2pgs, Animal intrusion into produce fields has been an obvious food safety risk for some time. More recently, the risks associated with proximity to animal agriculture and habitats — including evidence for commodities other than leafy greens — have received high-profile interest, demanding increased attention from the fresh produce industry.
Czaja, Ronald (author), Hoban, Thomas (author), Woodrum, Eric (author), and Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1992
Published:
USA: Rural Sociological Society
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 91 Document Number: C06663
biotechnology, James F. Evans Collection, The extent and sources of public opposition to the use of genetic engineering in agricultural production are examined through data from telephone interviews with 220 farmers and 332 nonfarmers living in eight North Carolina counties. A model suggesting that public opposition to genetic engineering is influenced by demographic characteristics mediated by three intervening variables (awareness of genetic engineering, faith in government and industry, and moral objection to genetic engineering) is analyzed. Moral objection is the strongest predictor of opposition. Opposition is also related to lower awareness and less faith in institutions. Women are more likely to oppose genetic engineering than men. Implications of findings are noted. (original)
Hoban, Thomas J. (author), Kendall, Patricia (author), and Hoban: Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University; Kendall: Food Science and Nutrition, Colorado State University
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1993
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 96 Document Number: C07635
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection, In: Macdonald, June F., ed. Agricultural biotechnology: a public conversation about risk. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1993. p. 73-86
