scores of less knowledgeable to the higher scores of more knowledgeable from before and after the article was provided. Paying attention to the “before” scores, we can identify a rather normally distributed graph whilst paying attention to the “after” scores, we can identify a more right-skewed graph towards the higher scores. This shows us that given, even a small educational text can greatly increase the level of understandings on GM food amongst Singaporeans. This is essential in making the most nutritional and informed decision in the diets of Singaporeans. In the conducted survey for “If we should have the topic of GM food taught in school?” as shown in figure 4, it can be seen that a huge margin of 76.85% of people are in the interest of having the topic being taught in schools, indicating high interest of the citizens of Singapore in understanding what they are consuming. This further supports the need for increasing the resources and education on the facts and nutrition of GM food.
Figure 4: Survey on “If we should have the topic of GM food taught in school?”
3.3 Views about labelling of food products Several questions regarding the opinions on food safety and labelling of food products were conducted to review the public’s view on the topic. It is observed in figure 5A that whilst there is a rather significant 45% of individuals who agree that GM food is not harmful in consumption, there is also a huge proportion of 40% of people who are unsure on the safety of GM food. This is alerting in the fact that there is a huge lack of education on the topic of safety of GM food. According to the FDA (2018), GM soybeans accounted for 93% of all soybeans planted, and GM corn accounted for 88% of corn planted. This illustrates howcommom GM food is and accentuating the need for education on the topic. Figure 5B illustrates the control question, “Should food with DNA be labeled in supermarkets?”, asked for figure 5C. This is used as a control as it is a given that all food will contain DNA as all living organisms, modified or not, require that DNA to live. Hence it is implied that all food products, genetically modified or not, contain DNA and labelling of such (all) food items with DNA is not to be recommended. A contingency table relating the control question of “Should food with DNA be labeled in supermarkets?” is shown below and Pearson’s Chi Square test is conducted. This shows that the levels of understanding may not be associated with the likelihood of agreeing or disagreeing to the labelling of food with DNA. This however is met with limitations that the self-reported values of understanding may mean that our test for levels of understanding may not be accurate with what may be true for the individual and hence further questioning by a standardized test may be recommended in future studies. It is also, however, apparent that with a 77% of respondents agreeing to labelling of food with DNA with a question that should otherwise grant a 0% agreement rate, there is much to do in educating the public on the topic of GM food. Figure 5C illustrates the consumer’s opinions on the need to label GM food. A proportion of 88% agree to the need to label GM food in supermarkets. This is a similar proportion to the control question asked in figure 5B, allowing some room for question if the consumers truly understand what their answer means. An increase from 77% to 88% indicates a proportion of people do understand the topic but also indicates uncertainty in the need to label GM foods in supermarkets. Especially on the note that a large proportion of food sold are all GM food as discussed earlier. Conclusion Labelling of GM food is overwhelmingly voted for by surveys and is to be considered but whether labels should be required for GM food is a highly contentious topic due to the insufficient evidence of consumers truly understanding GM food. Consumers demonstrate support for policies regarding labelling of food containing DNA which indicate little or no understanding on the topic of GM food and hence rather than allocating resources for this policy, it is clear the direction needed is in the education of the public. It is evident that there is a huge lack of knowledge on the facts and nutrition of GM food amongst the general public despite a large proportion of people wary about GM food and as such, it is recommended for there to be more resources and education on the topic in relevance in making the most informed decision in their diets especially in this day and age where GM food is a common commodity found at every local supermarket. References J. Soh, “GM Food-What really is it?,” Curiostory. [Online]. Available: http://jsoh.weebly.com/my-work/gm-food-what-really-is-it. [Accessed: 08-May-2018]. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Food from Genetically Engineered Plants - How FDA Regulates Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. Retrieved July 24, 2018, from https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461831.htm Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Food from Genetically Engineered Plants - Consumer Info About Food from Genetically Engineered Plants. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Featured PostsSushi is going extinct!
Recession Sensation Fairies of our world Living a Zero Trash life GM Food-What really is it Archives
October 2018
Categories
All
|