Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 94 Document Number: C07119
Notes:
food safety, James F. Evans Collection, Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future, 1990. (Discussion paper No. FAP90-06a) 20 p.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 93 Document Number: C07058
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Resources for the Future, 1990. Discussion paper FAP90-05(b). 25 p., This paper examines food safety, public policy, and some contributions that economists can make in improving both. Recent food safety cases are reviewed, major proposed legislation is outlined, and six distinguishing characteristics and dilemmas of current U.S. food safety policy problems are discussed along with past and still needed contributions from economists. (original)
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 83 Document Number: C05023
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection; See C05022 for original, In: MacDonald, June Fessenden, ed. Agricultural biotechnology : food safety and nutritional quality for the consumer. Ithaca, NY : National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1991. p. 74-81
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 94 Document Number: C07112
Notes:
food irradiation; food safety, James F. Evans Collection, In: Charles W. Felix (ed), Food Protection Technology. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1987. p. 55-60
food irradiation; food safety, James F. Evans Collection, cited reference, Many companies do not use food irradiation because, among other issues, they are concerned that consumers may reject irradiated products. Food irradiation is explained in this article. Consumer concerns about the environment and radioactivity, and the role of education campaigns in alleviating consumer fears are discussed.
9 pages., Via online journal., Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures “produced using genetic engineering” on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont’s mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.
