Irani, Tracy (author), Rudd, Rick (author), Snyder, Lori Unruh (author), Gallo, Maria (author), Fulford, Stephen G. (author), DiFino, Sharon M. (author), and Durham, Timothy C. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2008
Published:
International
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 165 Document Number: C27543
American Farm Bureau Ferderation (author) and Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (author)
Format:
Research report/slides
Publication Date:
2002
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 194 Document Number: C17995
Notes:
on cd-rom, Contains summaries of research findings that compare U.S. farmer and consumer attitudes about the food supply system. Includes data tables containing results from 2002 and from a similar study conducted in 1999.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. (author), Alexander, Corinne (author), Goodhue, Rachael E. (author), and Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California.
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
2004
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C24240
Notes:
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Report 347. 44 pp.
6 pages., Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.
