Dickrell, Peter A. (author) and McCracken, Vicki A. (author)
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
1987
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 93 Document Number: C07076
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection; Highlights and Table of Contents, Pullman, WA : IMPACT Center, College of Agricultural and Home Economics, Washington State University, [1987]. Information Series no. 14. 43 p., U.S. consumers' past acceptance of food technologies (microwaves, artificial sweeteners, etc.) and their current decision-making process were examined in this study in order to assess potential acceptance and usage of irradiation foods. Benefits of food irradiation are explained.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 146 Document Number: C23192
Notes:
Public Opinion Online, Roper Center at University of Connecticut via Lexis-Nexis. 1 page., Summary of responses to a question inviting views about farming and agriculture.
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.
Aubrun, Axel (author), Brown, Andrew (author), and Grady, Joseph (author)
Format:
Report
Publication Date:
2005-09-06
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C27582
Notes:
Posted at http://www.wkkf.org, Pages 31-55 in Perceptions of the U.S. food system: what and how Americans think about their food. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan. 88 pages.
