Scientific Knowledge Shaping Perceptions of Bioengineered Food

Home , Library (biology), Plant genetics

The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine

Honors College

Spring 5-2021

Scientific nowledgeK Shaping Perceptions of Bioengineered Food Among Undergraduate Students

Kathleen Tims

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors

Part of the Biology Commons, Food Science Commons, and the Other Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering Commons

This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SHAPING PERCEPTIONS OF BIOENGINEERED

FOOD AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Kathleen Tims

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors (Biology)

The Honors College

University of Maine

May 2021

Advisory Committee: Ek Han Tan, Assistant Professor of Plant Genetics, Advisor Seanna Annis, Associate Professor of Biology and Mycology Mark Haggerty, Associate Professor, Honors College Jeremy Parker, Lecturer in Composition and Creative Writing Rachel E. Schattman, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Agriculture

ABSTRACT

While commonplace in our grocery stores, GMO-foods have persevered through years of controversy. As the availability of bioengineered (BE) commodities grows and biotechnical industries make strides, studies have shown that the average consumers’ knowledge concerning biotechnology has not. In addition to widely held misconceptions and the general lack of knowledge regarding bioengineered commodities reported by young adults, especially students, the recent United States Department of Agriculture mandate for BE product labeling prompts further research into the consumer perspective on bioengineered products. This research looked to expand upon prior work regarding students’ individual perspective towards topics such as GMOs, knowledge of BE products, and BE labeling. A survey was designed for this project and administered twice to the students of the Fall 2020 BIO 350 Concepts and Applications of Genetics course.

Approximately sixty-five evaluable responses to the pre- and post-surveys were compared and statistically analyzed to determine trends after completing a full semester of an undergraduate genetics course. This work found that, while students tend to have optimistic and increasingly positive attitudes towards GMO foods and the BE label, they often struggle to relay their objective knowledge on the subject. Similar to findings by

Hallman et al. (2013), another key result was an apparent discrepancy between students’ high self-reported familiarity with BE foods and the actual availability of BE foods.

Considering their growing presence in our food systems, scale of public misconception, and the approaching BE labeling compliance date, consumer concerns and attitudes towards GMO products and bioengineering must be evaluated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Ek Han Tan, my phenomenal advisor, for his enthusiasm and dedicated guidance throughout this project. I thank him for his unwavering patience and encouragement to share my work with others. I need to thank Mark Haggerty for being a fantastic mentor and for continuously challenging me to use my own voice and trust myself. Without you, I fear I would have lost my sanity last summer. I am eternally grateful to John Jemison and want to recognize him for being the first to seed a stance on GMOs on this campus. I am kvelling in appreciation and admiration for Melissa Ladenheim and all her support. I would like to thank my thesis committee for their investment, valuable input, and assistance with this thesis writing experience. You have all been an influence, small or large, in my academic path here at

UMaine and I would like to thank you for seeing potential in my work.

I am thankful for every safety meeting the neighbors ever held; I am thankful for my soccer team and their hard work in that dome; I am beholden for all my dad’s insight and my mom’s strength; and I am indebted to Sydney for the will to spring out of bed every morning and encouragement to get my roll on.

This thesis project was not my first experience in academic research, and it shall not be my last, but it was a valuable experience, and I am extremely proud of what I have accomplished. I spent a great deal of my time at the University of Maine trying to determine and define my honors endeavor, all I have learned is that hopefully I never stop searching for it.

PREFACE

Genetic modification (GM) describes a broad category of techniques that are used to modify heritable traits in organisms. Defined as “the production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods'' (USDA, n.d.-a), genetic modification includes techniques such as simple selection, in vitro fertilization, embryo rescue, and mutagenesis. Genetic engineering is another specific type of genetic modification. The United States

Department of Agriculture defines genetic engineering (GE) as the “manipulation of an organism's genes by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as recombinant DNA techniques'' (USDA, n.d.-a). The term genetically modified is often used synonymously with genetic engineering, however they are treated differently regarding their regulation in the United States. Not all GM techniques fall under regulation in the United States, whereas products of GE do fall under specific regulatory standards (National Academies of Sciences et al., 2016; National Academies Press,

2004).

In response to recently passed legislation, the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) set forth rules for the labeling of foods that undergo recombinant

DNA modification involving transgenesis, in which the modification involves integrating synthetic sequences or gene sequences from another species into the plant or animal genome and the resulting food product contains these transgenes and gene products. The

USDA defined foods resulting from this process to be bioengineered foods (Agricultural

Marketing Service, 2018). The United States Code defines bioengineered (BE) food as

containing “genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques” and having undergone such a modification that “could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature” (Agricultural Marketing

Service, 2018). This can be confusing, as GE and BE are both types of genetic modification. In attempt to clarify their difference, GE refers specifically to the process of creating a genetically engineered organism, whereas BE refers specifically to the resulting food product of a GE event. Regulatory definitions must be set by respective agencies in order to make decisions and develop standards for their use, however all three terms (GM, GE, and now BE) are defined and used differently by other countries, agencies, and individuals (Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects et al., 2016; WHO, n.d.). The U.S. Food & Drug Administration

(FDA) even refers to them interchangeably, explaining that “‘GMO’ has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering” (Nutrition, 2020). Genetically modified organisms (GMO) is a term that is believed to have come from public use in the media and has become commonplace in research and regulatory terminology (Edmisten, 2016), everyday usage of GMO is often synonymous with genetic engineering or GE. Bioengineering, or BE, is posed to join these terms as a flexible term to describe the use of recombinant DNA technology in new development of food products.

While now commonplace in our grocery stores, GMO foods have persevered through years of controversy. Human consumption of GMO foods, produced with bioengineering to make genetically modified organisms, initiates a conversation that often carries negative connotations and a cloud of confusion to the average consumer.

Genetically engineered food products have been available to the consumer since the

1990s, when Flavr Savr tomatoes first reached our grocery store shelves (Wunderlich and

Gatto 2015). Since then, the biotechnology industry, along with the cultivation and adoption of genetic engineering, also known as bioengineering, has steadily grown.

While science and industry are making strides, the average consumer and their knowledge of GE have not. In a 2016 study, Pew Research Center found that a majority of their American participants responded as unsure when asked if genetically modified foods were safe to eat (Pew Research Center 2016). Consumers across the globe are being asked to make educated food choices and are confronted with a lack of knowledge, clarity, and many general misconceptions. Many consumers fear foods labeled with the phrases “GMO” or “produced using genetic engineering,” and are unsure of the risks these foods may pose.

The 2016 Pew Research Center study also found that younger adults are more likely to consider the health risks of GM foods than older age groups (Pew Research

Center 2016). The lack of education and prevalence of common misconceptions around

GMO products held by younger groups, especially academics, is quite concerning. A study conducted in Poland found that a majority of the students surveyed believed that

GMOs would have negative influences on human health and the environment (Zajac et al.

2012). Similar sentiments are felt in the U.K. where aversion to GMO products is high and, as a result, many people support strict trade barriers that pose challenges in our global marketplace (Wunderlich and Gatto 2015). Other studies have found that young students report having very little knowledge about GMOs and frequently evaluate food produced using GMOs as “risky for all living things” or “dangerous and unfavourable”

vii

for human health (Jurkiewicz et al., 2014; Turker et al., 2013). This research project analyzed the perception of biotechnology from the younger consumer perspective, including the political, cultural, and moral issues with which global consumers might concern themselves. Both the general lack of knowledge regarding genetically engineered commodities reported by young adults, including students, in recent studies and the new

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service mandate for the labeling of foods products derived from bioengineering calls attention to and prompts further research into consumer perspective on BE products.

By garnering feedback from my surrounding academic world, this project sought to better understand both the student perspective towards GMO products and the position of biotechnology in its relationship with the marketplace and the public’s food choices.

As we approach the January 2022 compliance date for food manufacturers, importers, and retailers to mandatorily label and disclose relevant information about their products, we must be mindful of the implications it may have for the consumer as well.

Considering their growing presence in our food systems, consumer concerns and attitudes towards GMOs and BE food products must be evaluated. Gaining information about consumer concerns and attitudes will help prevent public misconception, spread awareness, promote education, and help the average customer make informed decisions about their wellbeing.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I: Introduction Global Spread of Genetically Modified Organisms 1 Context of GMO Food Products in the United States 7 Education and Consumerism Choices Around BE Food Products 22

Chapter II: Methodology Research Questions 27 Survey Methodology 27 Analysis Methods 29

Chapter III: Results 33 General Attitude Towards GMO and BE Food Products 34 General Attitude Towards the BE Label and Desire for a BE Food Label 37 Perceived Familiarity and General Knowledge of GMO and BE Foods 42

Chapter IV: Discussion 50

Chapter V: Conclusion 58

References 61

Appendices 71

Author’s Biography 80

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. Timeline illustrating the history of genetic engineering and its relevant 3 applications.

Figure 2. United States regulatory agencies responsible for regulating GE crops 8 under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.

Figure 3. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard label options. 12

Table 1. Important dates from the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure 13 Standard.

Table 2. Open-ended questions associated with general attitude towards GMO 34 and BE food products.

Figure 4. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey questions related to general 36 attitude towards GMO and BE food products on a Likert-scale.

Table 3. Open-ended questions associated with general attitude towards the BE 38 Label and desire for the BE label.

Figure 5. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey questions related to general 40 attitude towards the BE label on a Likert-scale.

Figure 6. Summary plot of pre-survey to post-survey response to Question 12, 42 related to perceived familiarity of GMO and BE foods.

Table 4. Open-ended questions associated with perceived familiarity and factual 43 knowledge.

Figure 7. Word cloud of students’ list of foods they identified as BE food products 44 from pre-survey and post-survey responses to Question 3.

Figure 8. Summary plot of pre-survey to post-survey response to Question 9, 46 related to factual knowledge of BE foods.

Figure 9. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey response to questions 48 related to factual knowledge regarding GMOs and genetic engineering.

Appendix A: Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey questions. 72

Appendix B: Codebook for the Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey. 73

Appendix C: Observed trends based on shift in paired response code to open- 79 ended questions in the Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Global Spread of Genetically Modified Organisms

We can credit Gregor Mendel and his peas or Watson and Crick for their astounding discoveries in genetics and DNA structure, along with many other members of the science community who have played roles in our current understanding of evolution and genetic phenomena. However, humans have long been involved in influencing the evolutionary course of all living things. Propagating organisms through selective breeding, that is the human-assisted, artificial selection of plants or animals with more desirable traits is something that humans have been actively doing throughout their history. Besides helping our ancestors domesticate animals such as livestock and dogs, artificial selection has played a major role in changing the features of our agricultural plant products and influencing crop genetics (Rangel, 2015). Modern genetic modification however is cited to have made its start after discoveries made in 1973, when

Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen came together to produce the first viable genetically engineered organism, a new bacteria-resistant and transformed E. coli species (Cohen et al., 1973; Rangel, 2015). This was quickly followed by an experiment in which Rudolf

Jaenisch and Beatrice Mintz injected mice embryos with viral DNA and successfully rendered healthy, mature mice that carried detectable virus-specific DNA (Jaenisch &

Mintz, 1974). People, including scientists, governments, and the public, all began to ponder the potential biohazards that this type of genetic technology may have on environmental and human health. In response to this widespread uncertainty, the National

Academy of Science issued a halt to all research involving recombinant DNA technology until further global safety standards could be addressed (Berg et al., 1975). At the

Asilomar Conference of 1975, guidelines for proceeding with innovation in GE technology, including regulation for development, future safety protocol, and expected communication within the scientific community, were set and many governments around the world moved forward to support and continue GE research (Berg et al., 1975; Rangel,

2015). As also explained in their summary statement, National Academy scientists at the conference agreed that the future of genetic engineering technology and, “the use of recombinant DNA methodology promises to revolutionize the practice of molecular biology” (Berg et al., 1975). This promise has been kept as global research advances and the genetic revolution remains underway.

Since then, recombinant DNA technology has become a pivotal center of scientific innovation and industry development, and genetically modified organisms are used in food manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and antibacterial research, and in helping us to grow crops more efficiently. The products of genetic modification can even be patented, since the 1980 ruling in the United States Diamond v. Chakrabarty case (U.S.

Supreme Court, 1980). Genetically engineered crops for insect-resistance or herbicide- resistance are now commonplace on industrial farms across the globe. As of 2014, twenty-eight countries were growing biologically engineered crops with the United States as the lead producer of BE produce (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). The U.S. now accounts for about forty percent of the GMO crops grown globally, followed by Brazil, Argentina, and Canada (Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015).

Figure 1. Timeline illustrating the history of genetic engineering and its relevant applications. The horizontal axis represents time beginning 1950 to 2025 with five-year increments. Scheduled 2022 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard compliance date is indicated as well.

