Predictors of attitudes towards genetically modified foods among university students: Gender, environmentalism, and food neophobia

Abstract

Understanding university students' attitudes regarding genetically modified foods (GMOs) and the factors that influence their attitudes is crucial for both academic and societal contexts. This research aimed to identify the determinants of university students' attitudes towards GMOs, specifically examining the influence of gender, food neophobia, and environmental awareness as predictors. The study conducted a cross-sectional analytical face-to-face interview technique with students from December 2024 to January 2025. The questionnaire included socio-demographic data, general eating habits, the Attitude Towards Genetically Modified Organisms Scale, the Food Neophobia Scale, and the environmentalism sub-dimension of the Lifestyle of Healthy and Sustainable Scale. The majority of participants (75.2%) were female, while 24.8% were male. The mean age of the participants was 21.7±1.5 years, and their mean BMI was 23.1±3.7 kg/m². In response to inquiries on legal regulations concerning GMOs in Türkiye, 21.6% of females and 17.1% of males affirmed the existence of such regulations (p<0.05). The mean overall score on the attitude scale towards GMOs was 75.6±11.8 for females and 72.2±15.0 for males. The environmentalism subscale of the healthy and sustainable living scale had a mean score of 30.4±5.4 for females and 28.7±6.7 for males. In contrast, the total score of the food neophobia scale was 40.6±9.9 and 38.6±9, respectively. Gender significantly moderated the correlation between environmentalism and GMO total scores (B=0.521, SE=0.201, p=0.010, ΔR²=0.012). The conditional effect analysis revealed that the impact of environmentalism scores on GMO totals was significant for both females (B=0.938, SE=0.115, p<0.001) and males (B=1.460, SE=0.164, p<0.001). It is believed that university students' attitudes on GMOs are not sufficiently positive; however, their high level of environmental consciousness and propensity for food neophobic behaviour. To more precisely represent social opinions and behaviours, gender should be used as a moderating variable in research or treatments concerning GMO attitudes.

Keywords

• Genetically modified organism
• Food neophobia
• Eating habits
• Sustainability
• Moderation analysis

References

1. Alsharawy, A., Spoon, R., Smith, A., & Ball, S. (2021). Gender differences in fear and risk perception during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 689467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689467
2. Antoniou, M., Robinson, C., Castro, I., & Hilbeck, A. (2023). Agricultural GMOs and their associated pesticides: misinformation, science, and evidence. Environmental Sciences Europe, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00787-4
3. Bellows, A.C., Alcaraz, V.G., & Hallman, W.K. (2010). Gender and food: A study of attitudes in the USA towards organic, local, U.S.-grown, and GM-free foods. Appetite, 55(3), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.09.002
4. Benzer, S., & Civangönül, B.D. (2021). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalara yönelik tutumları. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(9), 24–37.
5. Beyaz, R., Altuntaş, B., & Meşe, M. (2025). Determination of factors affecting the attitudes and behaviors of young consumers towards genetically modified organisms (GMO) products: The case of Kırşehir Ahi Evran University. ISPEC 17th International Conference on Agriculture, Animal Sciences and Rural Development, 2313–2329.
6. Bilgili, M., Tümse, S., & Nar, S. (2024). Comprehensive overview of the present state and evolution of global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases, and renewable energy. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 49(11), 14503–14531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-024-09390-y
7. Boluda-Verdú, I., Senent-Valero, M., Casas-Escolano, M., Matijasevich, A., & Pastor-Valero, M. (2022). Fear for the future: Eco-anxiety and health implications, a systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101904
8. Choi, S., & Feinberg, R.A. (2021). The LOHAS (lifestyle of health and sustainability) scale development and validation. Sustainability, 13(1598). 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041598

