Search

    Start Over Subject Term GMO Subject Term attitudes Subject Term food

    1. Agriculture sector struggles to wade through the molasses of public opinion

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Dyck, Toban (author)
    Format:
    Commentary
    Publication Date:
    2019-11-19
    Published:
    Canada: Financial Post, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 121 Document Number: D11105
    Journal Title:
    Financial Post
    Notes:
    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."

    2. Consumers may decide the future of U. S. citrus

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Format:
    News release
    Publication Date:
    2019-02-14
    Published:
    USA
    Location:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10313
    Notes:
    2 pages., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign., Researchers report consumer research indicating that the "future of U. S. citrus may hinge on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food."

    3. Determining the effects of evidence-based messaging on millennial agriculturalists' attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    Collection:
    Agricultural Communications Documentation Center (ACDC)
    Contributers:
    Ballmer, Erica M. (author) and Purdue University
    Format:
    Thesis
    Publication Date:
    2018-01-01
    Published:
    Ann Arbor: ProQuest
    Location:
    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.

    6. No health risks from GMOs

    <span class="translation_missing" title="translation missing: en.bibleaves.discover_item">Discover Item</span>
    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."