Perception of biotech trees by Slovak university students – a comparative survey

Open access

Abstract

Acceptance of genetically modified plants is restricted in EU by legislation, while the attitude of public is not favourable as well. Surveys show that knowledge about GM plants is getting increased. Newly developed strategies on GM safety for environment can be a crucial aspect for the (partial) acceptance in future. GM trees as non-edible plants might appear as more admissible, however, are relatively rarely discussed. We performed a comparative survey on knowledge and perception of GM forest trees among students at four Slovak universities. We also compared their responses between as well as with the outcome of similar cross-country survey in frames of the COST Action FP0905. The results point to very similar attitude of Slovak students when compared with students from other countries, no significant difference between responses of males and females, but also influence of age as well as orientation of their study (natural sciences vs. economy) on view of GM tree safety and placing on the market.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Clive J (2015) Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief No. 51. ISAAA: Ithaca NY.

  • EC (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC

  • EC (2015) Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European parliament and of the council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory.

  • EU register of authorised GMOs (2017) European Commission GMOs register (Regulation EC 1829/2003) and the products subject to EC decisions on withdrawal from the market.

  • Fillatti JJ Sellmer J Mccown B Haissig B Comai L (1987)Agrobacterium mediated transformation and regeneration of populus. Mol. Gen. Genet. 206: 192-199.

  • Haggman H Raybould A Borem A Fox T Handley L Hertzberg M Lu Mz Macdonald P Oguchi T Pasquali G Pearson L Peter G Quemada H Seguin ATattersall K Ulian E Walter C Mclean M (2013) Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk Pssessment. Plant Biotech. J. 11: 785-798.

  • ISAAA (2017) International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications GM approval database 54 p.

  • Kazana V Tsourgiannis L Iakovoglou V Stamatiou C Alexandrov A Araujo S Bogdan S Bozic G Brus R Bossinger G Boutsimea A Celepirovic N Cvrčková H Fladung M Ivankovic M Kazaklis A Koutsona P Luthar Z Máchová P Malá J Mara K Mataruga M Moravčíková J Paffetti D Paiva J AP Raptis D Sanchez C Sharry S Salaj T Šijačič-Nikolič M Tel-Zur N Tsvetkov I Vettori C Vidal N (2015) Public attitudes towards the use of transgenic forest trees: a cross-country pilot survey. IForest 9: 344-353.

  • Lucht JM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7: 4254-4281.

  • Nonic M Radojevic U Milovanovic J Perovic M Sijacic- Nikolic M (2015) Comparative analysis of students' attitudes toward implementation of genetically modified trees in Serbia. IForest 8: 714-718.

  • Pilate G Allona I Boerjan W Déjardin A Fladung M Gallardo F Häggman H Jansson R Acker V Halpin C (2016) Lessons from 25 years of GM tree field trials in Europe and prospects for the future. In Biosafety of forest transgenic trees: improving the scientific basis for safe development and implementation of EU policy directives. Springer Netherlands 67-101.

  • Vettori C Gallargo F Häggman H Kazana V Migliacci F Pilate G Fladung M (2016) Biosafety of forest transgenic trees: improving the scientific basis for safe development and implementation of EU policy directives. Springer Netherlands 329 p.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.68

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.173
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.288


Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 285 137 5
PDF Downloads 111 70 3