Türkiye’de kentli tüketicilerin genetik modifiye organizma ve gıdalara yönelik tutumları

Türkiye genelindeki kentli tüketicileri % 2.83’lük örneklem hata payı ile yansıtacak nitelik ve dizayna sahip olması nedeni ile bir ilk olma özelliğine sahip bu çalışma yüz-yüze görüşme tekniği kullanılarak hane ve iş yerlerinde tabakalandırılmış tesadüfî örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenmiş tüketicilerin (n=1222) genetik modifikasyon (GM) ve GM gıdalar hakkında tutumlarının belirlenmesine yönelik gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler sosyo-ekonomik statü (SES), yaş ve cinsiyet kırılımları gözönünde tutularak incelenmiştir. Ekonomik olarak GM ve GM gıdaların yararları olabileceğini düşünmekle birlikte, özellikle beşli likert sistemine uygun hazırlanmış ifadelerde tüketici sağlığı, çevre ve biyolojik çeşitlilik kaynaklı kaygılardan dolayı negatif tutum ve algı belirlenmiştir. Tüketicilerin tutumları genel olarak yaş ve cinsiyet gruplarında değişim göstermemekle birlikte, özellikle de SES grubu olmak üzere alt grupların daha üst gruplara göre GM ve GM gıdalara karşı göreceli olarak daha ılımlı bir yaklaşıma sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir.

Urban consumer’s attitudes toward genetically modified organisms and foods in Turkey

The present study, which is a first because it has a quality and design reflecting urbanite consumers across Turkey with a sampling tolerance of 2.83%, was conducted by using face-to-face interview technique with consumers (n=1222) specified through stratified random sampling method layered in homes and offices to determine awareness of genetic modification (GM) and GM foods of urban consumers. The obtained data were examined by considering socioeconomic status (SES), age and gender refractions. Although it is believed that GM and GM foods are advantageous economically, a negative attitude and perception was determined in especially expressions prepared according to five-point Likert scale due to considerations related to consumers’ health, environment and biological diversification. Although consumers’ attitude generally does not vary between age and gender groups, it was observed that subgroups, especially DE SES group, had more hospitable approach to (GM) and GM foods relatively compared to higher groups.

___

  • Boccaletti S & Moro D (2000). Consumer Willingness to Pay for GM Food Products in Italy. AgBioForum 3(4): 259-267
  • Boecker A, Hartl J & Nocella G (2008). How different are GM food accepters and rejecters really? A means- end chains application to yoghurt in Germany. Food Quality and Preference 19: 383-394
  • Bredahl L, Grunert G & Frewer LJ (1998). Consumer attitudes and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products – a review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy 21(3): 251–277
  • Chen MF & Li HL (2007). The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference 18: 662-674
  • Costa-Font M, Gil JM & Traill WB (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation, of and attitudes toward genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33: 99-111
  • Curtis Kynda R & Moeltner K (2006). Genetically Modified Food Market Participation and Consumer Risk Perceptions: A Cross-Country Comparison. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(2): 289-310
  • Gaskell G, Allum N & Stares S (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer,58.0. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘‘Life Sciences in European Society” QLG7- CT-1999-00286
  • Goodman RE (2005). Assessing Genetically Modified Crops to Minimize the Risk of Increased Food Allergy: A Review. International Archives Of Allergy And Immunology 137(2): 153
  • Gruere GP (2006). A preliminary compraison of the retail level effects of genetically modified food labelling policies in Canada and France. Food Policy 31: 148- 161
  • Haspolat Kaya I, Konar N, Poyrazoğlu ES & Artık N (2013). Genetik modifikasyon ve Türk tüketiciler - kentli tüketicilerin genetik modifiye organizma ve gıdalara yönelik farkındalıkları. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 60: 213-220
  • Kim RB (2012). Consumer Attitude of Risk and Benefits toward Genetically Modified (GM Foods in South Korea: Implications for Food Policy. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 23(2): 189-199
  • Kleter GA, Peinnenburg CM & Aarts HJM (2005). Health Considerations Regarding Horizontal Gene Transfer of Microbial Transgenes Presenet in Genetically Modified Crops. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 4: 326-52
  • Lusk JL & Keith HC (2005). Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2): 393-405
  • Martinez-Poveda A, Molla-Bauza MB, del Campo Gomis FJ &Martinez LMC (2009). Consumer-perceived risk model fort he introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy 34: 519-528
  • Mehmetoglu AC (2007). Preferences of Turkish people for irradiated, GM or organic foods. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 5(3&4): 74-80.
  • Montuori P, Triassui M & Sarnacchiaro P (2012). The consumption of genetically modified foods in Italian high school students. Food Quality and Preference 26: 246-251
  • Moon W & Balasubramanian SK (2004). Public Attitudes toward Agrobiotechnology: the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions on the Impact of Trust, Awareness, and Outrage. Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2): 186-208
  • Oguz O (2009). Attitudes of consumers toward the effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The example of Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 7(3&4): 159-165
  • Ozer BC, Duman G & Cabuk B (2009). Turkish preschool staff’s opinions about hormones, additivies and genetically modified foods. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 1734-1743
  • Sayılı M & Büyükköroğlu AM (2012). E-Ticaret Yoluyla Gıda Maddeleri Satın Almaya Yönelik Tüketicilerin Tutumunu Etkileyen Faktörlerin Analizi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 18: 246-255
  • TUAD (2012). Turkiye Arastirmacilar Dernegi. Bullet. http://tuad.org.tr/assets/documents/abulten/2012/86. pdf. (Erişim tarihi: 17.08.2012)
Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: Halit APAYDIN
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Sıcak Hava Kurutma Yönteminde Farklı Sıcaklık ve Ön İşlemlerin Trabzon Hurmasının Renk ve Kuruma Karakteristiklerine Etkisi

Yahya TÜLEK, Engin DEMİRAY

Yazlık Yeşil Gübrelemenin Serada Organik Domates Üretimine Etkileri

Hale DUYAR

Gaziantep Kentinde 2040 Yılına Kadar Oluşabilecek Arazi Kullanımı/Arazi Örtüsü Değişiminin Tahmini

Hakan OĞUZ, Nuri BOZALİ

Determination of mesh breaking strength of polyamide fishing nets under the exposure of different heavy metal concentrations and temperature

Hasan Hüseyin ATAR, İlknur MERİÇ, Servet ATAYETER, Önder ÖREN

Determination of Mesh Breaking Strength of Polyamide Fishing Nets

Servet ATAYETER

Genetik Modifikasyon ve Türk Tüketiciler - Kentli Tüketicilerin Genetik Modifiye Organizma ve Gıdalara Yönelik Tutumları

Nevzat KONAR, İraz HASPOLAT KAYA, Nevzat ARTIK

Yomra Çeşidi Fındığın Mekanik Hasadında Meyve Düşürme Yüzdeleri Üzerine Farklı Olgunlaşma Dönemleri ve Dal Bağlama Yüksekliklerinin Etkileri

Taner YILDIZ, Ali TEKGÜLER

Effect of feed restriction on some chemical and sensory properties of chicken meat

Mehmet MENDEŞ, Ecmel DİNÇER, Sibel PARLAK ULUTAŞ, Yonca YÜCEER KARAGÜL, Burcu ENGİN

The effects of different maturity times of fruit ripening and limb connection heights on the percentages of fruit removal in mechanical harvesting of hazelnut (Cv. Yomra)

Ali TEKGÜLER, Taner YILDIZ

Phosphorus Fractions and Cycling in a Sediment of a Shallow Eutrophic Spring Originated Pond

Akasya TOPÇU, Serap PULATSÜ