While GM technology has established a foothold in research in some countries, others remain vehemently opposed to genetic engineering and its products. Strong public opinions have even pushed some countries to prohibit GMO foods from even entering the country. As of 2015, thirty-eight countries, including Russia, Germany, and France, had enacted bans on the cultivation of GM crops and many have prohibitions on their importation. Some countries, including some in the EU, do cultivate GM crops, but have a comprehensive and restrictive regulatory approach towards GM products. The

European Union has had a history of several traumatizing food crisis cited to have created a culture of public wariness and lack of trust in regulatory authority and uses a slower multi-step approval system guided by the precautionary principle approach that errs on the side of risk-protection and caution when deciding how to treat GM crops and foods

(Lau, 2015; Tiberghien, 2009). Many hesitant countries in the EU have also even adopted a safeguard clause that allows them to restrict or ban the cultivation of EU-approved

GMO crops (Papademetriou, 2014). GM approved foods must also follow strict labeling guidelines in Europe (Lau, 2015), along with thirty-seven other countries around the world that now require mandatory labeling of GMO foods and products containing GMO ingredients (Genetic Literacy Project, 2016).

In addition to the wide-ranging international approach towards regulation, cultivation, and distribution of GMO products, consumer preference is diverse within and among regions. Studies have shown that consumers in some countries, such as Canada,

South America, and Columbia, tend to be more willing to purchase or consume GM-food products, especially when offered with cost savings or purported health benefits (Curtis et al., 2004; Vermeulen et al., 2020). In Brazil, the second largest producer of GM crops in the world, citizens instead attribute their support for GM applications to the economic benefits that GM crops pose for their agricultural industry and other societal benefits, including reduced pesticide use and increased food security (Capalbo et al., 2015). The

Capalbo et al. (2015) study found a majority of Brazilians to carry positive attitudes towards terms such as genetic engineering and 45% of participants agreed that food production using transgenic plants was ethically acceptable (Capalbo et al., 2015).

Gaskell (2000) findings suggest that consumers in Greece, Austria, and Luxembourg tend to hold disapproving public opinions on biotechnology and its application, whereas consumers in the Netherlands, Spain, and Finland carry the most supportive notions, and the public attitudes of the British, Germans, and Belgians fall somewhere in the middle.

Supporting studies reported that consumers from Japan, South Africa, and the U.S. demonstrate the most positive views towards genetically modified foods, unlike reproaching consumers from Australia, Europe, New Zealand, Singapore (Li & Bautista,

2019), China (Cui & Shoemaker, 2018), Italy (Wolf et al., 2012), and Poland (Jurkiewicz et al., 2014). Compared with consumers in other countries, American shoppers reported considerably low preferences for non-GMO or GMO-free foods and almost half of surveyed consumers don’t even consider whether foods are genetically modified when buying food (International Food Information Council, 2018; Wolf et al., 2012).

Differences in public attitude towards GMO foods are seen across the globe: proponents of positive associations tend to be rooted in trust in science, safety, and regulatory authority and cognizant of the potentials that GM technology holds, anti-GM movements often focus on environmental or health concerns and some groups hold traditional religious or philosophical views adversarial to their widespread adoption (Moon &

Balasubramanian, 2000; Pew Research Center, 2016). Whether you think GMOs are part of the solution in feeding our growing world or you fear them, the genetic modification of food remains a highly politicized topic and global consumer perceptions remain ambivalent and very variable across countries (Marris, 2001).

Compared to the rest of the world, the United States has far more GM crops approved and available in food retail (GEO-PIE, 2003; Lau, 2015). Whether or not

American consumers are aware, a majority of processed foods in the U.S. market contain

GM ingredients (Pew Research Center, 2016). Despite a lack of wide-spread awareness,

United States consumers stand spread across this issue with an estimated one-in-six

Americans caring a great deal about GM foods in the U.S. marketplace (Pew Research

Center, 2016). Studies show a broad spectrum of individual understanding of bioengineering, public desire for a BE label, and the level of concerns or fears that consumers have with GMO foods and genetic-modification technology. Many surveys

have shown that Americans have heard “nothing” and have limited knowledge about bioengineered foods (International Food Information Council, 2018; Pew Research

Center, 2016). U.S. consumers also often report thinking genetically modified foods are worse for a person’s health than other foods and have a hard time estimating the amount of food they eat that contains GM ingredients (International Food Information Council,

2018; Pew Research Center, 2016). Popular controversies like the Frankenstein food advertisement campaigns ran by Greenpeace, the StarLink corn incident, or the Losey,

Rayor, and Carter (1999) study that inaccurately reflected the effects of Bt corn pollen on

Monarch butterflies have all fueled negative public perceptions of GMOs (CCR, 2017;

Genetic Literacy Project, 2015). Berated by robust lobbying efforts made by GMO seed companies and vigorous marketing campaigns of GMO critics, American consumers are struggling to define their attitudes and make informed decisions about GMOs and BE products. People and their eating habits have become sources of social, economic, and political discussion. Given their entanglement in our food system, the relationship between the attitudes of the American public and GM food products will play an important role in our future.

Context of GMO Food Products in the United States

The United States began its first approach to biotechnology regulation in 1986 by publishing the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (Office of

Science and Technology Policy, 1986). This framework gave the combined responsibility of rulemaking regarding the products of biotechnology to the United States Food and

Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Depending on the characteristics and the intended purpose of the GE crop event, one or all three of the agencies may be involved in evaluation and regulation (Figure 2). The 1986 announcement of policy provided the groundwork for the

U.S. in its approach to this new conversation, but was without mention of how products produced using biotechnology must be labeled (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). In addition to giving assurance to the public and to industry, the Coordinated Framework federal policy functioned to describe the expected roles of the Biotechnology Science

Coordinating Committee, made up of the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA, in coordinating policy and moving forward in interpreting and reviewing GM techniques (Office of

Science and Technology Policy, 1986). As stated in the 1986 framework, this document,

“anticipates that future scientific developments will lead to further refinements,” and would evolve to confront the concerns of consumers and adapt to protect the public, the industry, and scientific research (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1986).

U.S. Department of e.g. MON 88702, Agriculture - Animal Plant Bt Cotton Resistant to Health Inspection Service e.g. GD743, Tarnished Plant Bug Evaluates plants with potential plant-pest risks Arcticâ “Golden Delicious” Non- browning Apple

U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration U.S. Environmental Ensures safety of food Protection Agency and crops to be used for Regulates and restricts human and animal pesticide use consumption

Figure 2. United States regulatory agencies responsible for regulating GE crops under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Constituting the Coordinated Framework, these three federal agencies hold authority for biotechnology products according to their respective legislative scope. As seen in two examples, responsibility can fall under all three agencies, as in the MON 88702 event, or under the oversight of two agencies, seen with the GD743 event.

Further strides in regulation were not made in the United States until 1992, when the FDA published their Statement of Policy regarding genetically modified food products (Food and Drug Administration, HHS, 1992). This statement approached the issue of food labels and declared that GM food products did not require a food label, explaining that this new method of food production was indifferent, non-concerning, and did not contain any “material” facts that needed to be disclosed in a label (Food and Drug

Administration, HHS, 1992). The FDA reviews food safety concerns based primarily on the characteristics of the food product itself, rather than the process by which it was made. This regulation style has also been applied when determining the safety or potential hazards of genetically engineered food products (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013).

The statement did go on to describe certain scenarios, such as food safety or food

identity, that may require a label, however, no such labels for genetically modified food have ever been required by the FDA in the United States (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013).

Release of the statement prompted immediate protest by a group known as the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. In subsequent action, however, their lawsuit against the FDA 1992

Statement of Policy was rejected. Against the interests of protestors, this case deemed the

FDA to be both reasonable and, unless required to estimate a potential risk posed by GM food, without authority to even mandate such labeling (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013).

Despite the years of support and controversy around biotechnology and food products, little legislative progress made changes since the decisions made in 1992. In

2001, a notice of draft guidance was issued by the FDA describing options for the voluntary labeling of GM foods and non-GM foods (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). This guidance still remains unfinalized and thus unofficial in guidance for either GM or non-

GM food labelling (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013). Some states also began initiatives to create labeling policies for genetically modified food products, but few were noteworthy past their proposals. The state of Alaska announced, and in 2005, enacted, legislation that required a label on genetically engineered fish products sold within the state (Senate Bill

No. 25 “An Act Relating to Labeling and Identification of Genetically Modified Fish and

Fish Products.,” 2005). Connecticut, in 2013, and Maine, in 2014, were successful to have both adopted GMO labeling laws, however this labeling was only required if four other Northeastern states enacted similar labeling rules (Agricultural Marketing Service,

2019; Harvell, 2014; Mosier et al., 2020).

Expanding upon the progress made by Alaskans for GM fish products and in response to their own consumer calls, Vermont became the first state in the nation to also

pass a compulsory law mandating the labeling of all genetically engineered food products. After the law, Act 120, was passed in 2014, and the Consumer Protection Rule

121 was developed, the requirement for proper labeling in Vermont became effective as of July 2016 (Office of the Vermont Attorney General, n.d.). Nearly all food products that include genetically engineered ingredients are required to have the label in Vermont, however the state was selective in excluding cheese, key revenue in the state’s agricultural industry, and meat from animals consuming grain derived from genetic modification (Strom, 2016). Withstanding only one crack in pressure to consumer fears and activist protest about GM food labeling, the United States FDA did make moves to exclude GM food from meeting the criteria of being labeled certified organic under their

National Organic Program (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013).

Finally, steps were taken toward defining regulatory standards for GM food labeling in the United States in August 2016 when President Obama signed S.764 “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes” (Wicker, 2016). Sponsored and written by Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, the law assembled measures to create a national food disclosure standard for bioengineered food products, giving the USDA responsibility to monitor and enforce this new standard under the FDA’s Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Wicker, 2016).

After becoming public law, the USDA was given two years to determine a protocol to implement standards for the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law and regulations for the new bioengineered food label (Wicker 2016). Upon the arrival of

2018, the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) ruled that all food, ‘‘that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature,” is considered to be bioengineered and must carry a label disclosing such information (Agricultural

Marketing Service, 2018). Under the new National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, a series of compliance dates was set by the USDA, informing manufacturers and the public of the expected agenda for this label.

The bioengineered food disclosure law does exist to be in the service of both national and global consumer attitudes. The proposition, evaluation, and finalization all included a series of public consideration and commentary periods, requesting to hear the support and concerns of all of those involved. In designing the new Standard, input was taken from many voices across our food system, including farmers and agricultural organizations, food processors, manufacturers and retailers, consumers, regulators, and even international governments (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018). Consumer input was considered specifically when drafting the terminology for the “bioengineered” definition and which foods should require such a label. Along with the new Standard the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) also developed a “List of Bioengineered Foods” to help consumers and regulatory agencies easily identify the globally available BE foods

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018).

Figure 3. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard label options (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018).

Besides functioning as a means for a common label and a long set of rules for the food industry, the AMS tried to include standards that were straightforward and flexible in order to best minimize the challenges of adopting and complying with the new label. In helping retailers and regulatory entities minimize implementation costs, there are several disclosure options including text, symbol (Figure 3), electronic or digital link, text message or phone number, and web address (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018).

Also, in consideration for all members of the United States food industry, the AMS’s carefully crafted agenda aims to help minimize costs that could be passed onto consumers

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018). In addition to acknowledging costs associated with a new label, the compliance dates outlined by the NBFDS are staggered to put pressure on larger food manufacturers and retailers, while giving more time to smaller entities faced with the new stress of evaluating and relabeling their products (Table 1).

The NBFDS also provides permission for the voluntary use of the new label and included voluntary compliance dates as part of the staggered course of action for some entities whose food products may not fit the criteria for mandatory disclosure (Agricultural

Marketing Service, 2018). While this may seem unattractive to a hesitant consumer, both food companies and consumers have expressed interest in increased transparency between food manufacturers and food retailers and consumers (Agricultural Marketing

Service, 2018). Based on feedback heard in the comment periods, the AMS will allow food manufacturers to disclose that their processed food contains ingredients derived from a bioengineered source, even if the modified genetic material is not detectable in the food as to provide this information to consumers. A voluntary label helps provide maximum clarity and avoids the presentation of misleading and confusing information

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2018). The new United States regulation, under the

NBFDS, aims to meet the needs of our national food and agricultural industries, everyday consumers, and global markets. In serving to keep the public informed, it will be very interesting to observe how the BE food label will play a role in the evolution of consumer perception.

