Pollock, John C. (author), Peitz, Krysti (author), Watson, Elizabeth (author), Esposito, Cara (author), Nichilo, Phil (author), Etheridge, James (author), Morgan, Melissa (author), and Hart-McGonigle, Taylor (author)
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2017
Published:
Springer
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 93 Document Number: D10865
26 pages., via online journal., A community structure analysis compared cross-national coverage of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with variations in national-level demographics from 19 newspapers worldwide, yielding combined article “prominence” and “direction” “Media Vector” newspaper scores emphasizing either “favorable” (42%) or “unfavorable” (58%) coverage of GMOs. Regression analysis revealed “poverty level” (24.2% of variance) and “percent of agricultural land” (4.7%) totaled 28.9% of the variance, confirming that “vulnerability” indicators are associated with favorable media coverage of GMOs. Contrary to conventional “guard dog” assumptions that media mirror elite interests, systematic research on demographics and GMO coverage reveals that media can mirror the interests of society’s most “vulnerable.”
This newsletter article is maintained in the office of the Agricultural Communications Program, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign -- "International" file section - "OCIAC" file folder., Agricultural Communications Program, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Summary of findings from a case study involving an international computer-based conference on biotechnology.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 141 Document Number: D06191
Notes:
Locate in file folder for Document No. D06187, Pages 56-59 in L. Johnson, Alhassan WS Anthony V. and P. Rudelsheim (eds.), 2011. Agricultural biotechnology in Africa: stewardship case studies. Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra,Ghana. 60 pages., Authors emphasize the importance of having integrated communication and awareness training programmes for all players in the product life cycle.
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.
10 pages, Biotechnology use in food production has been a polarizing topic that has encountered resistance from some consumers. The discovery of genome editing biotechnology, in which no foreign genetic material is introduced into the host organism while making accurate and efficient changes in genomes, has the potential to revolutionize food biotechnology in a more socially acceptable and less polarizing fashion. The success and adoption of gene-edited foods, however, ultimately depends on consumer acceptance. This study reports the results of a geographically disperse Chinese consumer acceptance study (n = 835) in which individuals evaluated rice and pork products that were bio-engineered to address two significant hazards that have recently garnered international attention: cadmium contamination in rice and African swine fever. We explore the role that food technology neophobia has on consumer acceptance and assess how information on the differences between transgenic and gene editing technologies affects consumer preferences. While averse to the use of biotechnology in food products, consumers were considerably more accepting of products that have undergone genome editing rather than transgenic modification. We find differential impacts of information provision on preferences between pork and rice products and on preferences for product provenance. Our analysis indicates that a reduction in consumers’ fear of novel food technologies can substantially increase consumer valuation and market acceptance of bioengineered food products and reinforces the need to consider attitudes in measuring acceptance of novel food products.
Martin, Brittany (author), Anderson, Sandra (author), Lundy, Lisa (author), and Rumble, Joy (author)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
2017-02
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 163 Document Number: D08155
Notes:
Research paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS) conference in Mobile, Alabama, February 4-7, 2017. 25 pages.
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.
