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.
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."
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.
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.
Howard, Joseph H. (author / Director, National Agricultural Library, USDA)
Format:
summary report
Publication Date:
1987-02
Published:
USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: D10771
Notes:
See this report in Document C02958. Claude W. Gifford Collection. Beyond his materials in the ACDC collection, the Claude W. Gifford Papers, 1919-2004, are deposited in the University of Illinois Archives. Serial Number 8/3/81. Locate finding aid at https://archives.library.illinois.edu/archon/, Page46 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages.