Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) invoke emotions ranging from outright refusal to lukewarm acceptance within and across nations. In order to gauge the perception of and attitude toward GMOs in the US, a random sample of 1,201 adults was interviewed using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system between May 4, 2004 and June 14, 2004. The computational framework of this interview was to capture the relationship between socio-cultural-demographic and knowledge factors determining acceptance of GMOs based on both plant and animal origin. There is a widespread acceptance of plant-based biotechnology in comparison to genetic modification of animal-based food products.

The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as, "An organism whose genetic characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering." The term is modern, yet the process is one of the oldest of human ingenuity in crop breeding to improve and enhance agricultural productivity. The impetus for infusing technology and biosciences began in 1973. Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen invented a method to clone genetically engineered molecules in foreign cell, which led to `Green Revolution' in later years in many developing countries. On the one hand, the very term `genetic engineering' at times evokes contentious debate over the unforeseen risk to human health and environmental safety, but on the other, the benefits to resource-poor and food-insecure developing countries.

Since the introduction of GMOs into markets in the mid-1990s, some countries embraced it as a `Promethean promise' from biotechnology revolution, while others considered it as `Pandora's box', and revolted against it on moral grounds; an intrusion into the very `nature of things.' The fear of extinction of monarch butterfly from the Bt maize pollution dust further intensified the unknown risks from the GMOs. The terminator gene in the `devilish seed' controversy (Rob, 1998) further fueled the debate across nations. There is also fear among farmers in the developing countries that the seed patenting may lead to monopoly control of the seeds which will eventually lead to cost escalation and add burden to their indebtedness. Proponents of biotechnology argue enhanced productivity for the farmers that reduces cost (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2002; and WHO, 2005), with minimal impact on the environment. The Vitamin A and nutrients-fortified rice commonly known as `the golden' rice was introduced to combat Vitamin A deficiency and to ensure vision to the future generation in the developing countries, where more than 250 million children fall victim to this malaise (Stein et al., 2006; Bouis, 2007; Unnevehr et al., 2007; and Cohen et al., 2008). Furthermore, new seed technologies, have in the past, played an important role in enhancing rural income growth and poverty alleviation in the developing countries. The Millennium Development Goals endorsed by all 191 members of the UN, pledged to halve the proportion of people who suffer from chronic poverty by 2015 through genetically modified superior crops, vegetables, trees, and animals that can greatly increase the productivity of small farms (Ho and Ching, 2003). Whether the opposition to GMOs is ideological or otherwise, the path of technological diffusion is the same: initial resistance to a gradual acceptance as new information filters through the risk-benefit spectrum.

Agricultural Economics Journal, Genetically Modified Foods, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Engineering, Biotechnology Revolution, Millennium Development Goals, Agricultural Productivity, Biotechnology Crops, Government Regulations, Economic Research Service, Animal-based Biotechnology, International Organizations.