AgBioForum, vol. 04, no. 3 & 4 (2001)
Permanent URI for this collection
Issue title: "Communicating about Agrobiotechnology." Click on one of the browse buttons above for a complete listing of the contents of this issue.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay a Premium for Non-GM Foods in the US and UK(AgBioForum, 2001) Moon, Wanki; Balasubramanian, Siva KumarThis study uses consumer survey data collected in the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) to examine the linkages between subjective risk and benefit perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-genetically modified (non-GM) foods. While UK consumers were significantly more willing to pay a premium to avoid GM foods than US consumers, risk and benefit perceptions clearly translated into behavioral intentions as measured with willingness-to-pay in both countries. More importantly, this paper establishes that risk perception exerts a greater impact on willingness-to-pay than benefit perception.Item The Public Debate on Agrobiotechnology : A Biotech Company's Perspective(AgBioForum, 2001) Krueger, Roger W.Since the first commercial release of a bioengineered crop in 1996, planted acres of enhanced crops have increased steadily each year. Yet, public perceptions and knowledge of the benefits of this technology have not kept pace with grower demands for the new tools. Additionally, global regulatory infrastructure and capacity to evaluate and approve the release and import of these products has been uneven and slow. As the global population continues to grow and more people demand a higher standard of living, few solutions offer the promise of genetic modification, namely, to increase agricultural productivity while decreasing its impact on the environment. Monsanto will continue to use the tools of genetic modification for crop improvement, combining germplasm, biotech traits, and agronomic solutions to offer products and systems that will not only benefit producers, but also offer benefits to processors and consumers. As the true, scientifically-based benefits of these products become clearly articulated, support and acceptance of this new tool will lead to the next generation of added value products and consumers will be able to make informed decisions on cost, benefits, and alternative solutions to meeting their demands.Item Mass Media Communications about Agrobiotechnology(AgBioForum, 2001) Marks, Leonie A.; Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G., 1960-The media is often accused of sensationalism and bias in its reporting of agrobiotechnology. In this paper, we examine United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK)media coverage of agrobiotechnology. Our findings confirm bias in so far as coverage has emphasized different frames (biosafety and food safety) at various points in timedepending on unfolding events. We also find that the media may well have played anagenda-setting role for the public--ultimately raising awareness about agrobiotechnology on both sides of the Atlantic.Item News' Compartmentalization : Implications for Food Biotechnology Coverage(AgBioForum, 2001) Logan, Robert A.This essay explains that some of the news media s challenges and problems in covering agrobiotechnology might be linked to structural organization and traditions within the nation s newsrooms. Within serious news organizations, food biotechnology news often has been perceived as an agriculture food or business story, instead of a science, environment, or investigative story. All these news emphases, or beats, have different traditions and inclinations in news reporting, which may explain how food biotechnology news has been covered by American journalists. This essay notes the importance to increase interest in food biotechnology coverage--especially among science writers within serious news organizations.Item The Dynamics of Scientific Controversies(AgBioForum, 2001) Hines, Pamela J.Science controversies can be distinguished from one another on whether the issue of controversy is a matter of ethics, a matter needing further scientific research, or a need to make public policy decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Effective communication about the relevant issues underlying any science controversy can be improved with education about both the facts and the process of empirical science. Improved communication strategies may support the public interest in science, more effectively incorporate the public voice into policy outcomes, and improve the level of trust between the public and the research scientists.