ArticleGM crops & food2023
Analyzing public sentiment toward GMOs via social media between 2019-2021.
Article in GM crops & food, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of public perception and socio-demographic drivers of genetically modified organisms in Iran.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Genetically modified foods and human health: a comprehensive review and cross-national time-trend analysis.GM crops & food · 2026Review
- Grasping Molecular Biology Mechanisms to Optimize Plant Resistance and Advance Microbiome Role Against Phytonematodes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Importance-Performance Map Analysis of the Drivers for the Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food with a Theory of Planned Behavior Groundwork.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The evolution of media reportage on GMOs in Ghana following approval of first GM crop.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- Modeling the economic impact for Chile of an import ban on genetically modified maize.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- GMO discussion on Twitter.GM crops & food · 2023Article
- The impact of 'framing' in the adoption of GM crops.GM crops & food · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetically modified organisms or GMOs offer significant advantages in food production, including increased yield, decreased pesticide usage, and better disease resistance. However, adoption and public sentiment toward GMOs is highly variable. Without positive sentiment toward GMOs, consumption of GMO-based foods may not have an adequate market for further investment. In order to better understand overall public sentiment toward GMO-based foods, a Boolean search was created using a commercial web-crawling service to collect and analyze public sentiment of GMOs across multiple social media and web-based services from May 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. The Boolean query identified 2 million mentions of GMOs during the study period. Using the commercial software's sentiment analysis (i.e. classifying mentions as either neutral, negative, or positive), 54% of the mentions were categorized as having a neutral sentiment, 32% as having a negative sentiment, and 14% as having a positive sentiment. Further emotional analysis (classifying posts by the emotion expressed, e.g., disgust, joy, sadness, anger, fear, surprise) produced by the software shows that the majority of the mentions were categorized as expressing a negative emotion: 31% of mentions expressed disgust, 28% joy, 18% sadness, 16% anger, 7% fear, and 1% surprise. Among the various social media sources collected, Twitter was the main source of data, providing 62% of the total 2 million mentions, followed by 14% from news sources and 12% from Reddit. These types of data can be used to better understand trends in sentiment toward GMOs and ultimately play an important role in combating mis-information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.