Table 1. Important dates from the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Published in the Federal Register Final rule establishing the new NBDFS, this table outlines the implementation and compliance dates set forth by the USDA-AMS for all regulated food manufacturers. Effective Date February 19, 2019 Implementation Date January 1, 2021 Extended Implementation Date (for January 1, 2021 small food manufacturers) Voluntary Compliance Date January 1, 2021 Mandatory Compliance Date January 1, 2022

Although definitive regulation for genetically engineered foods and a BE food label are just making their way to the United States food system, these products have been present in our crop fields and ubiquitous on our grocery store for decades. In hopes of predicting how consumers may react to the BE label, the USDA looked to gather

information in a Regulatory Impact Analysis of the NBFDS. This 2019 report found there to be few ongoing studies regarding how the United States public might feel about the new BE label and, by extension, BE foods. Comparisons of past market observations, hypothetical experiments with consumers, and consumer preference surveys yielded paradoxical results (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019), suggesting that we will see anything from strong consumer reactions and the ousting of BE foods from United States food markets to situations where there is very little, if any, consumer reaction. The annual

International Food Information Council (IFIC) Food and Health survey of 2018 found that two in five American consumers consider the genetic modification of foods when deciding between what foods to buy, and it may be a shock to many consumers when this new label appears on products. Other reports also show that Americans have an overwhelming support for product labeling in general (Mosier et al., 2020; Wolf et al.,

2012). Polls consistently show between 70 and 95% of surveyed Americans wanting

GMO foods to be labeled (Mosier et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2012), suggesting that consumers are enthused about this new label mandate. While this may be true, Americans are also very often unaware that a label for GM food has not already been mandatory in the United States (Hallman et al., 2013), and studies suggest that adoption of the new label may likely go unnoticed by a majority of American consumers (Mosier et al., 2020).

Besides the analysis done by the USDA Regulatory Impact Analysis, limited studies have been published specifically concerning American consumers and their predicted perception of a new GMO-associated food label. The few available, such as Mosier,

Rimal, and Ruxton (2020) or Pew Research Center (2001), have indicated that the new label, indicating the presence of GMO ingredients in Americans’ food products, may be

likely to sway consumer preferences. These studies, however, remain unsure as to how much of a shift will be seen.

The emergence of the new BE label may not have huge impacts shifting consumer behavior because consumers oftentimes do not even notice the information presented on their food labels (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019; Magat & Viscusi, 1992).

Consumers may be failing to pay as strong attention to these labels as one might think; a concept vouched for by Noussair et al. (2002), “what is not read in the laboratory will probably not be read in the supermarket”. Noussair et al. (2002) found that subjects in his study were likely to overlook information on food labels and that a product label that flagged GM ingredients did not have any impact on the amount that participants were willing to pay for the product. Multiple studies have also found that European consumers were even unlikely to change their purchasing behavior or change their estimation of product costs because of a GM label (Kalaitzandonakes et al. 2005; Noussair et al. 2002).

This suggests that shoppers may not be as judicious when making quick choices between items on a grocery store shelf. While some consumers may be neglecting the information in front of them, negligible shifts in consumer purchasing decisions may also result because consumers already have information about BE and non-BE food products due to the existing non-BE food label.

The “Non-GMO Project” was formed in 2007 to provide a third-party label, of non-federal and non-profit status, for certifying non-genetically engineered food products

(Non-GMO Project, 2020). Not all non-bioengineered foods carry the non-GMO label, however there are over 50,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products and publicly available information about the food products in the United States that are produced

using bioengineering (Marchant & Cardineau, 2013; Non-GMO Project, 2020). Those consumers who are interested and willing to pay price premiums for non-GMO or organic certified foods have likely already made changes with their food preferences and the BE label will help provide consumers with additional reliable information

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019).

Despite forecasts predicting that consumers may not change their shopping habits, contrasting studies have found significant differences in consumer behaviors when faced with decisions involving foods and new product labels (Crespi and Marette 2003; Rousu et al. 2005; Costanigro and Lusk 2014; Liaukonyte et al. 2015). These behaviors tend to sway away from choosing GMO labeled food products, when given the option, suggesting that consumers’ attitudes towards GMO may play a role in this decision- making. Strong consumer rejection of GM-labeled goods has been observed in many countries that have enforced GM label mandates, suggesting that a new, clear label standard may also dismay American consumers (Bovay and Alston, 2016; Carter and

Gruère, 2003; Gruère, 2006). Other studies also suggest that substantial reactions may stem from individuals viewing the BE label as a warning label, indicating possible health or safety concerns (Bar-Gill et al., 2017; Sunstein, 2017). This ‘bad label’ misconception could drive consumers’ fears and prompt broader changes in the United States food industry. When drafting the NBFDS, many organizations and companies urged the

USDA not to use the term “bioengineered” but instead, more familiar terms such as,

“GMO” or “genetically modified” (Jaffee, 2019). The USDA, however, determined that,

“bioengineering and bioengineered food accurately reflected the scope of the disclosure and the products and potential technology at issue (Agricultural Marketing Service,

2018),” and also indicated that it would initiate outreach and education programs for the new disclosure and the term “bioengineered” (Jaffee, 2019). Further affirming this stance, a study done by IFIC in 2018 compared various mock labels and found that the label carrying the word “bioengineered” appeared to be the most communicative about BE

(International Food Information Council, 2018). Unlike the BE label designed by the

USDA-AMS, this survey found that a majority of American participants favored the smiling sun logo; this image provided the right amount of information and was associated with the least concern and lowest amount that consumers would pay for a bioengineered food (International Food Information Council, 2018). There have been no other published studies to date regarding how consumers feel about the new BE label in regard to attractiveness or connotations that the label might carry (Agricultural Marketing Service,

2019).

Although we don’t know how consumers will be feeling about the label, we do know what exactly they will be seeing before January 1st, 2022 (Table 1); the bioengineered product disclosure can appear on labels in a few different ways. Either the front of the product label or the information panel will feature the approved new symbol, a text disclosure, a digital disclosure, or a text message disclosure (Agricultural

Marketing Service, 2018). Bioengineered agricultural commodities or products that contain bioengineered ingredients can have a text disclosure indicating it is either a

“bioengineered food(s)” or “contains bioengineered food(s)”. Instead, it can also carry the new symbol disclosure, seen on product labels as a small circular picture displaying a sun shining above a cheery farm landscape framed by the word, “bioengineered,” or,

“derived from bioengineering”. The electronic disclosure is another option that prompts

consumers to, “scan here for more food information,” similar to the text disclosure option, that would provide a telephone number to which customers can call or text to find more information about the product. These disclosures must all appear prominently and clearly, according to AMS regulation which has been cited to be a very important factor for consumers who want a “clear, on-package label or symbol” (Agricultural Marketing

Service, 2018; Mosier et al., 2020).

In estimating how the market will react to this disclosure, the 2019 Regulatory

Impact Analysis analyzed a situation in which they predicted how the new BE label would cause changes to our food system. The situation estimated that the combined consumer reaction to the BE label would cause changes in product preferences and shifts in manufacturers' decisions to avoid labeling to affect only 20% of BE food products

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019). This approximate was reasoned by the ambiguity in consumer valuation and real-life market behaviors and small anticipated industry shifts

(Knight et al., 2007). They also supported their prediction indicating that the disclosure itself, being either written disclosure, symbol, text message or a QR code, was also designed in hopes of minimizing any negative associations that consumers may have.

Other studies have found that consumers prefer food disclosure information through graphic labels, compared to a text disclosure or a QR code, and that participants are often unlikely to scan QR codes (NBFDS RIA 2019; McFadden and Lusk 2017). In addition to these predictions, the AMS analyzed the manufacturing costs associated with reformulating products to no longer contain BE ingredients and found that these changes would likely cost 5% to 15% more and make these products more expensive for consumers (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019; Kalaitzandonakes & Kauffman, 2010).

Some studies doubt that consumers are willing to follow their preferences to cover these new costs, as reinforced by the statistically small market shares accounted for by similar product purchases, like organic foods or non-GMO foods (Greene et al., 2017). The costs for food manufacturers to reformulate their products to exclude all BE food products would be expensive and more challenging, putting a higher price tag on products that consumers will not likely be happy to switch to (Agricultural Marketing Service, 2019).

These predictions all indicate there will be a change in consumer preference that drives manufacturing decision-making, however it is unlikely that these alterations will be monumental. The broad range of consumer and market reaction studies can only predict what the future holds.

In terms of the new BE label, there is little known about which consumers will be affected the most or what factors will be most important to their purchasing decisions. As seen with similar products such as organic foods, price and product availability are major shopping factors that could be associated with alterations in behavior (Mosier et al.,

2020). Changes in the price and availability of GM-labeled products could be major influences on consumer purchasing behavior. From the few studies available, significant differences in attitudes towards BE foods have been observed between consumers of different age groups, gender, and those with other common shopping habits, such as inclination towards buying organic, however, identifiers such as political party and attitude toward climate change have not been found to correlate in how consumers perceive GMO foods. Younger shoppers are a subpopulation that seems to care significantly more about GMO foods and food labeling (IFIC, 2018; International Food

Information Council, 2020; Pew Research Center, 2016). The 2018 IFIC survey found

almost half of their participants in the 18 to 24 age range were either entirely trying or somewhat trying to avoid GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2018).

Compared to older age groups, young adults are more likely to view GM foods as worse for one’s health (Pew Research Center, 2016). Female shoppers are often in agreement with that negative perception. Both the 2016 Pew Research Center Consumer Survey and their past 2014 survey found women to be more likely than men to care about the issue and also say that foods with GM ingredients are worse for one’s health (Pew Research

Center, 2015, 2016). Likewise, consumers who are more frequent shoppers of organic food products are also more likely to view foods with GM ingredients as unhealthier options (Pew Research Center, 2016). A label is likely to create an impact on these customers who already indicate their concerns for GMOs and conventional agricultural practices. For those who seem to have undecided or indifferent views, a BE label may not change preferences and will likely even go unnoticed. This category of customers interestingly includes those focused on healthier and nutritious options, as there was found to be no significant difference between these consumers and those with little or no focus on a healthier lifestyle. Studies also show that political party and attitude toward climate change have not been found to have any correlation in how GMO foods are perceived (Pew Research Center, 2016). Democrats and Republicans, even those polarized towards more conservative or liberal ideologies, report holding similar views on eating GM foods and the effects they might have. Regardless of gender or political identity, a majority of Americans have been found to care at least somewhat about the

GM foods issue (Pew Research Center, 2016). Whether or not GM foods is a topic

important to each and every consumer, it is critical that consumers also understand what their food labels actually mean.

Education and Consumerism Choices Around BE Food Products

Although a majority of American consumers are calling for a label (Mosier et al.,

2020; Wolf et al., 2012), the reported literacy regarding bioengineering and BE food products suggests that there is actually widespread public misconception on the issue

(International Food Information Council, 2018; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Americans are often confused about the effects of genetically modified foods and have been reported to carry conflicting attitudes; American consumers expressed both optimism, supporting the likelihood of GM foods to increase the global food supply and lead to more affordably priced food, and pessimism about the consequences of GM foods, expecting them to create problems for the environment and also lead to health problems for the population as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2016). Participants were evenly split between all these issues and found to have very mixed expectations. In addition to confusion on the issue itself, a label poses another barrier between information and consumer expectation. Many consumers often fail to understand what food labels actually mean (Mosier et al., 2020). Recent reports identified that 40% of American consumers know very little or nothing at all about bioengineered foods, it is likely that the average person will also misunderstand what a BE food label intends to articulate (International

Food Information Council, 2018). Many may have no knowledge of the new ruling and unsure of what the label means. There is concerning disparity between support for labeling and awareness of current labeling and also a significant lack of information to support predictions on how American consumers may react to this new BE food disclosure. Market observations and consumer surveys predict a variety of outcomes and

the majority of research will have to just wait in anticipation of the label’s appearance on our everyday commodities.

While these studies and predictions are so far inconclusive, it is well-established that education is a major influence on how people perceive science-related issues and also make decisions regarding their health (Allum et al., 2008; Pew Research Center,

2015). This includes food safety decisions, as science knowledge was found to be a sizable influence on how Americans viewed the safety of various food topics, including

GM products. Education is a major factor in how consumers are making decisions, especially regarding issues identified as having widespread misconception (Hallman et al., 2013; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). We must promote education supporting public awareness and understanding of biotechnology and genetic engineering if people are expected to properly interpret labels and make informed decisions about their food choices.

The everyday consumer is an agglomeration of every social group, identity, age, and status. All of these consumers are approaching their food choices with whatever prior knowledge or experiences they have encountered. Thus, this broad range of attitudes can be deep-rooted in misconception and lack of information or established in trust and knowledge. Both subjective (what people think they know) and objective (what they actually know) knowledge are important variables influencing consumer attitude and decision-making (Maes et al., 2018; Wu, 2013; Wunderlich & Gatto, 2015). Many studies have indicated that acceptance of GM is strongly correlated with having higher levels of objective and subjective knowledge on GM-related topics (House et al., 2004;

Maes et al., 2018; McComas et al., 2014; Mielby et al., 2013; Moon & Balasubramanian,

2001). Lower levels of knowledge about GMOs can be accompanied by feelings of precaution for GM crop production and consumption (Turker et al., 2013; Wunderlich &

Gatto, 2015). A deeper understanding of the actual science behind genetic modification may be a large factor in mitigating negative associations with GM foods (Hoban and

Katic 1998). It is well-documented that education level plays a large role in how humans make decisions about their diet and health (Braveman & Gottlieb, 2014; Puduri et al.,

2010; Teisl et al., 1999; Vecchione et al., 2015) and that new information can sway these consumers’ opinions (Huffman et al., 2007; Lusk et al., 2005). The International Food

Information Council (2020) consumer survey found that education level could affect consumer shopping habits; when comparing to consumers with less than a college degree, college-educated consumers indicated that they would likely keep purchasing a previously-purchased product despite seeing a new BE label (IFIC 2020). On the other hand, less-knowledgeable consumers, reporting their lack of prior information, have been found more susceptible to altering their habits when presented with new information

(Huffman et al., 2007). To some populations, specifically younger consumer groups or those newer to the study of science, the new BE food label could likely present attitude- forming and habit-changing information. These relationships also suggest that consumers may be more inclined to demonstrate more positive and accepting attitudes towards

GMOs and BE foods after being supported with adequate additional information. Wu

(2013) argues that knowledge acquired in a science classroom can serve as an important tool for students’ conceptual understanding of socio-scientific issues, such as BE foods

(Wu, 2013). Whether public opinions will change towards BE foods when presented with

more information, knowledge about GM food products remains essential to shaping an individuals’ attitudes about GM food products (Costa-Font et al., 2008).

