1 - 7 of 7
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Consumers views of genetically modified food
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Institute of Grocery Distribution, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004-08-09
- Published:
- United Kingdom
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 154 Document Number: C24918
- Notes:
- 2 pages, Retrieved November 8, 2006, "IGD consumer research shows that genetic modification (GM) is currently making little difference in the majority of consumers' shopping habits."
3. Health Poll Report Poll
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Princeton Survey Research International
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004-02-08
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 144 Document Number: C22505
- Notes:
- Posted at LexisNexis Roper Accession Number 0449996
4. Overview fo findings: 2004 focus groups and polls
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004-09
- Published:
- USA: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a project of the University of Richmond supported by the Pew Charitable Trust, Washington, D.C.
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 141 Document Number: C21643
- Notes:
- A Project of the University of Richmaond Supported by Pew Charitable Trusts Washington D.C., 6 pages, In September 2004 the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology conducted its third comprehensive survey of U.S. consumer sentiment about the application of genetic engineering to agriculture. Similar comprehensive surveys were previously conducted by the Initiative in January 2001 and August 2003. The first survey sought to track consumer awareness of genetically modified (GM) crops, whereas the second survey continued that tracking effort and probed related issues such as regulation of GM foods and preferred applications. This year the Pew Initiative built on its body of knowledge about consumer sentiment by conducting focus groups as well as fielding a survey. Four focus groups were conducted in Philadelphia and Des Moines on August 25th and 26th. Observations from those groups were then used to develop a survey that both tracked the issues addressed in prior surveys by the Pew Initiative and probed some of the sentiments detected in the focus groups. The resulting survey was then administered to 1000 American consumers who were interviewed by telephone September 22-26, 2004. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.1% at the 95% level of confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups. The combined findings from the August 2004 focus groups and the September 2004 survey are summarized below and provide a robust picture of current U.S. consumer attitudes toward GM foods and genetic engineering, why those beliefs are held, and trends in those attitudes over the last three years. In addition to this summary, the Pew Initiative is making available a transcript of the focus groups and the survey results, prepared by the firms that jointly prepared and conducted them, the Melman Group and Public Opinion Strategies.
5. Peer reviewed publications on the safety of GM foods: results of a search of the PubMed database for publications on feeding studies for GM crops
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Preston, Christopher (author / University of Adelaide, South Australia) and AgBioWorld Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004-12
- Published:
- International
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 142 Document Number: C21933
- Notes:
- 5 pages.
6. Public sentiment about genetically modified food: November 2004 update
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004-11
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 147 Document Number: C23428
- Notes:
- From Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 8 pages., Results of the third comprehensive survey by Pew Initiative of U.S. consumer sentiment about the application of genetic engineering in agriculture.
7. The discourse of the GM food debate: how language choices affect public trust
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Cook G (author), Pieri E (author), Robbins P T (author), and Economic and Social Research Council, United Kingdom
- Format:
- Research report
- Publication Date:
- 2004
- Published:
- UK: University of Reading
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 141 Document Number: C21642
- Notes:
- 13 pages, The research aims to analyse the language and discourse of the debate over GM crops and food during February-July 2003. This period is expected by all sides to be one of renewed controversy and interest in the UK, with a government initiated national debate, discussion of the GM crop field trial results, and reconsideration of the current moratorium on commercial cultivation. Although it is impossible to predict either the exact course or duration of the debate, it is certain to provide a wealth of material for research into the impact of stakeholders' communication strategies upon public trust and understanding. Recently, the GM debate has generated a great deal of research and publication. The proposed project, however, is distinctive for its attention to the language and discourse of the debate, and for its combination of linguistic and sociological methodology. The GM debate brings together scientific, ethical, political and social concerns. Each perspective has its own discourse, and this in itself can be a source of misunderstanding and disagreement. The research will focus less upon the content of the debate, as other research has done, and more upon the forms in which it is expressed, as well as ways in which it is framed by its actors. It will explore how styles of argument, metaphors and analogies, phrases and single words can change in meaning and effect when they cross discoursal boundaries. As such, it will make a unique contribution to understanding of the public debate, and be of value and relevance to all stakeholders, interested academics, and society in general. More generally it will provide insights into the communication of controversial new technology and the responses of both public, media, and policy makers. For this purpose, the project will collect, analyse and relate three datasets. The first will be an electronically stored corpus of newspaper articles and public statements by major stakeholders (such as NGOs, government, and biotechnology companies). This first datatset can be automatically analysed using current corpus linguistic software to reveal frequent word choices and combinations. The second dataset will be transcripts of interviews with representatives of major stakeholder organisations about the factors governing their choices of language and strategies of argumentation. This second dataset will be coded using software for qualitative analysis, to reveal recurrent themes and opinions. The third dataset will be transcriptions of six focus groups, meeting on two occasions each, in which participants react to the language choices and communicative styles of selected extracts from dataset one. Focus groups have been chosen for the depth which they allow in the exploration of views and opinions among targeted groups with a particular relation to the topic. In our research each group identity will relate to one area of the debate, as follows: parents of young children (diet and health); charity volunteers (ethical concerns); students in higher education (long term effects); birdwatchers (biodiversity); farmers (consequences for agriculture); temporary UK residents from poor countries (effect on crop nutrition and yield). The intention is not to provide a survey of opinion, of which many already exist, nor to duplicate the existing focus-group literature on public responses to GM, but to provide new evidence of the discoursal sources of conflict and mistrust. This third dataset will also be coded for themes and arguments. This research will elucidate the actual (rather than presumed) effect of styles of argument on public perceptions and trust, thus complimenting and deepening existing understanding.