Agriculture faculty students’ knowledge, attitude, and behaviors about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Agriculture faculty students’ knowledge, attitude, and behaviors about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Aim: This study was conducted in order to collect information about current knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of students studyingat Bingöl University Faculty of Agriculture regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and to determine problems regardingthe subject if any.Material and Methods: The population of this descriptive study consisted of students (146 students) studying at Bingol UniversityFaculty of Agriculture. Data collection tool used in the study was the Questionnaire developed by the researchers based on literatureinformation. Questionnaire consisted of 51 questions.Results: It was found that answers of students to the information on GMO were usually correct and their knowledge score on GMOwas 4.9±1.2 out of 7. The rate of the students who found the production of genetically modified foods risky for all living creaturesexisting in the nature was 52.9% and 41.3% disapproved modifying genetics of foods to remedy hunger in the world.Conclusion: It was observed that the students had knowledge about the subject but they did not deem themselves to have sufficientknowledge hereof.

___

  • 1. Sökmen MA. Genetically modified crops and their use in plant protection. Ondokuz Mayis Univ Fac Agriculture 2005;20:105-9.
  • 2. Yeşilbağ D. Modern Biotechnology and Organic Production in Agricultural and Animal Products. Uludag Univ J Fac Vet Med 2004;23:157-62.
  • 3. Haspolat I. Production and Trade of Genetically Modified Products and Regulation of Trade. Postgraduate Thesis. Ankara Univ Institute Biotechnol 2004;15-16:99-101.
  • 4. Van Den Eede G, Aarts H, Buhk HJ, et al. The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (gm) plants, Food Chem Toxicol 2004;42:1115-27.
  • 5. Uzogara SG. The Impact of Genetic Modification of Human Foods in The 21st Century. Biotechnology Advances 2000;18:179-206.
  • 6. Başkaya R, Keskin Y, Karagöz A, et al. Biosecurity. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin. 2009;8:177-86.
  • 7. Snow AA. Genetic Modification and Gene Flow. In DL Kleinman AJ. Kinchy and J. Handelsman Editors. Controversies in science and technology: From maize to menopause. England: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. pp. 107-18
  • 8. Koçak N, Türker T, Kılıç S, et al. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and behavior level of medical school students about genetically modified organisms. Gülhane Medical J 2010;52:198-204.
  • 9. Özdemir O, Güneş MH, Demir S. The level of knowledge - attitudes of students towards genetically modified organism (gmo) and its evaluation accordıng to sustainable consumption education. J Ondokuz Mayis Univ Fac Ed 2010;29:53-68.
  • 10. Tekedere H, Taban B, Çalışkan M, et al. Analysis of training needs of health services school of higher vocational education students on genetically modified organisms. J Turkish Science Education 2011;8:142- 56.
  • 11. Günes AM. Genetically modified organisms and environmental law - international regulations, european union law and current situation in Turkey. J Istanbul Univ Fac Law 2008;2:49-90.
  • 12. Kaya IH, Konar N, Poyrazoğlu ES, et al. Genetically modification and consumers in Turkey - Turkish urban consumers’ awareness toward Genetically Modified Organisms and Foods. J Ankara Univ Fac Veterinary Sci 2013;60:213-20.
  • 13. Ergin I, Gürsoy ŞT, Öcek ZA, et al. Knowledge attitude and behavior of medical technology vocational training school students about genetically modified organisms. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin 2008;7:503-8.
  • 14. Çelik V, Turgut BD. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs ). J Erciyes Univ Institute Sci 2007;23:13-23.
  • 15. Demir A, Pala A. Perceptions of Society Towards Genetically Modified Organisms. J Animal Production 2007;48:33-43.
Annals of Medical Research-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Aylık
  • Yayıncı: İnönü Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Lumbosacral alignment in lumbar disc herniation

Tuba Tülay KOCA, Ejder BERK, Burhan Fatih KOÇYİĞİT, Vedat NANCİTARHAN

The incidence of artifacts in cone beam computed tomography images: A pilot study

Gulsun AKAY, Muhsin Sait KARATAŞ, Özge KARADAĞ, Özlem ÜÇOK, Kahraman GÜNGÖR

The impact of social media news on the health perception of society

Halit AYTAR, Emine EMEKTAR, Yunsur ÇEVİK, Gülşah ÇIKRIKÇI IŞIK, Hasan BALIKÇI

Graves’ disease does not pose an increased risk of thyroid cancer

Nazli GÜLSOY KIRNAP, Yusuf BOSKUŞ, Cüneyd ANIL

Correlation between histopathological results and BI-RADS classification in breast masses

Burhan Hakan KANAT, Nizamettin KUTLUER, Ali Aksu, Hülagu KARGICI, Ferhat ÇAY, Ayşe Azak BOZAN, Mehmet Buğra BOZAN

Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy in a community based teaching hospital: The role of dual-phase parathyroid scintigraphy and surgeon experience

Talha SARIGÖZ, Tamer ERTAN, Ömer TOPUZ, Uğur AYDEMİR

Comparison of the effects of supreme laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube on airway reflexes in patients who underwent nasal surgery: A randomized, controlled clinical trial

Erol KARAASLAN

Comparison of the results of shock wave lithotripsy with ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focus in pediatric age group; Fluoroscopic focusing how much is needed?

Fatih ÖZKAYA

Association of laryngopharyngeal reflux with nasal obstruction

Hasan ÇAKAR, Sami BERÇİN, Ergun SEVİL, Muzaffer KIRIŞ

Selective bronchial artery embolization in hemoptysis: A retrospective study

Ayşegül İdil SOYLU, Fatih UZUNKAYA