This work seeks to answer how consumers’ perceptions may change after provided with more information; specifically, how undergraduate students’ perceptions of

BE foods may change after provided with a full introductory course in genetics. I am interested to know more about how the label will represent this issue, in providing information and appealing to the prior knowledge that consumers may have. Americans have consistently demonstrated their interest in requiring a label for such products, however now that it will appear on their shelves, how are American consumers going to react? Do they really care about the issue, going so far as to alter their shopping habits or change their consumerism choices? To answer these questions, we must continue to explore the factors that influence consumer perception on the issue and the feelings or habits that consumers have when confronted with decisions involving bioengineered food products. We must also consider the ways that education can be used as a tool to help these consumers make knowledgeable and reasonable decisions based on the reliable information displayed by food labels. BE labeling poses a relevant and understudied area, yet it is expected that the issue of GMO or BE product labeling will continue to persist in the media coverage, in public policy debates and federal legislatures, and in everyday consumer conversations. The “war on science” and the spread of disinformation has established a new public health crisis, wherein the general public is often misinformed on health and science-related decisions (Nguyen & Catalan-Matamoros, 2020). Consumers deserve the right to make informed health related decisions, including the food they choose to eat. The GMO-food-safety debate has much wider implications for our food

markets and global retailing, agricultural production systems, and research and the biotechnology industry and prompts further attention to the matter.

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Research Questions

This research project did not aim to promote or disparage individuals’ beliefs about genetic modification or the consumption of BE food products, rather it looked to observe current students’ perceptions and attitudes towards bioengineered foods and their place in the United States food market. This work was motivated by three research questions: (1) What is the current student perspective on GMOs and bioengineered food products? (2) What are students’ attitudes towards the BE label? (3) How does education influence the way students perceive GMOs and make decisions about BE food products?

Methodology

This work was based on a survey that was conducted in the framework of Maes et al. (2018). A survey was designed to collect information on students’ perspectives on food label perceptions, focusing on how the new BE label might affect their attitudes towards BE derived food products. The brief but comprehensive survey contained 16 questions arranged as short open-ended and Likert-scale questions (Appendix A). All questions were designed to gauge individual attitudes towards topics such as GMOs, knowledge of BE products, BE labeling, consumption and safety. This survey used the terms “genetic engineering”, “bioengineering”, and “genetic modification” interchangeably. These terms were not specifically defined for respondents prior to taking either the pre-survey or post-survey. The sampling was done as a pre-survey in

September 2020 and again as a post-survey in December 2020, at the start and at the end of an undergraduate introductory genetics course taught at the University of Maine, BIO

350 Concepts and Applications of Genetics. With the help of Dr. Tan, professor of BIO

350, student participants were requested to complete the questionnaire for additional assignment points allocated to their grade. The surveys were distributed digitally to approximately two hundred students enrolled in the fall 2020 course and results were collected following the closure of the digital survey. A total of 65 student respondents participated with evaluable answers, excluding blank or double-entry submissions and unpaired pre-and post-responses.

This project employed a survey that was designed as a general consumer survey, but this work not considered representative of the population. These surveys only sampled a population of students enrolled in the undergraduate introductory genetics course (BIO 350 Concepts and Applications of Genetics) at the University of Maine. This course is a prerequisite for most science majors; therefore, enrollment numbers are consistently large, of approximately 170 students, and includes students from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. Although this is a larger-enrollment course, the majority of students were in biology, biochemistry, or microbiology programs and following pre- medical studies or pre-veterinary sciences tracks. This course covered basic biological processes, such as molecular genetics and the central dogma, cell division, sexual reproduction and heredity, gene expression and complementation, mutation and epistasis, cancer genetics, population genetics and evolution, gene sequencing and genetics research. A lecture on recombinant DNA technologies and the creation of transgenic plants and animals was part of the genetics curriculum, but the mention of the BE food

label law was not included. Specifically, there was no direct intervention or specific instruction about questions from this survey; students were expected to take their basic conceptual knowledge and apply is to the factual questions surrounding GE and BE food products. It should also be noted that the Fall 2020 BIO 350 course was instructed entirely remotely, due to University-related COVID-19 protocols.

Analysis Methods

The results of these surveys were analyzed in two steps. First, this project aimed to quantitatively analyze the results of the open-ended responses (Question 1 through

Question 6) from surveys by employing emergent coding methods, wherein a codebook was developed, evaluated, and organized during the coding process. The details of the coding process are fully described in Appendix B. To develop the codebook, all the written responses to the open-ended survey questions were read to identify similar words, phrases, themes, or identifiers that may be present in the responses. Themes and codes emerged through this process, reflecting the research questions and relevant literature, and common “themes” were identified. Themes were then consolidated into “emerging codes” according to what each question was designed to understand. The “emerging codes” were then grouped into major “code” categories “Positive Attitude about BE

Foods”, “Neutral Attitude about BE Label” or “Negative Attitude with appearance of BE

Label” for the final analyses. These codes were used to qualitatively distinguish or count responses and report comparisons between the data.

In general, responses coded as having positive attitudes often contained themes such as “harmless/safe” or “healthy/better for you” or “natural/environmentally

conscious”; responses coded as having negative attitudes often contained themes such as

“risky” or “unnatural”; and responses coded as having neutral attitudes often contained phrases such as “I don’t know” or “No opinion”. Some responses were coded as having unsure attitudes, representing responses that cited both positive and negative themes, confusion about the question, or sharing skepticism of the idea in question. When possible, responses were categorized according to the respondents’ personal feelings (e.g.

“I feel”), and not generalizations about the public or speculations on others’ attitudes (e.g.

Most people probably feel”). For Question 1 to Question 6, some questions were also subject to having multiple codes applied to them, for example a response such as this:

“This label makes it seem like bioengineered foods will bring you happiness and are healthy” (44, PREQ1), could be coded as both having a Positive Attitude about BE Foods and having a Positive Attitude about the BE Label. Questions that were coded in multiple ways may be used to explain more than one section of results and are included in tables in each respective results section. Situations also occurred in which some responses did not contain sufficient information to warrant a code and thus some questions report having a total number of coded responses in which n ≠ 65.

These codes were used to make assumptions about the population’s attitude or level of knowledge. They were also used at an individual level, when comparing data between the pre-survey and post-survey, in making assumptions about changes in attitude, change in level of knowledge, or trends that may be present. All open-ended questions (Questions 1 through Question 6) were statistically analyzed using a chi- squared test to provide p-values in determining significance between the pre-survey and

post-survey data sets. The pre-survey data was treated as the expected frequency, whereas the post-survey data was used as the observed frequency.

The responses to Likert-scale questions (Questions 7 through Question 16) were converted to ordinal factors, such that responses for strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree or disagree (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). The pre and post data were then graphed using the Likert package in R. The linked pre and post pairs for Likert-scale questions were statistically analyzed using a paired t-test to provide p-values in determining significance differences between the pre-survey and post-survey data sets.

Parametric analysis approaches, such as a paired t-test, are appropriate for aggregated rating scales, such as Likert-scales, when reviewing data from a normally distributed, reasonable, and similar sized sample population with continuous variables (Harpe, 2015).

These Likert-scale questions were viewed and measured with the expectation that an individual has rated their feelings, attitudes, or perceptions related to a series of individual statements or items (Harpe, 2015).

Trends reported from either of the open-ended or Likert-scale questions were generated via comparison of how individual responses changed between the pre-survey and post-survey. A change towards having a more positively coded response (e.g. the change from neutral to positive, the change from negative to neutral) was given +1, the change towards having a more negatively-coded response (e.g. the change from positive to neutral, the change from neutral to negative) was given -1, and no change in the coded response (e.g. neutral coded pre-survey response followed by a neutral coded post-survey response) was given a 0. A value was assigned for each individual’s coded responses, and the trend value represents an average based on the direction of a change. Additional

details of the observed trends and how they were determined are described in Appendix

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Based on our analyses of the open ended and Likert-scale questions, we were able to place our pre- and post-survey questions into three broad categories: (1) General attitude towards GMO and BE food products, (2) General attitude towards the BE label and desire for a BE food label, and (3) Perceived familiarity and general knowledge of

GMO and BE foods. Altogether, after a full semester of genetics coursework, most of the students’ attitudes towards GMO foods and BE food products were coded as positive and became increasingly positive. These students also expressed their attraction to the BE label, most responses were coded as having positive association with the characteristics of the BE label and a majority of students shared an interest in having a label on genetically engineered foods. Despite having high levels of self-perceived familiarity and showing growth in answering questions related to basic theoretical knowledge on genetics, these students struggled to relate their knowledge to applied questions about genetic engineering and identify the bioengineered foods currently available to them.

General Attitude Towards GMO and BE Food Products

In their responses to both the pre- and the post-surveys, a majority of students responded with generally positive attitudes towards GMO and BE food products. In

Question 1, after seeing the new BE disclosure label BE food, 46% of responses from the pre-survey indicated positive feelings on the subject, compared to the 6% of students reported negative sentiments, and 23% who relayed neutral feelings (Table 2). Of those

30 students who held positive attitudes towards BE products and GMO-foods, 20 total students cited that it was likely an enhanced, healthier, or better food choice and 6 students cited that they felt GMO/BE was crucial for human and environmental sustainability. Although total number of coded responses to Question 1 in the post-survey held similar results to the pre-survey, there was a slight shift away from these positive and unsure attitudes driven by some students’ shift towards negative and neutral coded responses (Table 2).

Table 2. Open-ended questions associated with general attitude towards GMO and BE food products. Questions from this table were coded from short open-ended responses to Question 1 (see Appendix B). The mean of total sample column represents the proportion of coded responses from all evaluable responses to the pre-survey or post-survey question, where n = 65. Question From Response As Mean of Total Sample Significance Survey Coded Pre-Survey Post-Survey

1. After seeing this Positive towards 46% 38% p-value = label, what are GMO/BE food 0.01 your initial Neutral 23% 38% thoughts and how do you feel about Unsure 15% 6% bioengineered foods? Negative towards 6% 8% GMO/BE food

These positive attitudes towards GMO foods and BE food products were reinforced by students’ responses to Question 7 and Question 14. A majority of students chose “agree” when prompted with the statement: Bioengineered foods are safe to eat

(Question 7), in both the pre- and the post-surveys. In fact, not a single respondent chose either “disagree” or “strongly disagree” to the statement in the post-survey. Similar sentiments were seen in Question 14; 67% of students chose either “disagree” or

“strongly disagree” in their pre-survey response to the statement: Genetically modified food is unhealthy (Question 14). The number of positive responses increased in the post- survey for both questions, with 83% of students agreeing that BE foods are safe to eat

(Question 7) and 76% of students disagreeing with the view of GM food being unhealthy.

Overall, after the course, students’ responses to Question 7 were observed to shift significantly towards agreement that BE foods are safe to eat and students’ responses to

Question 14 were observed to shift towards disagreement that GM foods are unhealthy

(Figure 4). Results from Question 7 and Question 14 also demonstrated the strongest trends, both towards students’ having increasingly positive-coded responses towards these questions after completing a full semester of genetics (Appendix C, details on observed trends).

Figure 4. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey questions related to general attitude towards GMO and BE food products on a Likert-scale. Survey question 7 and 14 are presented here are indicated in the above plots. The top chart represents Question 7, in which 62% of the population in the pre-survey and 83% of the population in the post-survey selected responses of agreement to Question 7. The bottom chart represents Question 14, in which 69% of the population in the pre-survey and 75% of the population in the post-survey selected responses of disagreement to Question 14. Responses were plotted in the 1-5 scale and corresponds to 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The asterisks refer to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in pre-survey and post-survey responses (see Appendix C).

General Attitude Towards the BE Label and the Desire for a BE Food Label

In regard to the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard label, soon to mandatorily appear on the labels of food products in the United States, many students indicated positive characteristics and shared an interest in their food bearing such a label.

Of those who shared attitudes regarding the BE label aesthetic in Question 1, the number of students who reflected positive connotations of the label vastly outweighed the number of students with negatively associated attitudes towards the label (Table 3). Few negative responses were shared, 2 in the pre-survey and 3 in the post-survey, but included statements such as, “My initial thoughts would be to walk away from the product it sounds as it has been genetical modified, however, it would likely not deter me from the food product as many packaged food as well as produce undergo human alteration” (26,

PREQ1), or, “After seeing this label, I thought about human intervention in nature.

