The debate around genetically modified food and crops has proved to be complex and far-reaching, involving diverse stakeholder groups and many issues. Although the extent of global uptake of GM crops has been substantial (23 countries and 114.65 million hectares by 2007), it is significant that four countries are responsible for 86% of all GM plantings, and that a number of key food markets (for example the EU and Japan) remain largely "GM-free‟. This suggests that there is reluctance on the part of many countries to embrace GM technology. There are likely many reasons for this, but one significant issue is that of the perception of the risks associated with the technology. There is a distinction between risk that exists in the world and that can be measured (objective risk) and risk that is perceived by an individual to exist and that is constructed by them based on their values and preferences. When technical measurement of actual risks is not possible, peoples‟ own perceptions of risks become important. This thesis aims to investigate the topic of risk perceptions associated with GM food and crops. Different stakeholder groups have been targeted, and a range of methodologies from a variety of disciplines have been employed to investigate what factors can be shown to influence risk perception. A range of factors were identified from existing literature, as having potential impact on risk perceptions. A number of these were investigated, some of which were found to have some influence on levels of risk perception. Results demonstrate that factors influencing peoples‟ perceptions of risk relating to GM food and crops, include the uncertainty associated with the technology, and trust in regulators, policy makers and others with control over the future development of the technology. Other factors found to be important to levels of risk perception held by different stakeholder groups, were a range of socio-demographic and cultural variables, the relationship between perceived risks and benefits, the equity of impacts, and the influence of third parties. There are a number of implications for the development of the GM debate arising from the findings. First, as there are socio-demographic and cultural factors linked to the perceptions of risk associated with GM technologies in food and agriculture, it is important to recognise that different people will react differently to the technology. Specifically, results from this thesis show that it may be that men, those who are more highly educated, those with a less ecocentric worldview, and those living in urban areas, are likely to respond more favourably to targeted promotional campaigns. As regards the farming community, results show that the first farming adopters are likely to be those who are both owners and tenants, not in an urban fringe location, potato growers, and not barley growers. Second, this thesis provides evidence that third parties are particularly important to farmers, thus it is crucial to recognise that there is potentially a long chain of action and reaction amongst many different stakeholders and actors impacting on farmers' levels of risk perception, and hence willingness to adopt the technology. Third, results from this research demonstrate that the linked issues of the relationship between risks and benefits, and the equity of (positive and negative) impacts, require that all stakeholders are content that they will receive a share of the benefits (if any) to be derived from the technology, and that neither they nor any other group of stakeholders are unduly impacted by the risks or negative impacts (if any) of the technology. Important here is the recognition that perceptions are as important as actual impacts. Fourth, the issue of trust has been shown by the results obtained by this research to be extremely important to peoples' perceptions of risk. It can be concluded that trust is of wider social and political importance that relates to the need to ensure greater democratisation of decision-making in order to re-establish trust in authorities. In the case of GM food this may require a rethinking of the EU legislation relating to the technology. This also relates to point below about the delivery of messages and education. Information sources must be trusted by those at whom the messages are aimed. More importantly though, if people are to trust decision making processes, there needs to be stakeholder involvement at an early stage of decision making, that allows some impact on decisions taken. In the case of the GM debate it may indeed be too late as decisions about the technology, its applications, the regulatory processes and its inclusion within the food chain are well established. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that lessons will be learnt and applied to future technology developments of relevance to the food chain, such as, nano-technology. Finally, this thesis has shown that uncertainty is central to peoples' perceptions of risk. This could be addressed through a combination of additional research into what is uncertain to people, the impacts and implications of the technology, more effective dissemination of existing knowledge, and impartially delivered messages and education strategies from trusted sources that address the concerns that people have about the technology. Importantly however there must be an acknowledgement that uncertainty is not restricted to "knowledge deficit‟ but encompasses the scientific uncertainties inherent within the technology, and is framed by the social and cultural values of those whose views are considered. This thesis uniquely targeted diverse groups and employed a combination of different methods from a variety of disciplines. By doing this the study has increased understanding of the views of two groups (campaigners and farmers) who are crucial to the uptake of the technology, and who are seldom researched in the area of attitudes to GM technologies. The diversity of groups, methods and disciplines brought together in this thesis is important because the issue of GM has proved to be complex and far-reaching, and previous discussions of risk perceptions have been complex and disjointed. All groups investigated here are stakeholders in the process, and as such their views and concerns relating to risk perceptions of GM technologies ought to be taken into consideration.

