Hansen, Maggie Jo (author) and Edgar, Leslie D. (author)
Format:
Paper
Publication Date:
2015
Published:
Belgium
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 138 Document Number: D05787
Notes:
Paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section of the annual conference of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Atlanta, Georgia, January 31-February 1, 2015. 23 pages.
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.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08126
Notes:
Research paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) in San Antonio,Texas, February 7-8, 2016. 30 pages.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D05928
Notes:
Pages 27-38 in Allan Eaglesham, Sandra Ristow and Ralph W.F. Hardy (eds.) Biotechnology: science and society at a crossroad. NABC Report 15. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Ithaca, New York. 292 pages., "...holding innumerable debates about the pros and cons of agricultural biotechnology will not resolve the issues raised here, as long as the problem is framed as a lack of knowledge."
