Exploring Public Acceptance, Risk Perception, and Concerns Regarding Genetically Modified Organisms in Food and Agricultural Systems

Abstract

Background: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) represent one of the most transformative yet contentious innovations in modern agriculture and food science. Despite decades of regulatory approvals and scientific consensus on their safety, public acceptance of GMOs remains highly variable across demographic groups and geographic regions. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analytic study examines the multidimensional landscape of public attitudes toward GMOs, with particular emphasis on health risk perceptions, environmental concerns, cultural and religious influences, trust in regulatory institutions, and the role of scientific literacy in shaping consumer behavior. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of peer-reviewed literature published between 2020 and 2026 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 68 primary studies encompassing cross-sectional surveys, experimental designs, and longitudinal analyses—with aggregate samples exceeding 210,000 respondents across 34 countries—were included in the final synthesis. Thematic coding, effect size calculations, and subgroup analyses were performed to identify consistent predictors of GMO acceptance and risk perception. Results: Findings reveal that global GMO acceptance remains bifurcated, with acceptance rates ranging from 32%–45% in European contexts to 52%–67% in North American populations and higher in some developing nations. Health concerns (weighted mean: 58.4%), environmental risks (52.7%), and ethical/religious objections (39.1%) emerged as the primary barriers to acceptance. Scientific literacy, trust in regulatory institutions, perceived benefits, and information framing were identified as statistically significant predictors of positive GMO attitudes (p < 0.001). Gender, education level, political orientation, and urban-rural residency moderated acceptance patterns. Discussion: The gap between scientific consensus and public perception is driven by complex psychosocial mechanisms including the availability heuristic, affect heuristic, and confirmation bias, compounded by media misinformation and institutional trust deficits. Conclusion: Evidence-based science communication, transparent labeling frameworks, and culturally sensitive outreach are essential strategies to bridge the trust deficit between biotechnology institutions and publics worldwide. Policymakers must prioritize participatory risk governance to align GMO policy with public values.