Beall, Gary A. (author), Hayes, James H. (author), and Beall: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, CA; Hayes: Director, Brock Center for Agricultural Communication, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1992
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 90 Document Number: C06376
James F. Evans Collection; Paper presented at the July 1991 International ACE Meeting in Rapid City, SD, Newspapers set the campaign agenda for two environmental initiatives appearing on California's November 1990 general election ballot. In doing so, they relied heavily upon unnamed sources (proponents, experts, environmentalists, etc.) and poorly identified advocacy groups. Although the agricultural community perceived both ballot measures to be agricultural issues, the media defined them in a much broader, environmental context. The agricultural industry-sponsored initiative was treated as a non-issue by the newspapers. It received only five percent of the news and editorial space devoted to the two initiatives. However, pro and con coverage of each initiative was generally balanced, reflecting an overall attempt at fairness and willingness to present both sides of the issue. (original)
James F. Evans Collection, Research directors at American land-grant universities are optimistic regarding the future of agricultural biotechnology and expect the ongoing "biotechnology revolution" to benefit the public, including consumers and farmers. Unresolved public policy questions involving biotechnology do concern many of the research administrators who responded to an opinion poll, but the prevailing attitude appears to be on of confident expectation that solutions will in time emerge for all outstanding biotech problems. Asked about "biotechnology's ethical questions," a majority of the respondents that U.S. land-grant institutions are well equipped to deal with such questions. The respondents said biotechnology may pose environmental risks, but they did not expect biological catastrophes to occur. They said biotechnology could be used to foster low-input methods of agricultural production, and they were in favor of pursuing biotech research that might improve agriculture's sustainability. (original)
Mattocks, D.M. (author), Steel, R.E. (author), and Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, AK; Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, AK
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1992
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 93 Document Number: C06974
James F. Evans Collection; Adapted from a presentation entitled "Bridging the research-farmer gap : examining the role of nongovernmental organizations in agricultural extension" contained in Conference Proceedings, 1992 Symposium for Research in Agricultural and Extension Education; 1992 May; Columbus, OH
