Available via HathiTrust.org., Online via keyword search of UI Library eCatalog, Case study of 126 residents from a metropolitan area who, during the 1981-82 Mediterranean Fruitfly Crisis, were undergoing exposure to aerial spraying with a pesticide. Findings exemplified the difficulties facing decision makers and the public in uncertain risk situations such as this, as well as the politicization of risk.
5 pages., Author concludes that "genetic information is easy to portray as a new and scary technology, but fearmongering is largely based on misinformation, a misunderstanding of evolution and our place in the natural world, and vague fears of contamination. In reality, GMO safety testing is extensive and has not uncovered any safety concerns for current GMOs. There are other issues with GMOs that are worth discussing, but fears of adverse health effects are not legitimate." Cites a review of research ty the European Commission in 2010: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
19 pages., Via online journal., While in vitro animal meat (IVM) is not yet commercially available, the public has already begun to form opinions of IVM as a result of news stories and events drawing attention to its development. As such, we can discern public perceptions of the ethics of IVM before its commercial release. This affords advocates of environmentally sustainable, healthy, and just diets with a unique opportunity to reflect on the social desirability of the development of IVM. This work draws upon an analysis of ethical perceptions of IVM in 814 US news blog comments related to the August 2013 tasting of the world’s first IVM hamburger. Specifically, I address three primary questions: (1) How does the public perceive the ethics of IVM development? (2) How acceptable is IVM to the public relative to alternative approaches to reducing animal meat consumption? and (3) What should all of this mean for the ongoing development and promotion of IVM? Ultimately, it is argued that there is a strong need for facilitation of public dialogue around IVM, as well as further research comparing the acceptability of IVM to other alternatives.
