USA: International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 124 Document Number: D11194
Notes:
3 pages., IFIC specialists offer five predictions for 2020, guided by findings from surveys among American consumers in an annual Food and Health Survey, 2012-2019.
USA: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 123 Document Number: D11183
Notes:
Via online release. 1 page., Findings of a digital ethnography report indicate that while the climate change debate is expected to grow 3.6 percent in the next two years, the conversation on causes is expected to grow 260 percent and solutions 202 percent.
8 pages., Online issue., "Critics of climate science claim that climate models lack predictive skill. In fact, some of the earliest predictions made thirty years ago have performed remarkably well." ... "the bad news is that in terms of action, we are still only scratching the surface of responses needed...to prevent
'dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.' The real challenges lie ahead."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 133 Document Number: D11400
Notes:
4 pages., Online via website., Results of a national survey among U.S. adults indicated: "A majority of Americans are skeptical of the impact that industry funding has on scientific research and on the recommendations made by practitioners ... The public is somewhat more positive - though still ambivalent - about the effects of government funding on research and practitioner recommendations."
20 pages., via online journal., This article analyses whether different institutional sources of scientific information have an impact on its credibility. Through a population-based survey experiment of a national representative sample of the Spanish public, we measure the credibility that citizens attribute to scientific information on the evolution of CO2 emissions disclosed by different institutional sources (business associations, government, non-government environmental organisations, international bodies and national research institutions). The findings show that an institutional credibility gap exists in science communication. We also investigate the factors accounting for the credibility of the different institutional sources by examining variables related to knowledge, interest, trust, reputation, deference, attitudes, values and personal characteristics. Exploratory regression analyses reveal that identical variables can produce different effects on the credibility of scientific information, depending on the institutional source to which it is attributed.
