## 6 GMOs: Friends or Foes? GMOs are widely considered to be the future of food. As such, they have been the focus of public debate about their perceived risks, ranging from the reduction of biodiversity to long-term health consequences, such as toxicity or allergies [116, 117]. Genetically Modified (GM) foods are derived from plants, animals or microorganisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been artificially modified, e.g., by introducing a gene from other organisms (viruses, bacteria, other plants and animals and even humans). Currently, such modifications are mostly applied in plants to improve their resistance to disease and/or tolerance to herbicides [118]. Because of the controversies both within the scientific community and in public discourse [118, 119, 120, 121, 122], many European countries have not yet formally authorized GM crops. According to [PERSON] [123], Europeans remain for the most part wary of GMOs, with wide regional variations. The highest percentages of opponents of GM foods are in Austria, Norway, Hungary (70%), Cyprus (76%), Italy (77%) and Greece (81%), followed by France and Denmark (65%). The lowest proportions are in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Finland [124]. These tendencies, however, are not stable over time, and the data is probably heavily influenced by the research design [125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131]. [PERSON] et al. [132] published a study in 2017 on consumer opinions of genetically modified foods conducted in London and Warsaw. The study sought to determine whether there are cultural differences between the two countries, whose history in terms of GMO acceptance is quite dissimilar. Poland, which banned GMO crops in 2015, also restricts trade in genetically modified organisms. England is among the leaders in biotechnology, and GMOs boast the full support of the government, which sees them as an important economic resource. Contrary to expectations, the study's results were very homogeneous, suggesting that since all European consumers have access to global information sources, their attitudes towards certain phenomenon tend to converge. In both countries, city dwellers were similar in their attitudes and were more favorable to GMOs than their warier rural compatriots. This might merit further investigation. Most respondents agreed that longer shelf-life and resistance to extreme weather conditions are the main advantages of GMOs, while the most feared disadvantages were the unpredictable consequences of genetic modification, the production of species-specific toxins and food allergenity. Other studies [133] found different concerns, including the fear of carcinogenic effects, environmental damage and the disappearance of natural products from the market. Overall, as many as 27.69% of respondents surveyed by [PERSON] et al. had a negative attitude towards GM foods, while only 19.83% believed that GMOs would bring tangible benefits. The other respondents expressed no definite opinion. The literature presents conflicting evidence about the role of information in changing attitudes towards GMOs. According to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [53], none of the information strategies implemented in different European countries has succeeded in changing attitudes; indeed, it seems that they have negatively influenced the choice of products. Attitudes towards GMOs do not improve even when the mechanisms underlying the genetic modification are understood. It is clear that this is a particularly complex topic, and that consumer attitudes are probably also constructed on the basis of dimensions that research has not considered, which could involve social dynamics and values (i.e., in rural areas) that cannot be changed merely by providing cognitively relevant information. [PERSON] provides some innovative thoughts about using communication styles tailored to the audience to maximize the effectiveness of a positive message about GMOs.