20 pages., Via online journal., Consumers are concerned about the risks related to genetically modified (GM) food, and there is a need for agricultural communicators and educators to address those concerns. The purpose of this study was to explore Florida residents’ latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment toward GM food messages. The findings from this study can be used to guide communication and education campaigns for GM food. An online survey was distributed to a non-probability sample of 500 Florida residents to fulfill the purpose of the study. The messages that most aligned with the respondents’ views toward GM food discussed how potential risks related to human health had not been adequately investigated and that GM food may be riskier to consume compared to traditional food. The messages that most opposed the respondents’ views were that GM food was safe for consumption and that it caused cancer in humans. People whose views most aligned with the message that GM food caused cancer in humans had the largest latitude of rejection, likely due to their extreme attitude, confirmation bias, and ego-involvement. The largest percentage of respondents accepted messages that aligned with their position but expressed noncommitment to messages that opposed their views. This lack of rejection and indication of alignment with messages related to potential risk and uncertainty indicated Florida consumers were unsure about the effects of GM food. Communicators and educators should acknowledge these concerns when delivering information about GM food to enhance the effectiveness of communication with consumers.
20 pages., This study was conducted to examine Florida consumers’ stance on legalizing the growing and processing of hemp, recently redefined as an agricultural commodity. Factors were explored that may explain their stance to provide insight into the communication needs in the early stages of the U.S. hemp industry revival. Results indicated that respondents who had more favorable attitudes toward legalizing hemp were also more likely to fall within the category of being overall “for legalizing hemp” when offered a binary choice. Further, attitude toward legalizing hemp was predicted by respondents’ objective knowledge of hemp topics, attitude toward legalizing marijuana, and perceived personal relevance of legalized hemp cultivation and production. A strong association between hemp and marijuana was also observed in both the quantitative and qualitative findings, and respondents indicated some confusion regarding the mind-altering properties of marijuana compared to hemp. As such, a key recommendation is that early communication messages and strategies be tailored toward educating the public on differences in the uses and psychoactive properties of hemp and marijuana. Future research is needed to identify other key messages needed to enhance public understanding of hemp, as well as the best methods of delivering such. Future research should be conducted with other hemp stakeholders, including policymakers, hemp license-holders, and other farmers and industry members to reconcile potential differences in key stakeholder perceptions and enhance the future viability of the industrial hemp market.