Bioengineered foods are created for the sake of better crop yields with hopes of decreased percentage in plant disease/destruction by insects. While I do understand the use of pesticides and other chemicals, I find myself leaning more towards organic produce” (38,

PREQ1). Results from Question 1 also demonstrated a positive, although slight, trend towards students’ having increasingly positive attitudes towards the BE label (Appendix

C, details on observed trends). This trend was supported by a stronger positive trend observed in Question 11 (Figure 5), yet qualified by a slight trend towards more negative attitudes of the label observed in Question 5 (Table 3).

Table 3. Open-ended questions associated with general attitude towards the BE Label and desire for a BE food label. Questions from this table were coded from short open-ended responses to Question 1, Question 4, Question 5, and Question 6 (see Appendix B). The mean of total sample column represents the proportion of coded responses from all evaluable responses to the pre-survey or post-survey question, where n = 65. Question From Response As Mean of Total Sample Significance Survey Coded Pre-Survey Post-Survey 1. After seeing this Positive toward 46% 38% p-value = label, what are your BE label 0.01 initial thoughts and how do you feel Neutral 23% 38% about bioengineered Unsure 15% 6% foods? Negative toward 6% 8% BE label 4. Do you think Yes, wants BE 85% 78% p-value = genetically label 0.32 engineered foods should be labeled, Neutral 6% 6% and why? Unsure 3% 5% No, does not 6% 11% want BE label 5. Would it make it Positive view of 22% 11% p-value = more or less BE label 0.03 attractive for you to buy a food if it Neutral 43% 60% began to carry a Unsure 8% 5% label such as “derived from Negative view 28% 23% bioengineering” or of BE label “produced with genetic engineering”? 6. Should it be Yes, desire for 46% 32% p-value = mandatory that foods label 0.003 are labelled if they contain DNA? No, no desire 40% 63% for label Unsure 2% 2%

Studies have found that the majority of Americans desire a label on food products that have ingredients that have been produced using genetic engineering (IFIC, 2018;

Rozansky, 2016). Student participants in this survey were also observed to have an overwhelming interest in the labeling of BE foods. Question 4: “Do you think genetically engineered foods should be labeled, and why?” yielded a majority of pro-labeling responses and an interest in a BE food label from students in both the pre-survey and in the post-survey. Some of their reasoning included the desire to have more labels on food, health concerns, increased trust in the food industry, or wanting to have the personal or philosophical choice available. The most popular reason for wanting a BE food label in both surveys, however, was seeing the issue as a matter of public information and that

“people have the right to know” what they are purchasing and consuming.

Additionally, when put into the context of a consumer setting as in Question 8 or

Question 11, students’ views towards the BE label and shopping habits were found to be similarly accepting of the label (Figure 5). After the genetics course, the change in responses in Question 8 demonstrated a statistically significant change resulting in increased disagreement towards paying a price premium for a non-GMO banana.

Likewise, students’ responses to Question 11 demonstrated a statistically significant shift resulting in increased disagreement towards refusing BE labelled dog food. The shifts observed in Question 8 and Question 11 are shifts towards having a more positive attitude towards BE food products.

Figure 5. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey questions related to general attitude towards the BE food label on a Likert-scale. Survey question 8 and 11 are presented here are indicated in the above plots. The top chart represents Question 8, which demonstrated a significant change associated with increasing responses of disagreement in the post-survey. The bottom chart represents Question 11, which also resulted in a significant change associated with increasing numbers of students selecting responses of disagreement in the post-survey. Responses were plotted in the 1-5 scale and corresponds to 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The asterisks refer to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in pre-survey and post-survey responses (see Appendix C).

However, when asked if the label would make a food produce more or less attractive (Question 5), many participants held more neutral views (Table 3). Typical statements such as, “I would be indifferent, as long as the taste/quality of the product was the same” (45, PREQ5), or, “I personally don't think it would change the way that I view the foods I purchase but others may be impacted by the addition of a label” (25, PREQ5), were prevalent. Other responses included more polarized statements, such as, “for me it would make it a little more attractive because I know something was done to make the product better (59, PREQ5),” or, “I feel like It would make me not want to buy that food

item because bioengineering or genetic engineering doesn't seem natural. It is kind of scary what they can do with technology now and that's why I would turn away from buying something with that label” (53, PREQ5).

It is also worth noting that many of those who reported having positive associations with the GMO or BE food products also indicated attraction towards the BE label. Cross question comparison found that 73% of students in the pre-survey and 76% of the students in the post-survey who felt generally positive about GMO foods also shared positive connotations of the label and its aesthetics; seen as such, “I feel like this label is very green and friendly which makes me feel like bioengineered foods are healthy” (35, POSTQ1).

Perceived Familiarity and General Knowledge of GMO and BE Foods

Both Question 3 (Table 4) and Question 12 (Figure 6) asked students to self- report their perceived familiarity with the issue of BE foods. Consistent between both

Question 3 and Question 12 and in both surveys, a majority of students feel that they are

“familiar with products in the supermarket that are genetically engineered” or “have heard, read, or seen a lot about GMO foods”. While their responses indicate broadly perceived familiarity, few students were able to accurately articulate what

“bioengineered” means or correctly identify the BE foods that are available to them.

Figure 6. Summary plot of pre-survey to post-survey response to Question 12, related to perceived familiarity of GMO and BE foods. Survey question 12 is presented here. A majority of the population, 58% of students in the pre-survey and 58% of students in the post-survey, selected responses of agreement to Question 12. Responses were plotted in the 1-5 scale and corresponds to 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Table 4. Open-ended questions associated with perceived familiarity and factual knowledge. Questions from this table were coded from short open-ended responses to Question 2, Question 3, and Question 6 (see Appendix B). The mean of total sample column represents the proportion of coded responses from all evaluable responses to the pre-survey or post-survey question, where n = 65. Question From Response As Mean of Total Sample Significance Survey Coded Pre-Survey Post-Survey 2. Please answer this Correct 45% 45% p-value = question in your own Subjective 0.1 words. What is the Information difference between Incorrect 40% 48% food derived from Subjective genetically modified Information organisms (GMO) and food products that Unsure 15% 6% are bioengineered (BE)?

3. Are you familiar Familiar 65% 72% p-value = with products in the 0.16 supermarket that are Unfamiliar 35% 28% genetically engineered? What “GMO foods” or “foods produced with genetic engineering” have you eaten? 6. Should it be Correct 43% 52% p-value = mandatory that foods Subjective 0.22 are labelled if they Information contain DNA? Incorrect 8% 9% Subjective Information Unsure 49% 38%

Question 3 asked students if they were familiar with products in the supermarket that are genetically engineered and to report what “GMO foods” or “foods produced with

genetic engineering” they had eaten. In both the pre- and post-survey, the majority of students felt familiar, but students suggested over fifty crops or foods that are not currently available bioengineered food products available in the United States (Figure 7).

The top foods identified by students did correctly include corn, potatoes, and apples.

However, the current production of the bioengineered potato varieties and bioengineered apple varieties, the Innate Potatoä (Simplot) and Arcticâ Apple (Okanagan Specialty

Fruits), are both relatively minor in the United States. There was not a single mention of papaya, sugar beet, cotton, alfalfa, or Pink Glowä pineapple, all BE crops that are deregulated and available for purchase or use in food production in the United States.

Figure 7. Word cloud of students’ list of foods they identified as BE products from pre- survey and post-survey responses to Question 3. This figure represents the collection of over fifty different food items shared in response to Question 3, which asked students to identify the GE food products were available to them in the grocery store or report which GE food products they had eaten.

While perceived familiarity is high, factual knowledge is a struggle even for science-focused students, as seen in the literature (AbuQamar et al., 2015; Laux et al.,

2010). In attempts to gauge students’ factual knowledge about GMOs and BE foods,

Question 2 (Table 4) and Question 9 (Figure 8) found students to report having limited knowledge on what exactly “bioengineered” means. In Question 2, only 44% of students

were coded as being able to correctly identify GMO and BE to be the same or similar terminology. Similar results were demonstrated in the Question 2 post-survey with 45% of students being coded as able to correctly explain the relationship. The number of students coded as having incorrect information, describing differences between GMO and

BE food production, was observed to increase in the post-survey. Inaccurate statements often referred to GMO and BE food production as different processes or being used for different purposes; typical responses included: “Genetically modified organisms is where you modify the food all the way down to it's DNA, in it's genes. Bioengineered food is where you take food that is engineered in different soils or under different environments to find what works best to grow the best crop” (21, POSTQ2), or “BE foods are created by altering the RNA. GMOs are more specific and change an aspect of the plant such as making it grow with out so much water” (23, POSTQ2). In the Likert-scale question portion, Question 9 asked students if “Foods are not considered BE as long as something contains less than five percent of bioengineered ingredients.” When prompted to respond to the true statement about the characterization of BE defined food, only 9% of students in the pre-survey were observed to correctly agree to the statement (Figure 8). The number of students correctly agreeing to the statement only reached 16% of students when asked again in the post-survey. The majority of students, in both surveys, selected

“neutral” and were unable to pick out a key standard for defining a BE food product. It should be noted that in the curriculum of BIO 350, students were exposed with introductory material relating to recombinant DNA as well as transformation process from which transgenic organisms were created, but the BE labeling was not discussed.

Figure 8. Summary plot of pre-survey to post-survey response to Question 9, related to factual knowledge of BE foods. Survey question 9 is presented here. A majority of the population, 63% of students in the pre-survey and 51% of students in the post-survey, selected “neutral” as a response to Question 9. Responses were plotted in the 1-5 scale and corresponds to 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

There are essential aspects of biology that can easily be overlooked when asked to dive into the details of gene transcription or cell division. DNA is the material that all growing animals and agricultural crops use in biological mechanisms for development, growth, and reproduction. In this survey, students were asked to form an opinion regarding if foods that contain DNA should mandatorily bear a label (Question 6). When asked at the beginning of the semester, a majority of students indicated “Yes” coding statements (30/65), 26 total students responded statements coded with “No,” and only 1 respondent was coded as unsure (Table 4). From these responses, 28 respondents referred to the naturally occurring genetic component in grown food with correct statements and 5 responses included incorrect statements regarding the presence of DNA in grown foods.

Upon the follow-up post-survey questioning, the majority of students indicated “No”

(41/65), with 21 “Yes” responses and only 1 respondent unsure. In these post-survey responses, 34 people used correct information in their statements and 6 responses

included false information. Results from this survey question were similar to previously made observations, the Gaskell et al. (2006) study found that 47% of Americans also disagreed with a similar statement about the presence of DNA in tomatoes (Gaskell et al.,

2006). Although “Yes” statements were not codified as presenting incorrect information,

93% of individuals in the pre-survey and 95% of individuals in the post survey that responded “Yes” did not articulate knowledge recognizing that all raw agricultural products naturally contain DNA; for example: “Yes 100%, people have the right to know what they are puting in their body” (41, POSTQ6), or, “I think it should because again it could make people more aware of what they are consuming and allow people to choose other options if they are very against food like that” (58, PREQ6).

Figure 9. Summary plots of pre-survey to post-survey response to questions related to factual knowledge regarding GMOs and genetic engineering. Survey question 13 and 16 are presented here are indicated in the above plots. The top chart represents Question 13, in which a majority of students, 54% in the pre-survey and 57% in the post survey, selected correct responses of disagreement. The bottom chart represents Question 16, in which a majority of students, 55% in the pre-survey and 44% in the post survey, selected “neutral” as a response. The number of correct responses to Question 16, in disagreement, did however increase in the post-survey. Responses were plotted in the 1-5 scale and corresponds to 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. The asterisks refer to statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in pre-survey and post-survey responses (see Appendix C).

Even after a full semester of genetics, some students exhibited confusion on biological phenomena and genetic technology in real-world applications. Students were asked to present knowledge about GMO foods with Question 13: “Inserting a gene derived from salmon has the potential to make a tomato taste slightly fishy,” a false statement. Correct responses, either “disagree” or “strongly disagree”, were selected by

54% of students in the pre-survey and 57% of students in the post-survey (Figure 9). The option for “disagree” was the most selected response in the post-survey. Students were also asked to make an objective statement in response to Question 16: “A genetically

modified corn's DNA is toxic to the insect pest that eats the corn,” a false statement.

Results of the surveys found the number of those supporting correct answers, either

“disagree” or “strongly disagree”, to increase from 22% to 31% (Figure 9). A majority of students, however, were unable to and instead selected “neutral” in both surveys. These results frequently found there to be a distinct lack of understanding of what exactly

“bioengineered” means and what food “produced with bioengineering” is. Also, individuals’ responses trended in both Question 13 and Question 16 towards the ability to select a correct answer indicating that students’ ability to report their factual knowledge likely improved over the semester (Appendix C, details on observed trends).

