1. BACKGROUND Biotech food products have greatly increased over the past 20 years and hold great potential in improving the standard of living of millions of people. Nevertheless, perceptions persist and if not resolved may slow biotech adoption. Specifically, terminology is a point of discussion. Conventional wisdom was that if framed as genetically modified, the general public is against biotechnology (Wasserman, 2005). The purpose of this survey was to study that assumption by polling a population of college students from a variety of backgrounds, with diversity in both education and nationality. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS A response survey was done with data collected in yes/no (ordinal) format. The survey was administered electronically to the entire population of Iowa State University (ISU) students registered for Summer and Fall 2005 terms. Approximately 24,000 surveys were sent. Participants responded through a web portal. There were 764 responses with a response rate of 3%. The survey addressed 4 topical areas of GM food: level of knowledge, extent of education, amount of support for the technology, and degree of safety of consumption. Demographic information was collected including: major area of study and discipline, nationality, and room for added comments. The Chi square statistic determined the significance of the relationship between response variables. RESULTS The relationship between participant area of study and participant opinion of GM food safety suggest that it is significant. (Figure 1) RESEARCH QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESES Objectives of this study include: Is there a relationship between participant major area of study and a participant opinion of the safety of genetically modified (GM) food? Is there a relationship between a participant level of information about GM food and a participant opinion of the safety of GM food? Is there a relationship between a participant nationality and a participant opinion of the safety of GM food? DISCUSSION All three objectives showed significant differences. Students studying in the physical sciences held a stronger positive opinion about GM food safety than students studying in areas not based in the physical sciences. Student participants with some or a lot of information about GM food felt GM food was safer than participants with none or little information. American participants felt GM food to be safer than students of other nations. REFERENCES Finke, T., Kim, H. (2003). Attitudes about genetically modified foods among korean and american college students. AgBioForum 6(4): 191-197. Retrieved October 1, 2004, from http://www.agbioforum.org/\v6n4/v6n4a07-finke.pdf Hoban, T. (2001). American consumers’ awareness and acceptance of biotechnology (NABC Report 13: Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer). Ithaca, New York: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Jacobson, M. (2001). agricultural biotechnology: savior or scourge (NABC Report 13: Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer). Ithaca, New York: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Millis, N. (2001). An agricultural response to the feeding frenzy (NABC Report 13: Genetically Modified Food and the Consumer). Ithaca, New York: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. Wasserman, J. (2005, August 10). Biotech crops get backing in poll. The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved September 8, 2005, from http://www.sacbee.com/content/business/tech/v-print/story/13387596c.html. Student Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food Products Chad M. Laux 1, Heather L. Brumm 2 1 Graduate Research Assistant, Industrial Technology Program, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 2 Instructional Development Specialist, Learning Technologies, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Iowa State University, Ames, IA The relationship between participant level of information of GM food and participant opinion of GM food safety was also significant. (Figure 2) The relationship between participant nationality and participant opinion of GM food safety was significant. (Figure 3) (Figure 1) (Figure 2) (Figure 3)