Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 141 Document Number: D06191
Notes:
Locate in file folder for Document No. D06187, Pages 56-59 in L. Johnson, Alhassan WS Anthony V. and P. Rudelsheim (eds.), 2011. Agricultural biotechnology in Africa: stewardship case studies. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra,Ghana. 60 pages., Authors emphasize the importance of having integrated communication and awareness training programmes for all players in the product life cycle.
Hansen, Maggie Jo (author) and Edgar, Leslie D. (author)
Format:
Paper
Publication Date:
2015
Published:
Belgium
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 138 Document Number: D05787
Notes:
Paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section of the annual conference of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31-February 1, 2015. 23 pages.
Robertson, Michael J. (author), Preston, Nigel P. (author), and Bonnett, Graham D. (author)
Format:
Book chapter
Publication Date:
2017
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08788
Notes:
Pages 155-172 in Gordon, Iain J. Prins, Herbert H.T. Squire, Geoff R. (eds.), Food production and nature conservation: conflicts and solutions. United Kingdom: Routledge, London. 348 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 18 Document Number: D10474
Notes:
126 pages., ISBN: 9780438013049, Via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., Genetically modified foods and crops are a topic of heated debate in the United States. As with all issues, messaging has the potential to influence and change an individual’s attitude. Through the lens of social judgment theory, this quasi-experimental study investigated the influence of an evidence-based message on millennial agricultural students’ attitudes towards genetically modified foods and crops, while taking into account participants’ ego-involvements for the issue. Sixty-nine undergraduate students in the College of Agriculture participated in this study – comprised of a pre-test and post-test questionnaire with an evidence-based message intervention between.
The major finding from this study was that for the issue of genetically modified foods, millennial agricultural students’ with high ego-involvement are capable of attitude change and moving their anchor points in the direction of viewing genetically modified foods and crops less favorably than prior to the evidence-based message intervention. This result was unexpected, but important. Another key finding is that the majority of millennial agricultural students reported holding favorable attitudes towards genetically modified foods. In regards to the risks of genetically modified foods, the majority of participants disagreed that there is any risk associated with eating genetically modified foods and were neutral towards any environmental risks of genetically modified crops. This study also investigated the role of ego-involvement and the widths of the latitudes of acceptance, noncommitment, and rejection. While there was a trend for the latitude of acceptance to increase and for the latitude of rejection to decrease for both the high and low ego-involvement groups, these findings were insignificant.
Overall, this study’s findings provides great insight to science communicators who are messaging with the goal of influencing attitude change. Utilizing key elements of science communication including, weight of evidence reporting, weight of experts reporting, reinforcement of self-identity, credibility, valence, and framing theory, it is possible to influence attitude change, at least for millennial agricultural students with high ego-involvement for the issue of genetically modified foods. Future research should expand to include other segments of the population, as well as other science issues.
16 pages, via Online Journal, Crop genetic resources constitute a ‘new’ global commons, characterized by multiple layers of activities of farmers, genebanks, public and private research and development organizations, and regulatory agencies operating from local to global levels. This paper presents sui generis biocultural community protocols that were developed by four communities in Benin and Madagascar to improve their ability to contribute to, and benefit from, the crop commons. The communities were motivated in part by the fact that their national governments’ had recently ratified the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol, which make commitments to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and farmers, without being prescriptive as to how Contracting Parties should implement those commitments. The communities identified the protocols as useful means to advance their interests and/or rights under both the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol to be recognized as managers of local socio-ecological systems, to access genetic resources from outside the communities, and to control others’ access to resources managed by the community.
9 pages, Humans have improved plants for their utility through selective self-pollination, crossing, and progeny selection for >10,000 years, largely based on physical characteristics. Less than 200 years ago, the genetic basis of heritability in selection was revealed, enabling breeders to accelerate genetic gain. Breakthroughs in genomics and molecular markers for the past century have enabled breeders to locate and select genomic regions affecting desirable traits, improving breeding precision. Transgenesis has enabled crop insertion of desirable exogenous genes, enabling de novo functionality. These technologies, along with agronomic practices, have generated more than sixfold yield improvements in crops such as corn in the past century. Gene editing, with its unique ability to precisely edit, change expression, and move genes within a crop's genome, has the potential to be the next breakthrough technology. For this to come to fruition, it is critical to take a holistic view considering perspectives of scientists, farmers, regulators, and consumers.