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

Although this survey was designed to gauge the attitudes of general consumers, results of this work cannot be expanded to represent larger populations. This research sampled a specific population of students enrolled in the undergraduate introductory genetics course (BIO 350 Concepts and Applications of Genetics) at the University of

Maine. These students are not representative of undergraduate students, as a subpopulation, or of young adult consumers, as part of the U.S. population. This group is described as majority undergraduate students in biology or similarly STEM-focused

(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) programs, all having taken prerequisite courses in biology and chemistry. Students involved with STEM-educational curriculums are expected to have higher levels of scientific literacy, compared to non-

STEM students or average consumers (Kusumastuti et al., 2019; Shaffer et al., 2019).

While results of this work cannot expand to estimate perceptions of the American public, students in STEM fields make up an estimated 18% of the students graduating with

Bachelor of Science degrees in the United States (National Center for Educational

Statistics, 2019). This research could be relevant to future studies of the United States food system and in developing effective educational strategies.

Students’ responses to this survey were generally characterized by positive associations to GMO and BE foods and the BE label. Although other studies have found that younger adults are often more hesitant or fearful of GMO food products, these young adult students shared relatively positive notions about GMOs (Jurkiewicz et al., 2014;

Pew Research Center, 2016). As suggested by Laux et al. (2010) and Tegegne et al.

(2013), the population of this study, being science-based majors in a genetics course, may

demonstrate a more accepting and positive attitude towards GMOs and BE foods than the general population. After completing this genetics course, students did display some significant shifts in their attitudes regarding BE foods and the BE label. Responses to

Question 7 demonstrated a significant change resulting in an increase in agreement towards the safety of consumption of BE foods. In addition, responses to Question 8 and

Question 11 both demonstrated significant changes resulting in increased disagreement to pay a price premium to avoid a GMO food item and disagreement to refuse purchasing a

BE labeled dog food. This work suggests that students were not more concerned or fearful of GMOs or BE foods after having this experience in a genetics course. Responses to other Likert-scale questions reinforced this notion; responses to Question 10 observed a slight shift towards disagreement that GE tech poses a danger, responses to Question 14 shifted towards disagreement that GM food is unhealthy, and responses to Question 15 saw a slight shift towards disagreement that GE food is dangerous. These results suggest that this intervention, participation in a full semester of a genetics course, did not make these students increasingly opposed or concerned with GMO safety, consumption of foods labeled with the BE food disclosure.

Students’ self-reported familiarity was also higher than expected; 58% of students in the post-survey felt they had, “heard, read, or seen a lot about GMO foods,” where the most recent Rutgers University survey found only 43% of their participants knowing that

GM products are sold in supermarkets (Hallman et al., 2013). This suggests that students may feel more familiar with GMO and BE foods after having completed a genetics course, even though they were not specifically exposed to information about BE foods, food law, or GM regulatory processes. Although students were observed to feel familiar

with GMO food products, most students reported food items that are not globally or nationally available bioengineered food products. Only thirteen BE crops or foods are currently in global legal production: alfalfa, Arctic Apple, canola, corn, cotton, eggplant, papaya, pink-fleshed pineapple, potato, AquaAdvantage salmon, soybean, summer squash, and sugarbeet (Agricultural Marketing Service, n.d.). In responses to the survey, there was no mention of papaya (all papaya grown in the United States is considered BE), sugar beet (almost all sugarbeet in the United States is considered BE), cotton, alfalfa, or pink pineapple (expensive and only sold in California and Florida). Corn was the most cited food item in the survey, correctly identified as all corn sourced from the U.S. should be presumed to be bioengineered corn (Agricultural Marketing Service, n.d.). Potatoes and apples were also in the top 5 cited food items, although the current U.S. production of the bioengineered Innate Potato and of bioengineered Arctic Apples is relatively minor, and it is unlikely that these students have ever seen, purchased, or eaten a BE potato or BE apple. This discrepancy between consumer knowledge of available GMO foods and the actual availability of GMO foods is not a new phenomenon. In a Hallman et al. (2013) study, a majority of their participants reported misinformation about which varieties of GM foods are sold in the United States with over half of participants mistakenly believing that products such as bioengineered tomatoes, wheat, and chicken are sold in the United States.

It is also not surprising that students’ self-perceived familiarity was high, compared to their ability to report objective knowledge. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known cognitive bias that explains how people tend to overestimate their ability or confidence in a subject, when, in reality, they lack competence in that skill or topic

(Kruger & Dunning, 1999). These physical science-major students likely feel that they are well versed and able to explain their knowledge of GMO or BE food products, however they are under an illusion that makes them unaware of their lack of expertise.

Despite being physical science-based major students enrolled in a genetics course, respondents’ inclination towards science did not aid their ability to correctly answer questions about genetic phenomena, the definition of bioengineering, or applications of biotechnology. Young adults, even university students, have been found to consistently demonstrate poor understandings of biotechnology (AbuQamar et al., 2015; Maes et al.,

2018). Past research has also shown that students may not readily apply their scientific knowledge when explaining complicated biological processes (Newman et al., 2012).

This lack of understanding is worrisome, yet pervasive throughout GMO foods’ history.

Students participating in this study did demonstrate a trend towards the ability to select a correct answer, in both Question 13 and Question 16, suggesting that the genetics course helped give students the chance to build a foundation and apply critical thinking skills to genetics related concepts. This was consistent with results from Question 6, regarding the mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA. The number of correct responses given in the post-survey increased from the number of correct responses given in the pre-survey and was at a level above what previous studies have seen (Gaskell et al., 2006). The many statements of agreement, however, indicate a gap in these students’ understanding of natural biological processes applied in a real-world agricultural setting. This course was not designed to increase students’ exposure to GMOs or biotechnology, however students seemingly struggled to let their learned objective information and influence their perceptions on broader concepts, such as agriculture or food safety. This experience also

did not significantly influence students’ responses to Question 9; however, this is not a course goal and individual students would have only had exposure to information on food law or agricultural policy in other settings. Through a variety of survey questions, students were able to relay objective knowledge regarding GMO foods and bioengineering. Discrete questions may be easier for this population to grasp, as suggested by the majority of students’ difficulty to demonstrate their comprehension of genetic phenomena in the context of other settings. While establishing their basic conceptual knowledge on genetics, students’ may not easily apply this knowledge to the factual questions surrounding GMOs and biotechnology. After completing a full semester of education in a genetics course, these students did show growth in their understanding of the theoretical, such as gene manipulation and examples of genetic engineering, however there was less change in students’ comprehension of applied topics, such as biotechnology, agricultural practices, or food regulation.

Most importantly, I think that the link between knowledge and attitudes cannot be ignored. Scientific literacy and having objective information about GMO food products in general is key in shaping consumers’ attitudes toward the issue (Chrispeels et al., 2019;

Ghasemi et al., 2013; House et al., 2004). According to Lederman et al. (2014), scientific literacy refers to having the knowledge and understanding of scientific processes and products that are necessary for making personal or societal decisions (Lederman et al.,

2014). To make decisions about BE foods and the application of biotechnology, students must have a basic understanding of genetics and awareness of GMO foods. This type of knowledge has been found to have positive correlation with GMO acceptance and positive-associations towards GMO foods (Chrispeels et al., 2019; Maes et al., 2018).

Some of these students did report successfully integrating information they had learned in

BIO350 into their perspectives. This resonated through some students’ responses to the survey, for example, “After learning more about bioengineering I don't feel threatened by it so I would still buy the products. I think people who don't know too much about it would be afraid to buy that stuff” (53, POSTQ5), or “Seeing this label, and applying what

I know about BE foods, I feel as though the food that had this labels safe to consume and a good product” (2, POSTQ1). Students may be more likely to have positive associations with BE foods as they continue to be exposed to science-grounded information. Students’ educational background, including their BIO350 Genetics coursework, and material learned in the classroom may play an important role in how students form attitudes towards GMO foods.

Other studies suggest that subjective knowledge may be even more important in shaping attitudes towards GMOs than objective knowledge (Maes et al., 2018). There is research that supports an existing association between perceived familiarity (or subjective knowledge) and attitude towards food products (Li & Bautista, 2019; Maes et al., 2018).

Examples of this include a study in Belgium that found subjective knowledge to be positively related to willingness to eat GM crops in school children (Maes et al., 2018) or other studies where U.S. consumers with greater subjective knowledge tend to be more likely to have positively associations with attitude towards consumption of organic vegetables or Korean foods (Phillips et al., 2013; Pieniak et al., 2010). Increased subjective knowledge results in positive associations that extend beyond positive feelings about the issue of GMO foods. Comparison of the multi-coded responses to survey

Question 1 found that 73% of students in the pre-survey and 76% of the students in the

post-survey who felt generally positive about GMO foods also shared positive connotations of the label and its aesthetics. Responses such as this: “I feel like this label is very green and friendly which makes me feel like bioengineered foods are healthy” (35, POSTQ1), would be coded as both positively associated with GMO foods and positively associated with the BE label. Results of this survey found that a majority of students felt familiar with GMO food products and their availability in our food system and also carried positive associations with the BE label. Responses such as this, “my impression of this label on bioengineered foods is that they are meant to seem safe to eat and similar to the everyday foods we eat” (37, PREQ1), suggest that initial consumer perceptions of the BE label may reinforce these positive feelings. Familiarity with a food label is a major influence in consumers purchase preference (Bialkova & van Trijp,

2010). Increasing consumers’ familiarity towards BE foods will also likely increase their confidence in foods bearing the new BE label.

Although subjective knowledge may be crucial to shaping students’ attitudes, people with higher subjective knowledge have been found to be less influenced by new information. This stresses the need for education, providing individuals with objective scientific information, and early education (Lusk et al., 2004). Objective knowledge, gained by education, and subjective knowledge, gained through exposure and familiarity are both key in how consumers receive and relate to an understanding of what GMO or

BE actually means. They serve as crucial variables to be analyzed in better understanding how consumers perceive products of bioengineering.

The general positivity BE foods demonstrated by students in this survey also carried attitudes of acceptance and tolerance for the presence of BE foods in our

marketplace. Consumers do have the choice to use new products or innovations, and this label functions to help provide consumers with information that may help them make these choices. House et al. (2004) suggests that consumers with higher self-reported knowledge, such as these students, are less likely to seek information about a product before coming to a decision about the product (House et al., 2004). This notion supports what was observed in this survey; on average, students claimed to be familiar and have broad awareness of GMO food products yet reasoned their positive-feelings or acceptance towards GMO foods without having critically analyzed their decision. Many of these students shared feelings of nonchalant acceptance without retrospective reasoning, conscious research, or analytical action. To some students, there wasn’t even an argument against their place on supermarket shelves: “It seems like most everything we grow and eat today is bioengineered, which we all just have to accept” (24, POSTQ1).

Typical statements such as, “...I'm sure most all of the foods I've eaten had some genetically modified ingredients since they're so widespread...” (42, PREQ3), or

“...mostly everything we consume is or has been genetically engineered” (24, POSTQ4), or, “I personally don't really care, I'm sure most of the food I eat is derived from bioengineering” (57, PREQ5) all carried implied approval of BE foods. Overall, reception to this survey took on a theme that cast bioengineered food as the “new normal”. Younger generations, ones who missed the Flavr Savr tomato and Monsanto controversies, may not realize how activism and consumerism can influence the presence of BE food in the United States. Lack of opposition by younger consumers may be giving

BE foods the green light. Positive associations with GMO foods has also been tied to how familiar consumers are with their prevalence (Pew Research Center, 2001). The Pew

Research Center (2001) study found that after learning that over half of foods available in grocery stores contained GM ingredients, 20% of American participants who originally held negative perceptions of GMO foods changed their minds. Students aware of the prevalence of BE foods in our food system may be more inclined to share positive perceptions. As more BE foods advance to our grocery store shelves, now highlighted by their new label, consumer acceptance may continue to grow.

This work is limited by its expandability. The population of this survey was limited to a unique group of undergraduate students, studying in physical science-based programs and enrolled in this genetics course. Unlike its typical instruction at the

University of Maine, this course was also instructed completely remotely due to COVID-

19 protocols. This may play a role in students’ experience and their ability to interact with the material in the course. This survey was designed to use a mix of both positively- worded and negatively-worded questions to control for acquiescence bias and prompt critical thinking in responses. Although the survey was designed to appear as an unbiased, uninfluential assessment tool, six of the ten Likert-scale questions were associated with negative-word use. This could introduce a source of error into the interpretation of survey results and the validity of evidence for determining relationships between responses and participants’ attitudes. Despite these limitations, this work aims to cast attention to a specific subpopulation and how their attitudes and perceptions may be relevant to predicting the current student perspective on GMOs, bioengineered food products, and the BE label and assessing how education may influence the way students make decisions about BE food products.