9. Crane, A.L., Brown, G.E., Chivers, D.P., & O. Ferrari, M.C. (2020). An ecological framework of neophobia: From cells to organisms to populations. Biological Reviews, 95(1), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12560
10. Çaylak Dönmez, Ö., & Sevim, B. (2023). Yükseköğretim kurumlarının gıda i̇le i̇lgili bölümlerindeki öğrencilerin neofobi düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. GSI Journals Serie A: Advancements in Tourism, Recreation, and Sports Sciences, 6(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.53353/atrss.1229220
11. Das, A.S. & Sumit, A.F. (2023). Knowledge and attitude towards genetically modified foods: a quantitative cross-sectional study among the educated subjects in the four largest divisions of Bangladesh. Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Experimental Therapeutics, 6(1), 198. https://doi.org/10.5455/jabet.2023.d118
12. de Andrade Previato, H.D.R., & Behrens, J.H. (2015). Translation and validation of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) to the Brazilian Portuguese. Nutricion Hospitalaria, 32(2), 925–930. https://doi.or/10.3305/nh.2015.32.2.9108
13. Duman, E., Akçil Ok, M., & Keser, A. (2020). Adaptation of the food neophobia scale into Turkish: validity and reliability study. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.30934/kusbed.643038
14. Elder, L., Greene, S., & Lizotte, M.K. (2018). The gender gap in public opinion towards genetically modified foods. The Social Science Journal, 55(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.02.015
15. Elder, L., Greene, S., & Lizotte, M.K. (2018). The gender gap on public opinion towards genetically modified foods. The Social Science Journal, 55(4), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.02.015
16. Enríquez, J.P. & Archila-Godínez, J.C. (2021). Social and cultural influences on food choices: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(13), 3698–3704. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1870434
17. Fathonah, N. & Nastiti, A. (2024). How does gender affect pro-environmental behaviors? The case of a university in Bandung, Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences, 485, 07004. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202448507004
18. Gökkaya, D. (2024). Sağlıklı ve Sürdürülebilir Yaşam Tarzı Ölçeği: Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(3), 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1343535
19. Güney, E. (2018). Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar hakkında tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi ve biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar hakkında tutumlarının farklı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
20. Güngör, E., & Demiryürek, K. (2021). Organik ve genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalı ürünlere karşı öğrencilerin davranışları: Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi örneği. 3. Uluslararası Tarım ve Gıda Etiği Kongresi Kongre Kitabı, 282–288.
21. Hançer, A., & Güler, M. (2023). Sosyotropik ve otonom kişilik özelliklerinin besin neofobisi üzerine etkisi: Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi örneği. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(3), 1133–1144. https://doi.org/10.32709/akusosbil.1067140
22. Hauer, B. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) im Hochschulkontext. Peripherie, 35(140), 507–510. https://doi.org/10.3224/peripherie.v35i140.23001
23. ISAAA (2018). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2018. Biotech crops continue to help meet the challenges of increased population and climate change. ISAAA Brief 54. Ithaca (NY): International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/download/isaaa-brief-54-2018.pdf [accessed 2025 July 28].
24. ISAAA (2022). GM approval database – commercial GM traits list. Ithaca (NY): International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/commercialtraitlist/default.asp [accessed 2025 July 28].
25. Jaziri, D., Rehman, M.A., Hasni, M.J.S., & Ben Jebril, A. (2025). Food anti-consumption behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. British Food Journal, 127(13), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-10-2024-1087
26. Kan, Ç. (2024). Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizma kullanılarak üretilen gıdaların insan sağlığına etkilerinin ceza hukuku açısından değerlendirilmesi. Başkent Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 455–503.
27. Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A.K., Singh, A., Jha, A., … & Rakshit, S. (2020). Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects. Planta, 251(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8
28. McClements, D.J., Barrangou, R., Hill, C., Kokini, J.L., Lila, M.A., Meyer, A.S., … & Yu, L. (2021). Building a resilient, sustainable, and healthier food supply through innovation and technology. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 12(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-092220-030824
