Publication: Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes: An Attempt to Explain the Mismatch between Experience and Perception
Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes: An Attempt to Explain the Mismatch between Experience and Perception
Date
Date
Date
Citations
Aerni, P. (2015). Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes: An Attempt to Explain the Mismatch between Experience and Perception. In R. R. Watson & V. R. Preedy (Eds.), Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Production, Safety, Regulation and Public Health (pp. 149–158). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802259-7.00014-2
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
The main barriers to maximize the benefits and minimize the risk of modern agricultural biotechnology for society and the environment are not technical but regulatory in nature. Preventive regulation of agricultural biotechnology must be understood as a policy response to public rather than scientific concerns about the development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. But measuring "public concern" is not an accurate science. Views voiced about GMOs are largely influenced by stakeholders who frame the publi
Metrics
Downloads
Views
Additional indexing
Creators (Authors)
Editors
Title of Book
Title of Book
Title of Book
Place of Publication
Place of Publication
Place of Publication
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page end
Page end
Page end
Item Type
Item Type
Item Type
Language
Language
Language
Publication date
Publication date
Publication date
Date available
Date available
Date available
ISBN or e-ISBN
ISBN or e-ISBN
ISBN or e-ISBN
OA Status
OA Status
OA Status
Free Access at
Free Access at
Free Access at
Publisher DOI
Metrics
Downloads
Views
Citations
Aerni, P. (2015). Agricultural Biotechnology and Public Attitudes: An Attempt to Explain the Mismatch between Experience and Perception. In R. R. Watson & V. R. Preedy (Eds.), Genetically Modified Organisms in Food Production, Safety, Regulation and Public Health (pp. 149–158). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802259-7.00014-2