26 pages., via online journal., This paper employs the patent data of four major genetically modified (GM) crops, soybeans, cotton, maize and rapeseed, to illustratee how the innovation of GM crop technology diffused and distributed globally over time. Data collected from the Derwent Innovation Index, were employed to construct country patent citation networks, from 1984 to 2015, and the results revealed that developed countries were early adopters, and the primary actors in the innovation of GM crop technology. Only seven developing countries appeared in the country citation network. Most developed countries were reluctant to apply GM crop technology for commercial cultivation. Private businesses stood out in the patent citation network. The early adoption and better performance of developed countries can be explained by the activities of large established private companies.
USA: International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10555
Notes:
3 pages., via website, International Food Information Council Foundation., Topics like sustainability, plant-based diets and clean eating seem to permeate news about food, but it turns out they’re not just buzzwords or “flavors of the week.” IFIC Foundation’s 2019 Food and Health Survey shows genuine and growing interest in these and other trends.
15 pages, Bioeconomy is deemed to be an ambiguous term with multiple facets: new products from biomass, circular and cascading resource systems, developments of new and more resilient plants, or synthetic biology for molecular biotechnology, to name a few. Accordingly, the term is interpreted just as diversely by involved stakeholders and the broader public. Enabling a clear and constructive dialog on bioeconomy strategies with and among society requires a profound understanding of these perceptions. To address this issue, a representative survey was conducted among the German population in order to scrutinize the general public's understanding of the term bioeconomy, citizens’ knowledge, fears, and expectations, as well as factors explaining their attitudes toward the bioeconomy. Our results indicate that, so far, German citizens are not very familiar with the concept. Its underlying ideas, however, are vastly appreciated. Support for a sustainable bioeconomy is thus strong and connected to high expectations in terms of environmental and economic benefits, which needs to be taken into account both in the implementation and communication of bioeconomy strategies. Support for the bioeconomy is furthermore connected to beliefs that reflect environmental concern and to pro-environmental behavior. While most measures and principles related to the bioeconomy (e.g., the use of biogas, biofuels, renewable materials for everyday products or buildings, or the cascading and circular use of resources) are strongly appreciated, the use of genetic engineering, for example, is opposed, mainly with regard to its applications in agriculture and industry, to a lesser extent in medicine.
28pgs, Technological advancement is seen as one way of sustainably intensifying agriculture. Scholars argue that innovation needs to be responsible, but it is difficult to anticipate the consequences of the ‘fourth agricultural revolution’ without a clear sense of which technologies are included and excluded. The major aims of this article were to investigate which technologies are being associated with the fourth agricultural revolution, as well as to understand how this revolution is being perceived, whether positive or negative consequences are given equal attention, and what type of impacts are anticipated. To this end, we undertook a content analysis of UK media and policy documents alongside interviews of farmers and advisers. We found that the fourth agricultural revolution is associated with emergent, game-changing technologies, at least in media and policy documents. In these sources, the benefits to productivity and the environment were prioritised with less attention to social consequences, but impacts were overwhelmingly presented positively. Farmers and advisers experienced many benefits of technologies and some predicted higher-tech futures. It was clear, however, that technologies create a number of negative consequences. We reflect on these findings and provide advice to policy-makers about how to interrogate the benefits, opportunities, and risks afforded by agricultural technologies.
12 pages., Because of concerns about human health, the environment, and animal welfare, meat is a highly contentious food. Accordingly, a broad range of alternative, small-scale practices for raising livestock and producing non-industrial meat are in the spotlight. While scholars have examined consumer perspectives on “ethical” meat, less is known about producers' perceptions of how small-scale meat production fits into the broader food system, and how their perceptions relate to broader sustainability debates surrounding meat. We explore producer perspectives on small-scale “ethical” meat production and its role in a sustainable food system. We do so through interviews and site visits with 74 people working within alternative meat production in four Canadian provinces, a sample that includes farmers, ranchers, butchers, and meat-focussed chefs. We find that, in the face of practical challenges linked to small-scale production, producers are passionately committed to the project of small-scale animal rearing that they regard as humane and sustainable. Despite these similarities, producers have radically different ideas about the purpose and potential of ethical meat. We observed major differences among producers' cultural imagination of meat, exemplifying varied ideas for fitting meat into a sustainable food system. Our findings underscore the importance of charting not only producers’ practices, but also their cultural orientations.
