Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10310
Notes:
Online from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Emoryville, California., "Backing away from attempts at censorship, the National Park Service today released a report charting the risks to national parks from sea level rise and storms."
5 pages., Author concludes that "genetic information is easy to portray as a new and scary technology, but fearmongering is largely based on misinformation, a misunderstanding of evolution and our place in the natural world, and vague fears of contamination. In reality, GMO safety testing is extensive and has not uncovered any safety concerns for current GMOs. There are other issues with GMOs that are worth discussing, but fears of adverse health effects are not legitimate." Cites a review of research ty the European Commission in 2010: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 134 Document Number: D11401
Notes:
30 pages., Online via website., "Despite the growing use of genetically modified crops over the past 20 years, most Americans say they know only a little about GM foods. And many people appear to hold 'soft' views about the health effects of GM foods, saying they are not sure about whether such foods are better or worse for one's health. ... a majority of Americans perceive disagreement in the scientific community over whether or not GM foods are safe to eat. And, only a minority of Americans perceive scientists as having a strong understanding of the health risks and benefits of GM foods."
24 pages., Open access and online via ScienceDirect., The suggested model involves interactions and integration among knowledge (K), social practices (P), and values (V). Authors contemplated bottom-up relationships among scientists, environmental managers, science journalists, and other citizens operating within a context of top-down institutional constraints. They emphasized values and social practices, as well as knowledge, in addressing institutional change.