29. Nicholl, D.S. (2023). An introduction to genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781009180597
30. Nielsen, K.M. (2003). Transgenic organisms—Time for conceptual diversification? Nature Biotechnology, 21(3), 227–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0303-227
31. Nyiwul, L. & Koirala, N.P. (2022). Role of foreign direct investments in agriculture, forestry and fishing in developing countries. Future Business Journal, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00164-2
32. Özdemir, A.M. (2021). Primary school teacher candidates’ knowledge of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 521–541.
33. Özer, M., Doğan, S., Çetin, S., Ertuğrul, A., & Severcan, E.U. (2022). Çocuk sağlığı ve hastalıkları uzman ve asistan hekimlerinin genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar konusunda bilgi, tutum ve davranışları. Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Dergisi, 65(2), 38–46.
34. Özgür, M., & Uçar, A. (2024). Food allergen risks in genetically modified foods: current approaches. Food Safety, 42–53.
35. Özmert Ergin, S., & Güzel, A. (2024). The food technology neophobia scale: A validity and reliability study in Turkish. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(1), 8–18.
36. Pandey, S.N. (2021). Recombinant DNA technology for sustainable plant growth and production. Harsh Environment and Plant Resilience, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65912-7_5
37. Pelikánová, R.M. (2025). Origins of the concept of sustainability. Sustainability in Europe, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74689-5_4
38. Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W
39. Resnik, D.B. & Vorhaus, D.B. (2006). Untitled. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-1-9
40. Sikora, D., & Rzymski, P. (2020). Public Acceptance of GM Foods: A Global Perspective (1999–2019). Policy Issues in Genetically Modified Crops, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820780-2.00013-3
41. Sivamani, Y., Hegde, S., Bhat, A.R., Sajal, H., & Elayaperumal, S. (2023). Recombinant DNA technology and gene therapy. Biochemical and Molecular Pharmacology in Drug Discovery, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-16013-4.00017-8
42. Sökülmez Kaya, P., & Akar, Ö. (2016). Sağlık eğitimi alan ve almayan bireylerin genetiği değiştirilmiş gıdalar hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri ve tutumları. Samsun Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 133–145.
43. Spendrup, S., Eriksson, D., & Fernqvist, F. (2021). Swedish consumers´ attitudes and values to genetic modification and conventional plant breeding – The case of fruit and vegetables. GM Crops & Food, 12(1), 342. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2021.1921544
44. Stupak, I., Mansoor, M., & Smith, C.T. (2021). Conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust of sustainability governance. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-021-00280-x
45. Sze, K.Y.P., Lee, K., Chan, R.H.W., & Kim, J.H. (2021). Prevalence of negative emotional eating and its associated psychosocial factors among urban chinese undergraduates in hong kong: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10531-3
46. Şahin, D. (2024). Cinsiyetin sürdürülebilir tüketici̇ davranışı üzerindeki rolü: Üniversite öğrencileri üzerine bir araştırma. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 12(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.14514/beykozad.1342719
47. T.C.K. (1982). Türk Ceza Kanunu, Biyogüvenlik Kanunu (Kanun no: 5977), Yayınlandığı Resmi Gazete 26/03/2010 https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5977.pdf [accessed 26.06.2025].
48. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. (2010). GDO'ya Yönelik Resmi Kontrol Çalışmaları. Ülkemizde GDO mevzuatı. Erişim Adresi: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konu/1437/GDO-Resmi-Kontrol [accessed 26.06.2025]. Turan, İ., Erdemoğlu, Ç., Aydın Özkan, S., Koç Özkan, T. (2024). Sosyal Medya Kullanımının Kadınlarda Beden İmajı ve Benlik Saygısına Etkisi. Aydın Sağlık Dergisi, 10(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.ASD.2015.007/asd_v010i3005
49. Türkiye Beslenme Rehberi (2022). (TÜBER 2022), 2022. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayın No: 1031, Ankara https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/web-uygulamalarimiz/357.html [accessed 26.02.2026].
50. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World population prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423). United Nations.https://www.un.org/es/desa/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights [accessed 26.02.2026].
51. World Health Organization (2000). Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic (WHO Technical Report Series No. 894). World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/42330 [accessed 26.06.2025].
52. Xu, Y., & Zhao, F. (2023). Impact of energy depletion, human development, and income distribution on natural resource sustainability. Resources Policy, 83, 103531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103531