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."
Patterson, Richard (author / North Carolina Biotechnology Institute)
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: D10772
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/, Pages 46-48 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages., Summary of communications efforts by a private, non-profit corporation devoted to enhance biotechnology research and commercial development in North Carolina.
USA: Washington, D.C. : United States Department of Agriculture
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: C02958
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection. Claude W. Gifford Collection., 56 p., Goals of the proceedings were to increase public knowledge about agricultural biotechnology and examine the role of the federal government in regulating the result of such research. Part 7 features "How can biotechnology reach the public?"
Hamilton, Lawrence C. (author) and University of New Hampshire
Format:
Article
Publication Date:
2015-09-01
Published:
United States: Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 128 Document Number: D11245
Notes:
10 pages, via website, Conservative distrust of scientists regarding climate change and evolution has been widely expressed in public pronouncements and surveys, contributing to impressions that conservatives are less likely to trust scientists in general. But what about other topics, where some liberals have expressed misgivings too? Nuclear power safety, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are three widely mentioned examples. For this report, five similarly worded survey questions were designed to test the hypothesis that, depending on the issue, liberals are just as likely to reject science as conservatives. The five questions were included along with many unrelated items in telephone surveys of over 1,000 New Hampshire residents.
Author Larry Hamilton reports that, as expected, liberals were most likely and conservatives least likely to say that they trust scientists for information about climate change or evolution. Contrary to the topic-bias hypothesis, however, liberals also were most likely and conservatives least likely to trust scientists for information about vaccines, nuclear power safety, and GMOs.
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."
USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: D10773
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/, Page 48 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages.
USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: D10770
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/, Pages 45-46 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages.
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.
Chakrabarti, Anwesha (author), Campbell, Benjamin L. (author), Shonkwiler, Vanessa (author), and Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2019-03
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 16 Document Number: D10441
16 pages., As consumer demand for food labeling becomes increasingly important, producers and retailers
can include various labeling to attract new customers. This study investigates Connecticut
consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for mushrooms marketed with various labels using
a latent class approach to identify classes within the market. Results reveal three market segments
(price/GMO-label, locally/organically grown, and traditional mushroom varieties). Overall, only
a third of consumers valued the “locally grown” or “organic” labels, so charging a premium for
these labels might alienate a majority of consumers. Finally, GMO labeled mushrooms are
discounted, but the non-GMO label receives little value.
International: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: D10768
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/, Pages 42-43 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages.
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."
14 pages, via online journal, Social judgement theory was utilized to determine if men and women showed different acceptance of messages about genetically modified (GM) foods. The primary objective was to determine if females and males had a different latitude of acceptance toward statements about GM foods. Researchers found significant differences between males and females with more males accepting messages about GM foods than females. Additionally, there were several statements with wide latitudes of acceptance across genders. These statements represent a common ground and are a good starting point for conversations about GM food.
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.
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."
Kirkpatrick, Keith (author / Farm Department, WHO Radio, Des Moines, Iowa)
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: D10774
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/, Pages 48-49 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages., Summary of presentation and discussion in Part 7 of this proceedings, "How can biotechnology reach the public?"
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 201 Document Number: D11702
Notes:
9 pages., Online via publisher website., Presentation of these cited megatrends in agriculture includes references to expanded communications challenges involving genetic modification/biotechnology and public scrutiny of livestock treatment.
USA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 69 Document Number: D10769
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/, Pages 43-45 in Biotechnology: the challenge - proceedings of the USDA Biotechnology Challenge Forum, Washington, D.C., February 5-6, 1987. 56 pages.
Arp, Allison A. (author) and Iowa State University
Format:
Thesis
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
Ann Arbor: ProQuest
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 18 Document Number: D10473
Notes:
98 pages., ISBN: 9780438072190, Via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., This study explored how preexisting values influence attitudes about GMOs and if aligning messages about GMOs with these values would lead to a greater chance of central processing, and subsequently, greater alignment with message-congruent attitudes. Utilizing the Elaboration Likelihood Model as a theoretical foundation, an online experiment was used to measure several values of participants, including altruistic, biospheric and egoistic value orientations as well as agricultural identity. Attitude accessibility and pre- and post-opinions were also measured in order to determine how much of an effect the presented stimuli had on the participants. All participants were presented with a stimulus that either aligned or didn’t align with their self-ranked GMO value-argument. It was found that attitude accessibility, agricultural identity and in some cases a biospehric value orientation were the most important predictors for a number of constructs related to GMO attitudes. In addition, agricultural identity did not correlate with any other value orientation, yet was the strongest predictor of many related attitudes. Future research should continue to explore the complexity of values within agricultural communication contexts and expand the understanding of how agricultural identity influences such outcomes.