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

Young adults, especially students, represent an important segment of United States consumers. Although they may not be representative of the general publics’ perception, their feelings and shopping habits will shape the future of our food industry. Results from this survey suggests that populations of younger adults enrolled in STEM-programs may be feeling more positive and accepting towards BE food products. Similar to published studies on students all over the world (Chrispeels et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2012;

Prokop et al., 2007; Usak et al., 2009), learning students struggle to relay their learned objective knowledge on applied issues of biotechnology. However, a full semester of genetics coursework students in this study did demonstrate increased levels of theoretical knowledge on basic genetics concepts, increased feelings of familiarity, and increased positivity in their attitudes towards BE foods and the National Bioengineered Food

Disclosure Standard label. Knowledge, both objective and subjective, is key in shaping an individual’s attitude (Maes et al., 2018; Muniady et al., 2014). Unfortunately, consumers must not only become more familiar with genetic phenomena and learn more about applications of gene technology. They also must bridge the gap between personal bias, understanding of food systems and industry, knowledge about agriculture, media presence, and more.

Bioengineering is rapidly developing in agricultural research and pharmacological innovations in the United States (Usak et al., 2009; USDA, n.d.-b), unseeingly alongside the general public awareness of their presence. Consumer acceptance will play a key role in the success of any novel technologies or products in our food system. It is crucial to

take into account consumers’ perceptions of food products as they work their way into broad availability (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020). Students are a large consumer group and can play a major role in changing the future of GMO and BE. Bioengineered foods will be well on their way being part of the “new normal” in our food system without oppositional behavior from consumers. We must support students and help them acknowledge the stake they have in the future and their responsibility as citizens to participate in shaping that future (Liu, 2019).

REFERENCES

AbuQamar, S., Alshannag, Q., Sartawi, A., & Iratni, R. (2015). Educational awareness of biotechnology issues among undergraduate students at the united arab emirates university. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 43(4), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20863

Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). List of Bioengineered Foods | Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved March 11, 2021, from https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules- regulations/be/bioengineered-foods-list

Agricultural Marketing Service. (2018, December 21). National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national- bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard

Agricultural Marketing Service. (2019). NBFDS Regulatory Impact Analysis. https://beta.regulations.gov/document/AMS-TM-17-0050-14035

Senate Bill No. 25 “An Act relating to labeling and identification of genetically modified fish and fish products.,” (2005). http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Journal/Pages/24?Chamber=S&Bill=SB%20%2025&Page=0 1708#1708

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159

Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R. O., & Singer, M. F. (1975). Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(6), 1981–1984.

Bialkova, S., & van Trijp, H. (2010). What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels? Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.001

Braveman, P., & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Reports, 129(Suppl 2), 19–31.

Capalbo, D. M. F., Arantes, O. M. N., Maia, A. G., Borges, I. C., & Silveira, J. M. F. J. D. (2015). A study of stakeholder views to shape a communication strategy for GMO in Brazil. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2015.00179

Center for Consumer Research. (2017, June 28). StarLink Corn: What Happened. Center for Consumer Research. https://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biotechnology/starlink-corn-what- happened

Chrispeels, H. E., Chapman, J. M., Gibson, C. L., & Muday, G. K. (2019). Peer Teaching Increases Knowledge and Changes Perceptions about Genetically Modified Crops in Non–Science Major Undergraduates. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0169

Cohen, S. N., Chang, A. C. Y., Boyer, H. W., & Helling, R. B. (1973). Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids In Vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 70(11), 3240–3244.

Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (p. 23395). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395

Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002

Costello, S., & Roodenburg, J. (2015). Acquiescence Response Bias—Yeasaying and Higher Education. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 32(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2015.11

Cui, K., & Shoemaker, S. P. (2018). Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) food: A Nationwide Chinese Consumer Study. Npj Science of Food, 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4

Curtis, K. R., McCluskey, J. J., & Wahl, T. I. (2004, October 28). Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food Products in the Developing World. AgBioForum. https://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a13-mccluskey.htm#R20

Edmisten, K. (2016). What Is the Difference Between Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetically Engineered Organisms? https://agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the- difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered- organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. (1992). Statement of Policy—Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda- guidance-documents/statement-policy-foods-derived-new-plant-varieties

Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., & Corchero, C. (2006). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends (Final report on Eurobarometer 64.3)

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Directorate General for Research and coordinated by Directorate General Communication.

Genetic Literacy Project. (2015, February 10). The Original Frankenfoods: Origins of Our Fear of Genetic Engineering. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/10/the-original-frankenfoods/

Genetic Literacy Project. (2016, February 9). How are GMOs labeled around the world? GMO FAQs. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/how-are-gmos-labeled-around- the-world/

GEO-PIE. (2003). Genetically Engineered Foods In the Marketplace. Cornell Cooperative Extension’s Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education (GEO-PIE) Project.

Ghasemi, S., Karami, E., & Azadi, H. (2013). Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Agricultural Professionals Toward Genetically Modified (GM) Foods: A Case Study in Southwest Iran. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1201–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9383-6

Greene, C., Ferreira, G., Carlson, A., Cooke, B., & Hitaj, C. (2017, February). USDA ERS - Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing- organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities-for-many-types-of-producers/

Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L., & Morin, X. K. (2013). Public Perceptions of Labeling Genetically Modified Foods. 42.

Hamilton, C., & Raison, B. (2019). Understanding Food Labels. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(4), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2019.084.022

Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(6), 836–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001

Harvell, L. E. (2014, January). An Act To Protect Maine Food Consumers’ Right To Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock (2013). https://www.maineconservation.org/bills/gmo---right-to-know-labeling

House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W., Moore, M., Valli, C., Morrow, B., & Yee, W. (2004). Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union. American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association), 2004 Annual Meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO, 7.

Huffman, W. E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. (2007). The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.019

International Food Information Council. (2018). 2018 Food and Health Survey release. 4.

International Food Information Council. (2018). IFIC Foundation Survey Research with Consumers To Test Perceptions and Reactions To Various Stimuli and Visuals Related to Bioengineered Foods.

International Food Information Council. (2020). 2020 Food and Health Survey. International Food Information Council.

Jaenisch, R., & Mintz, B. (1974). Simian Virus 40 DNA Sequences in DNA of Healthy Adult Mice Derived from Preimplantation Blastocysts Injected with Viral DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 71(4), 1250–1254.

Jaffee. (2019, April 8). Biotech Blog: The Final National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Center for Science in the Public Interest. https://cspinet.org/news/biotech-blog- final-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard

Jurkiewicz, A., Zagórski, J., Bujak, F., Lachowski, S., & Florek-Łuszczki, M. (2014). Emotional attitudes of young people completing secondary schools towards genetic modification of organisms (GMO) and genetically modified foods (GMF). Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine: AAEM, 21(1), 205–211.

Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Kauffman, J. (2010). Study on the Implications of asynchronous GMO approvals for EU imports of animal feed products [Text]. European Commission - European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key- policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/products-and-markets/implications- asynchronous-gmo-approvals-eu-imports-animal-feed-products_en

Knight, J. G., Mather, D. W., Holdsworth, D. K., & Ermen, D. F. (2007). Acceptance of GM food—An experiment in six countries. Nature Biotechnology, 25(5), 507–508. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0507-507

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.77.6.1121

Kusumastuti, F. A., Rombot, O., & Ariesta, F. W. (2019). The Effect Of STEM Integration On Primary School Students’ Scientific Literacy. 8(12), 3.

Lau, J. (2015, August 9). Same Science, Different Policies: Regulating Genetically Modified Foods in the U.S. and Europe. Science in the News. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/same-science-different-policies/

Laux, C. M., Mosher, G. A., & Freeman, S. A. (2010). Factors Affecting College Students’ Knowledge and Opinions of Genetically Modified Foods. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(2), 2–9.

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Socio-Scientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a Scientifically Literate Citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3

Li, L., & Bautista, J. R. (2019). Examining Personal and Media Factors Associated with Attitude towards Genetically Modified Foods among University Students in Kunming, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234613

Liu, S.-C. (2019). Genetically modified food for the future: Examining university students’ expressions of futures thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 41(8), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1585995

Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S., & Carter, M. E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399(6733), 214–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/20338

Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, J. L., & Traill, W. B. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/31.2.179

Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., & Taulman, L. (2005). A Meta- Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30(1), 28–44.

Maes, J., Bourgonjon, J., Gheysen, G., & Valcke, M. (2018). Variables Affecting Secondary School Students’ Willingness to Eat Genetically Modified Food Crops. Research in Science Education, 48(3), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016- 9580-4

Magat, W., & Viscusi, W. K. (1992). Informational Approaches to Regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(4), 795–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.4050120416

Marchant, G. E., & Cardineau, G. A. (2013). The labeling debate in the United States. GM Crops & Food, 4(3), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26163

Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/embo-reports/kve142

McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Steinhardt, J. (2014). Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite, 78, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006

McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2018). Effects of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Willingness To Pay for Labels that Communicate the Presence or Absence of Genetic Modification. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppx040

Mielby, H., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2013). The role of scientific knowledge in shaping public attitudes to GM technologies. Public Understanding of Science, 22(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511430577

Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. (2000). Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay a Premium for Non-GM Foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 4.

Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2001). A Multi-Attribute Model Of Public Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Organisms. In 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL (No. 20745; 2001 Annual Meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL). American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20745.html

Mosier, S. L., Rimal, A., & Ruxton, M. M. (2020). A Song of Policy Incongruence: The Missing Choir of Consumer Preferences in GMO-Labeling Policy Outcomes. Review of Policy Research, 37(4), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12391

Muniady, R., Mamun, A. A.-, Permarupan, P. Y., Raihani, N., & Zainol, B. (2014). Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior: A Study among University Students in Malaysia.

National Academies of Sciences, E., Studies, D. on E. and L., Resources, B. on A. and N., & Prospects, C. on G. E. C. P. E. and F. (2016). Summary. In Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424529/

National Academies Press. (2004). Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms. In Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019, February). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_reg.asp

Newman, D. L., Catavero, C. M., & Wright, L. K. (2012). Students Fail to Transfer Knowledge of Chromosome Structure to Topics Pertaining to Cell Division. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-01-0003

Nguyen, A., & Catalan-Matamoros, D. (2020). Digital Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagment with Health and Science Controversies: Fresh Perspectives from Covid-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3352

Non-GMO Project. (2019). Non-GMO Project Standard.

Non-GMO Project. (2020). Non-GMO Project Terms of Reference.

Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?*. The Economic Journal, 114(492), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00179.x

Nutrition, C. for F. S. and A. (2020). Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural- biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (1986). Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.

Office of the Vermont Attorney General. (n.d.). GE Food Labeling Rule. Office of the Vermont Attorney General. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://ago.vermont.gov/ge-food-labeling-rule/

Papademetriou, T. (2014, March). Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: European Union | Law Library of Congress [Web page]. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/eu.php

Pew Research Center. (2001, March 26). Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Finds Public Opinion About Genetically Modified Foods “Up For Grabs.” http://pew.org/1Q6YGDw

Pew Research Center. (2015). Americans, Politics and Science Issues. Pew Research Center. (2016). The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science. Pew Research Center, 100.

Phillips, W. J., Asperin, A., & Wolfe, K. (2013). Investigating the effect of country image and subjective knowledge on attitudes and behaviors: U.S. Upper Midwesterners’ intentions to consume Korean Food and visit Korea. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.003

Pieniak, Z., Aertsens, J., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetables consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 21(6), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.004

Prokop, P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko, M., & Diran, C. (2007). Slovakian Students’ Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600969830

Puduri, V. S., Govindasamy, R., & Nettimi, N. (2010). Consumers’ Perceptions Toward Usefulness of Genetically Modified Foods: A Study of Select Consumers in USA. IUP Journal of Agricultural Economics, 7(3), 7–17.

Rangel, G. (2015, August 9). From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology. Science in the News. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/from- corgis-to-corn-a-brief-look-at-the-long-history-of-gmo-technology/

Rozansky, M. (2016). Americans support GMO food labels but don’t know much about safety of genetically modified foods. Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Shaffer, J. F., Ferguson, J., & Denaro, K. (2019). Use of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills Reveals That Fundamental Literacy Is an Important Contributor to Scientific Literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar31. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12- 0238

Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food, 1(6), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

Strom, S. (2016, June 30). G.M.O.s in Food? Vermonters Will Know. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/gmo-labels-vermont-law.html

Tegegne, F., Azai, A. H., & Wiemers, R. (2013). Awareness of and attitudes towards biotechnology by Tennessee State University students with different backgrounds and majors. Journal of Biotechnology Research, 5, 16–23.

Teisl, M. F., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The Effects of Education and Information Source on Consumer Awareness of Diet-Disease Relationships. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 197–207.

