Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10562
Notes:
3 pages., via blog from Janzen Ag Law - online via AgriMarketing Weekly., Since big data arrived in agriculture a few years ago, I have watched companies struggle with how to address farmers' concerns with ag data privacy, security, and control. Some companies have started with a clean sheet of paper and drafted agreements that reflect what they actually do. Others have taken a short cut by cutting and pasting agreements from other industries. The result is that contracts for ag data collection, use and sharing are inconsistent and often miss the point-to communicate the company's intentions with users.
Via online. 5 pages., "Industry in a frenzy, trying to decode the sludge of public opinion while still getting used to the idea this is something to take seriously."
USA: Center for Food Integrity, Gladstone, Missouri.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11707
Notes:
2 pages., Online from publisher., Examines a period of meat shortages in stores - and headlines about pork and poultry farmers having to euthanize entire barns of animals. "Helping consumers understand the supply chain disruption and impacts may seem daunting, but the key is to keep it simple and engage on the shared values of safe food and a commitment to the highest standards of animal care."
Specht, Kathrin (author), Zoll, Felix (author), Schumann, Henrike (author), Bela, Julia (author), Kachel, Julia (author), and Robischon, Marcel (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 99 Document Number: D10870
Via online. 27 pages., Global challenges such as climate change, increasing urbanization and a lack of transparency of food chains, have led to the development of innovative urban food production approaches, such as rooftop greenhouses, vertical farms, indoor farms, aquaponics as well as production sites for edible insects or micro-algae. Those approaches are still at an early stage of development and partly unknown among the public. The aim of our study was to identify the perception of sustainability, social acceptability and ethical aspects of these new approaches and products in urban food production. We conducted 19 qualitative expert interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. Our results revealed that major perceived benefits are educational effects, revaluation of city districts, efficient resource use, exploitation of new protein sources or strengthening of local economies. Major perceived conflicts concern negative side-effects, legal constraints or high investment costs. The extracted acceptance factors deal significantly with the “unknown”. A lack of understanding of the new approaches, uncertainty about their benefits, concerns about health risks, a lack of familiarity with the food products, and ethical doubts about animal welfare represent possible barriers. We conclude that adaptation of the unsuitable regulatory framework, which discourages investors, is an important first step to foster dissemination of the urban food production approaches.
4 pages., Author suggests that"social forestry seeks to manage forests through local communities for their own plus national benefits, but is still falls short of the targets set. Reconciling local concerns for livelihood opportunities with the need for accountability requires intermediaries who successfully negotiate in the bureaucratic jungle of forestry as an institution."