Genetically modified (GM) foods technology is a novel idea for improving food and crop production, but the supposed health risk of GM foods, such as possible negative long-term health effects to humans, animals and the environment, have provoked the European Union to create assessment protocols to monitor and regulate the safety of GM foods and crops. This research investigates the perception and attitudes of unlabeled GM foods of the WKU faculty and staff. A survey was administered via WKU Qualtrics, and chi-square tests were performed to see how the benefits and disadvantages of GM foods may affect the purchasing decisions of the educated consumer, and to see if the WKU faculty and staff wants GM foods to be labeled or not. The research confirms that the benefits and disadvantages of GM foods do affect the purchasing decisions of the educated consumer. The survey revealed that about 60% of the WKU faculty and staff buys GM foods, and 40% do not buy GM foods, and approximately 92% of the WKU faculty and staff wants GM foods to have proper labeling and information. The research provides information about how the educated consumer of Kentucky may feel about unlabeled GM foods. The research also recommends some trade-off benefits of GM foods, including that approximately 35% of the WKU faculty and staff reported that they would buy GM foods if it helps to lower cholesterol and fight diabetes, and 20% say they would buy GM foods if it is cheaper than other foods. Some of the disadvantages of GM foods are that the pesticide chemicals used in the production methods of GM foods are toxic to humans, animals, and the environment. Approximately 54% of the participants say they would not buy GM foods because they are concerned about how it may affect their long-term health, and about 35% reported that they don’t buy GM foods because of improper labeling and information.

No description available.

基因改造食品一方面是複雜的基因科技產物，另一方面牽涉環境與健康危害的議題，是風險社會下即具代表性的例子。在各方論述的競逐下，媒體如何報導這些新聞卻鮮少有研究關注。本研究旨在探討媒體如何再現基因改造食品新聞？歷年來的報導呈現何種趨勢？與某些特殊事件有關？以哪些形式與議題為最多？凸顯了哪些人的觀點？媒體使用了哪些框架來再現基改食品的樣貌？其中又與哪些在地文化產生互動？ 為解答上述問題，本研究採取量化內容分析與質量化兼具的框架分析兩部分，分析1994年1月起至2006年12月底為止，《聯合報》與《中國時報》的基因改造食品新聞。 在量化內容分析部份發現，基因改造食品新聞以「純淨新聞」寫作為最多，最常出現在「社會／生活」版面，引用比例最高的消息來源為「科學領域專家」，最主要的新聞議題為「政策規範」。這部份的框架分析，研究發現以屬於「進步包裹」的新聞為最多，在各框架包裹所細分的小框架中，採「科學萬能」框架論述的新聞又佔有最高比例。 本研究也依新聞數量變化，將基因改造食品議題的發展分為三個時期：1999年之前的「醞釀期」、2000至2003年「高峰期」與2004年之後的「平穩期」。醞釀期的報導大多將基因改造產品視為科學新產物，有許多來自外電或編譯稿。高峰期開始出現一連串的消費者運動，焦點轉為關注政策制定與食品安全。後來的議題平緩期，出現在地方版的新聞數量超過社會／生活版面，意謂著基改議題逐漸在地化發展，新聞重點在政策的執行面。此外，隨著時期演進，採取「危害包裹」與「關切包裹」論述的新聞也有逐漸增加趨勢，顯示管理議題愈受重視。 在質化框架論述分析部份，本研究發現採用「進步包裹」論述的新聞，抱持基改食品是改善現狀、帶來美好的立場；其中再細分出來的「科學萬能」與「經濟掛帥」框架，多用科學、經濟術語或研究報告、數據來加以佐證，呈現出基改食品在科學與經濟上對人類的貢獻。這兩大框架強烈暗示科技與經濟至上，論述中幾無描繪任何發展時可能的代價與風險，同時又佔據最多新聞數量，因而令其他相對的框架立場難以發聲、居於弱勢。 其次，歸類為「危害包裹」的報導，傾向基改食品具有風險、對人類有害。其中屬「健康疑慮」框架者，關注食品安全問題，論述者多為社運團體，亦引用科學報告為證據；但是他們最終對法規的呼籲，在媒體報導中無法成為關注焦點。被歸類為「天然最好」框架的報導，多為商業推廣新聞，藉由強調非基改食品優點來反面凸顯基改食品，有嚴重的新聞廣告化問題。在「產經毒藥」部分，此類新聞以事件導向為主，描繪有關本地基改作物影響出口經濟的案例，但新聞數稀少，難以喚起重視。風險最大的「禍延子孫」框架，其立場認為基改技術將帶來人類浩劫，但台灣並非基改主要生產國，容易有置身事外之感，加上強大風險的關注本身尚未被科學認可，也很難在地生根。 屬於「關切包裹」的新聞，與法規政策演進有關，其中區分的「妥善管理」論述，對政策有嚴格要求；「有管就好」框架的新聞，則流露出管理的散漫。在此包裹中，呈現出台灣官方面臨美國貿易壓力下，對高科技風險產品的處置，然而台灣並非每次都能嚴守立場，在本地自主與強國干涉間取得平衡；而媒體報導不僅透露出這個問題，也暴露媒體本身並沒有做好捍衛民眾知情權與加強風險意識的責任。 本研究希望能加強後續對風險事物的研究與重視，也建議媒體對任何科學研究，應抱持懷疑態度，不宜過分誇大、宣揚其預期貢獻或獲利。媒體工作者應時常關注國內外的重大科學發現，深化本身背景知識，在報導議題時才能有深入的理解，以善盡加強大眾風險意識之責。政府面對風險事物，不只要盡快制定相關規範，也必須與民眾做良好溝通，加強他們的風險意識與知識。