Tiberghien, Y. (2009). Competitive Governance and the Quest for Legitimacy in the EU: The Battle over the Regulation of GMOs since the mid‐1990s. Journal of European Integration, 31(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036330902782246

Turker, T., Kocak, N., Aydin, I., İstanbulluoğlu, H., Yildiran, N., Turk, Y. Z., & Kilic, S. (2013). Determination of Knowledge, Attitude, Behavior about Genetically Modified Organisms in Nursing School Students. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinin Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar Hakkındaki Bilgi, Tutum ve Davranışlarının Belirlenmesi., 55(4), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.5455/gulhane.33326

U.S. Supreme Court. (1980). Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/303/

Usak, M., Erdogan, M., Prokop, P., & Ozel, M. (2009). High school and university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20267

USDA. (n.d.-a). Agricultural Biotechnology Glossary. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

USDA. (n.d.-b). Biotechnology. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology

Vecchione, M., Feldman, C., & Wunderlich, S. (2015). Consumer knowledge and attitudes about genetically modified food products and labelling policy. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 66(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2014.986072

Velardi, S. (2018). A Call for Transparency in the Food System: Case Studies of State and Federal Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Labeling Initiatives in the United States. Dissertations and Theses. https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/etds/16

Vermeulen, H., Gouse, M., Delport, M., Louw, M., & Miller, T. (2020, October 30). Consumer Acceptance of Sugar Derived from Genetically Modified Sugarcane in South Africa. AgBioForum. https://www.agbioforum.org/v22n1/v22n1-vermeulen.htm

Waller - AMS, A. (2020, November 3). NBFDS Label and Marketing Research [Personal communication]. WHO. (n.d.). Food, Genetically modified. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/food-genetically-modified

Wicker, R. F. (2016, July 29). Text - S.764 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. (2015/2016) [Webpage]. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate- bill/764/text

Wolf, M. M., Bertolini, P., Shikama, I., & Berger, A. (2012). A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Food and Biotechnology in the U.S., Japan, and Italy. 10.

Wu, Y.-T. (2013). University Students’ Knowledge Structures and Informal Reasoning on the Use of Genetically Modified Foods: Multidimensional Analyses. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1873–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9343-9

Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015). Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information123. Advances in Nutrition, 6(6), 842–851. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.008870

Zajac, J., Chomoncik, M., Kolarzyk, E., & Ogonowska, D. (2012). [Controversial issue in biotechnology—Students’ opinions]. Przeglad Lekarski, 69(8), 459–462.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey questions.

Page 1: Open Ended Questions

1. After seeing this label, what are your initial thoughts and how do you feel about bioengineered foods? 2. Please answer this question in your own words. What is the difference between food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) and food products that are bioengineered (BE)? 3. Are you familiar with products in the supermarket that are genetically engineered? What “GMO foods” or “foods produced with genetic engineering” have you eaten? 4. Do you think genetically engineered foods should be labeled, and why? 5. Would it make it more or less attractive for you to buy a food if it began to carry a label such as “derived from bioengineering” or “produced with genetic engineering”? 6. Should it be mandatory that foods are labelled if they contain DNA? Page 2: Likert-scale Questions 7. Bioengineered foods are safe to eat. 8. I would pay more for a non-GMO banana compared to a genetically modified banana. 9. Foods are not considered BE as long as something contains less than five percent of bioengineered ingredients. 10. Applying genetic engineering technology to plants and animals poses a danger to the global environment. 11. I would never feed my dog BE labelled dog food. 12. I have heard/read/seen a lot about GMO foods. 13. Inserting a gene derived from salmon has the potential to make a tomato taste slightly fishy. 14. Genetically modified food is unhealthy. 15. Utilizing genetic engineering in food production is dangerous. 16. The genetically modified corn's DNA is toxic to the insect pest that eats the corn. APPENDIX B: Codebook for the Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey.

Coding Question 1: After seeing this label, what are your initial thoughts and how do you feel about bioengineered foods? Emerging Themes & Merging Themes Merging Emerging Codes Phrases Themes Codes

Harmless/safe; Healthy, Better for you Healthy Enhanced Positive Attitude Food / Better about BE Foods Beneficial/useful; Harmless, Safe Harmless Food Choice

Enhanced global food Beneficial, Useful; Useful supply; Better fit our Enhanced; Better fit needs our needs

Healthy/Better for you; Natural; Fresh; Natural Normal Friendly Food Choice Reduced pesticide use Appealing, friendly; Appealing Positive Positive Attitude Green/Environmentally Wholesome, pleasant About Label about BE Label conscious/Natural; Eco Friendly, Natural Eco Friendly Appealing/friendly; Label

Wholesome/pleasant; Better fit our needs; Necessary to Necessary Positive Attitude useful; Green, future / sustain for humans about BE Foods Enhanced; Environmentally humans and & Fresh conscious, Natural way environment environment of growing; Enhanced global food supply; Cites both pros and Reduced pesticide use cons (e.g. unnatural but beneficial; or positive Skeptical of eating Skeptical of Skeptical of Unsure Attitude but damaging, etc.); BE food BE food about BE Foods

Neutral; Relates pros and cons Unsure of but no clear position on position of BE Skeptical; BE food food

Would avoid, wouldn’t Avoids eating Harmful / Negative Attitude Scary/frightening; eat; Risky to eat Worse Food about BE Foods Choice Unnecessary; Harmful to humans Harmful

Weird/unnatural; Weird, unnatural Unnatural

Harmful; Risky for env; Harmful Unnecessary Unnecessary Negative Attitude to humans and to future for humans about BE Foods Risky; environment; & Unnecessary environment. Would avoid/wouldn’t eat Scary, frightening; Unappealing Negative Negative Attitude Unappealing About Label about BE Label

Coding Question 1 table (above) continued: Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Don’t know Neutral Attitude enough enough enough info enough info about BE Foods information; information and Label “I feel neutral”; No feelings or No feelings or Neutral Attitude No reaction/No “No reaction”; reaction reaction about BE Foods feelings/No No feelings; No and Label opinion; opinion

Coding Question 2: Please answer this question in your own words. What is the difference between food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) and food products that are bioengineered (BE)? Emerging Themes & Phrases Merging Themes Emerging Codes Codes

One in same, Identifies similarities, Same (GMO = BE), Neutral attitude interchangeable; indifferent terminology, Neutral attitude towards BE no connotations or attitude towards BE products “Before this I thought they products were the same”; Virtually same, no Identifies having connotations correct subjective No difference just different information names; Identifies similarities, Same (GMO = BE), Positive attitude of Umbrella terminology (one indifferent terminology, Positive attitude of BE products is more broad one is more both are positive stigma BE products specific) Identifies having correct subjective information

Identifies similarities, Same (GMO = BE), Negative attitude of indifferent terminology, Negative attitude of BE products both are negative stigma BE products Identifies correct Foods have different subjective functions/purposes; information

Foods have different origins, Identifies difference, Different (GMO ≠ Neutral attitude foods were created different definitions, no BE), towards BE differently, connotations or attitude Neutral attitude products towards BE Modified in lab vs modified products Identifies having in environment; incorrect subjective information

Coding Question 2 table (above) continued: Slight change vs drastic Identifies difference, Different (GMO ≠ BE), Positive attitude change; different definitions, Positive attitude towards BE products BE has positive stigma towards BE products One is better than the Identifies having other; incorrect subjective information Identifies difference, Different (GMO ≠ BE), Negative attitude different definitions, Negative attitude towards BE products BE has negative stigma towards BE products Identifies having incorrect subjective information No idea; Unsure without more Confused; information Unsure Unsure Unsure without more information

Coding Question 3: Are you familiar with products in the supermarket that are genetically engineered? What “GMO foods” or “foods produced with genetic engineering” have you eaten? Emerging Themes & Phrases Emerging Codes Codes

I have eaten ___, Familiar with GMO/BE food I have seen ___ choices Yes/Familiar

A lot of ___ is GMO/BE Avoiding but familiar

I am avoiding GMO/BE but I know ___ is GMO/BE Does not pay attention

Don’t pay attention Unfamiliar with GMO/BE food choices Familiar with concept of GMOs but unsure of what No/Unfamiliar has been eaten or seen Does not pay attention

I assume I eat GMO/BE, but I don’t know if I have

Coding Question 4: Do you think genetically engineered foods should be labeled, and why? Emerging Themes & Phrases Emerging Codes (when counting Codes overall responses)

Yes; They should Desires Label Yes Yes & Desires be labelled Neutral association Label with BE label

Public deserves to know; transparency; Right to know YES informed decision; knows what getting Negative association or putting into body with BE label

Could lead to changes, allergies, Health concerns YES sensitivities, health consequences Negative association Cites risk with with BE foods BE foods (disregard?)

Perceived risk with BE foods

Curious, interested, comfort in having Provides Yes choice; personal choice Positive association with BE food Able to avoid; Lifestyle, philosophical, religious Positive association beliefs with BE label

Consumer support for specific practices Economy and Yes Compete with organic prices market Positive association with BE label

Company responsibility to inform Trust with Yes consumer; industry Positive association Creates trust between industry and with BE label public

No, No need for label Does not want No No & Does not label want label

No opinion; Doesn’t matter No

Label would not change food Will continue No purchasing patterns habits either Neutral association way with BE label

Coding Question 4 table (above) continued: No need for label Modification only No No & Does not want because modification makes it better Positive association label only creates with BE label neutral/positive changes Indicates confusion; Unsure Unsure Unsure Provides arguments for both yes and no

Coding Question 5: Would it make it more or less attractive for you to buy a food if it began to carry a label such as “derived from bioengineering” or “produced with genetic engineering”? Emerging Themes & Phrases Emerging Codes Codes

Has proven benefits; Label makes food more Positive attitude with Safe/trustworthy; attractive appearance of BE label Interesting; Would be more inclined because they like labels; Probably cheaper; Beneficial changes

Indifferent/Would not be more or less attractive; Label makes food neither Neutral attitude with Wouldn’t make a difference in more nor less attractive appearance of BE label shopping habits; Food choices depend on other factors (e.g. price) Label makes food less Negative attitude with attractive appearance of BE label

Negative stigma; Uncertainty/risky; Unnatural/fake; Unclear Unsure Unhealthy; Tastes different; More processed; Connotations of being grown in a lab

Confused/read the question incorrectly; Needs more information; Answered no/yes UNLESS their position can be interpreted

Coding Question 6: Should it be mandatory that foods are labelled if they contain DNA? Emerging Themes & Phrases Emerging Codes Codes

Yes/probably/sure/I think so; Yes, Identifies correct subjective Yes, Correct subjective Necessary/should be mandatory; information about nature of DNA in information foods Not necessarily mandatory but in favor of labeling Yes; identifies incorrect subjective Yes, not indicating information about nature of DNA in correct subjective foods information

Yes; Neglects to identify subjective Not sure information Indifferent; Unsure Unsure Recognizes that all grown foods have DNA; No, Identifies correct subjective No, Correct subjective information about nature of DNA in information Redundant; Don’t want superfluous foods labels on their food

No, unless it’s been No, Identifies incorrect subjective No, not indicating correct modified/altered/contains novel information about nature of DNA in subjective information traits; foods

Would panic people/not enough No, neglects to identify subjective scientific literacy information

APPENDIX C: Observed trends based on shift in paired response code to open-ended questions in the Fall 2020 Bioengineering Survey.

Individual post-survey responses observed to have a change from the code given to their pre-survey response were assigned either +1 or -1; a change towards having a more positively coded response (e.g. the change from neutral to positive, the change from negative to neutral) was given +1, the change towards having a more negatively-coded response (e.g. the change from positive to neutral, the change from neutral to negative) was given -1. Post-survey responses observed to have the same code given to their pre- survey response (e.g. neutral coded pre-survey response followed by a neutral coded post-survey response) were assigned 0. No value was assigned if responses pre-survey and post-survey responses did not belong to a code. The trend represents an average of these values, determined separately for each question in respect to how they were coded, to estimate direction of change in this sample.

Question From Survey Trend Based on the Observed Shift in Code Between Paired Responses

1. After seeing this label, what are your initial trend (-0.0740741) toward negative thoughts and how do you feel about attitudes regarding BE food and bioengineered foods? trend (+0.059) towards positive attitudes regarding BE labels 2. Please answer this question in your own n/a words. What is the difference between food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) and food products that are bioengineered (BE)? 3. Are you familiar with products in the trend (+0.07692308) towards supermarket that are genetically engineered? increasing familiarity What “GMO foods” or “foods produced with genetic engineering” have you eaten? 4. Do you think genetically engineered foods trend (-0.0615385) away from "yes" should be labeled, and why? and desire for label 5. Would it make it more or less attractive for trend (-0.0615385) away from more you to buy a food if it began to carry a label positive attitude towards label such as “derived from bioengineering” or “produced with genetic engineering”? 6. Should it be mandatory that foods are trend (-0.1754386) away from "yes" labelled if they contain DNA? and wanting label and trend (+0.03846154) towards ability to make correct statement

AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY

Kathleen Tims was born in Cornish, Maine on January 13, 2000. She graduated as salutatorian of Sacopee Valley High School in 2017. Pursuing a Bachelor of Science in biology with a concentration in pre-medical studies and a minor in sustainable food systems, Katie held an executive position of the UMaine Undergraduate Women in

S.T.E.M.M. club and participates as a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Alpha Lambda

Delta national academic honors societies. She received the School of Biology and

Ecology academic highest second-year GPA award, the 2019 Mitchell Center Award for

“Outstanding contribution by an undergraduate to sustainability research,” and was nominated for the 2021 Frank B. and Charles S. Bickford Memorial Prize, the College of

Natural Science, Forestry and Agriculture’s highest award. Upon graduation, Katie plans to pursue a career in public health, exploring how we can create a more sustainable and equitable future for all.