1 - 6 of 6
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Food industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. lobbying war, emails show
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Lipton, Eric (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2015-09-06
- Published:
- USA
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 202 Document Number: D12109
- Journal Title:
- New York Times
- Notes:
- A version of this article appears in print on September 6, 2015, Section A, Page 1 of the New York Edition of the New York Times with the headline, "Emails reveal academic ties in a food war.", Examines lobbying activities of firms and interest groups in the debate over bioengineered foods - and involving third-party scientists "and their supposedly unbiased research." Includes examples of interactions and financial support for university scientists by commercial firms.
3. GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Vigani, Mauro (author) and Olper, Alessandro (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2013
- Published:
- International
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 137 Document Number: D11470
- Journal Title:
- Food Policy
- Journal Title Details:
- 43 : 32-43
- Notes:
- 12 pages., Online via UI electronic subscription, Authors developed a composite index of GMO standard restrictiveness for 60 countries, assigning objective scores to six different regulatory dimensions. Results showed that many of the determinants highlighted in the theoretical literature are important determinants of the restrictiveness of the GMO regulation. Findings emphasized the prominent role of the market for information, "showing that the structure of domestic mass media (public vs. private) is an important driver of GMO standards."
4. Imaginary organisms: media tout benefits of GMOs that never were
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Latham, Jonathan (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2014-03
- Published:
- International: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, New York City, New York
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11890
- Journal Title:
- Extra!
- Journal Title Details:
- 27(3) : 11-12
- Notes:
- Via online., Author described favorable media coverage and public relations support for new crop biotechnologies announced - and lack of scientific evidence of effectiveness during the following 18 years.
5. Investigating citizens’ perceptions of the bioeconomy in Germany – High support but little understanding
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Dallendörf, M. (author), Diekena, M. (author), Siekmanna, F. (author), and Venghaus, S. (author)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2022-04-10
- Published:
- International: Elsevier
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 205 Document Number: D12560
- Journal Title:
- Sustainable Production and Consumption
- Journal Title Details:
- 30
- Notes:
- 15 pages, Bioeconomy is deemed to be an ambiguous term with multiple facets: new products from biomass, circular and cascading resource systems, developments of new and more resilient plants, or synthetic biology for molecular biotechnology, to name a few. Accordingly, the term is interpreted just as diversely by involved stakeholders and the broader public. Enabling a clear and constructive dialog on bioeconomy strategies with and among society requires a profound understanding of these perceptions. To address this issue, a representative survey was conducted among the German population in order to scrutinize the general public's understanding of the term bioeconomy, citizens’ knowledge, fears, and expectations, as well as factors explaining their attitudes toward the bioeconomy. Our results indicate that, so far, German citizens are not very familiar with the concept. Its underlying ideas, however, are vastly appreciated. Support for a sustainable bioeconomy is thus strong and connected to high expectations in terms of environmental and economic benefits, which needs to be taken into account both in the implementation and communication of bioeconomy strategies. Support for the bioeconomy is furthermore connected to beliefs that reflect environmental concern and to pro-environmental behavior. While most measures and principles related to the bioeconomy (e.g., the use of biogas, biofuels, renewable materials for everyday products or buildings, or the cascading and circular use of resources) are strongly appreciated, the use of genetic engineering, for example, is opposed, mainly with regard to its applications in agriculture and industry, to a lesser extent in medicine.
6. No health risks from GMOs
- Collection:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
- Contributers:
- Novella, Steven (author / Yale University School of Medicine)
- Format:
- Journal article
- Publication Date:
- 2014
- Published:
- International
- Location:
- Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 163 Document Number: D11644
- Journal Title:
- Skeptical Inquirer
- Journal Title Details:
- 38(4)
- Notes:
- 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."