Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 151 Document Number: D06776
Notes:
Online via Pew Research Center. 8 pages., "Scientists and the American public are often far apart when it comes to views about science-related issues."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08802
Notes:
Pages 29-40 in Debra A. Reid, Interpreting agriculture at museums and historic sites. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland. 265 pages.
Pollock, John C. (author), Peitz, Krysti (author), Watson, Elizabeth (author), Esposito, Cara (author), Nichilo, Phil (author), Etheridge, James (author), Morgan, Melissa (author), and Hart-McGonigle, Taylor (author)
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2017
Published:
Springer
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 93 Document Number: D10865
26 pages., via online journal., A community structure analysis compared cross-national coverage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with variations in national-level demographics from 19 newspapers worldwide, yielding combined article “prominence” and “direction” “Media Vector” newspaper scores emphasizing either “favorable” (42%) or “unfavorable” (58%) coverage of GMOs. Regression analysis revealed “poverty level” (24.2% of variance) and “percent of agricultural land” (4.7%) totaled 28.9% of the variance, confirming that “vulnerability” indicators are associated with favorable media coverage of GMOs. Contrary to conventional “guard dog” assumptions that media mirror elite interests, systematic research on demographics and GMO coverage reveals that media can mirror the interests of society’s most “vulnerable.”
10 pages, Biotechnology use in food production has been a polarizing topic that has encountered resistance from some consumers. The discovery of genome editing biotechnology, in which no foreign genetic material is introduced into the host organism while making accurate and efficient changes in genomes, has the potential to revolutionize food biotechnology in a more socially acceptable and less polarizing fashion. The success and adoption of gene-edited foods, however, ultimately depends on consumer acceptance. This study reports the results of a geographically disperse Chinese consumer acceptance study (n = 835) in which individuals evaluated rice and pork products that were bio-engineered to address two significant hazards that have recently garnered international attention: cadmium contamination in rice and African swine fever. We explore the role that food technology neophobia has on consumer acceptance and assess how information on the differences between transgenic and gene editing technologies affects consumer preferences. While averse to the use of biotechnology in food products, consumers were considerably more accepting of products that have undergone genome editing rather than transgenic modification. We find differential impacts of information provision on preferences between pork and rice products and on preferences for product provenance. Our analysis indicates that a reduction in consumers’ fear of novel food technologies can substantially increase consumer valuation and market acceptance of bioengineered food products and reinforces the need to consider attitudes in measuring acceptance of novel food products.
Martin, Brittany (author), Anderson, Sandra (author), Lundy, Lisa (author), and Rumble, Joy (author)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
2017-02
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 163 Document Number: D08155
Notes:
Research paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) conference in Mobile, Alabama, February 4-7, 2017. 25 pages.
