丹麦和瑞典畜牧业者对转基因方法和转基因生物的看法

IF 5.1 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Journal of Rural Studies Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103414
{"title":"丹麦和瑞典畜牧业者对转基因方法和转基因生物的看法","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although studies paid extensive attention to consumers' perceptions towards risk related to genetic engineering (GE) methods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, farmers' views have been under-researched. Understanding what shapes farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks by GE methods in food production matters, because as producers and suppliers of such food products, farmers affect their use and commercialisation. Scientists have debated and disagreed on the safety of GE methods and GMOs and their impact on biodiversity and environment over the years. These disagreements impeded the extensive GMO food production in the EU, which is also reflected in consumers' perceptions about potential risks by using GE methods concerning health safety and nutritional value of GMO food.<sup>1</sup>.This paper does not evaluate the potential benefits or hazards of these methods. Instead, based on primary survey data, it investigates and compares the aspects livestock farmers perceive as important towards GE methods and GMOs in Denmark and Sweden. we. The analysis demonstrates that farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks using GE methods and GMOs differ among types of producers within each country and between the two countries. These differences in perceptions are attributed to socio-economic characteristics (age, education, economic benefits, and farming activities), sectoral organisation, trust in suppliers and the social environment within which farmers operate in rural areas.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Livestock farmers’ perceptions towards genetically engineered methods and genetically modified organisms in Denmark and Sweden\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Although studies paid extensive attention to consumers' perceptions towards risk related to genetic engineering (GE) methods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, farmers' views have been under-researched. Understanding what shapes farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks by GE methods in food production matters, because as producers and suppliers of such food products, farmers affect their use and commercialisation. Scientists have debated and disagreed on the safety of GE methods and GMOs and their impact on biodiversity and environment over the years. These disagreements impeded the extensive GMO food production in the EU, which is also reflected in consumers' perceptions about potential risks by using GE methods concerning health safety and nutritional value of GMO food.<sup>1</sup>.This paper does not evaluate the potential benefits or hazards of these methods. Instead, based on primary survey data, it investigates and compares the aspects livestock farmers perceive as important towards GE methods and GMOs in Denmark and Sweden. we. The analysis demonstrates that farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks using GE methods and GMOs differ among types of producers within each country and between the two countries. These differences in perceptions are attributed to socio-economic characteristics (age, education, economic benefits, and farming activities), sectoral organisation, trust in suppliers and the social environment within which farmers operate in rural areas.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rural Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724002183\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724002183","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管研究广泛关注消费者对食品中基因工程(GE)方法和转基因生物(GMOs)相关风险的看法,但对农民的看法研究不足。了解是什么影响了农民对食品生产中转基因方法潜在风险的看法非常重要,因为作为此类食品的生产者和供应商,农民影响着这些产品的使用和商业化。多年来,科学家们就转基因方法和转基因生物的安全性及其对生物多样性和环境的影响进行了辩论,并产生了分歧。这些分歧阻碍了欧盟广泛的转基因生物食品生产,这也反映在消费者对使用转基因方法的潜在风险的看法上,涉及转基因生物食品的健康安全和营养价值。1. 本文并不评估这些方法的潜在益处或危害,而是根据原始调查数据,调查并比较了丹麦和瑞典的畜牧业者对转基因方法和转基因生物的重要看法。分析表明,不同类型的生产者对使用基因改造方法和转基因生物的潜在风险的看法各不相同。这些观念上的差异可归因于社会经济特征(年龄、教育程度、经济收益和农业活动)、行业组织、对供应商的信任以及农村地区农民所处的社会环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Livestock farmers’ perceptions towards genetically engineered methods and genetically modified organisms in Denmark and Sweden

Although studies paid extensive attention to consumers' perceptions towards risk related to genetic engineering (GE) methods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, farmers' views have been under-researched. Understanding what shapes farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks by GE methods in food production matters, because as producers and suppliers of such food products, farmers affect their use and commercialisation. Scientists have debated and disagreed on the safety of GE methods and GMOs and their impact on biodiversity and environment over the years. These disagreements impeded the extensive GMO food production in the EU, which is also reflected in consumers' perceptions about potential risks by using GE methods concerning health safety and nutritional value of GMO food.1.This paper does not evaluate the potential benefits or hazards of these methods. Instead, based on primary survey data, it investigates and compares the aspects livestock farmers perceive as important towards GE methods and GMOs in Denmark and Sweden. we. The analysis demonstrates that farmers’ perceptions towards potential risks using GE methods and GMOs differ among types of producers within each country and between the two countries. These differences in perceptions are attributed to socio-economic characteristics (age, education, economic benefits, and farming activities), sectoral organisation, trust in suppliers and the social environment within which farmers operate in rural areas.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
286
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Studies publishes research articles relating to such rural issues as society, demography, housing, employment, transport, services, land-use, recreation, agriculture and conservation. The focus is on those areas encompassing extensive land-use, with small-scale and diffuse settlement patterns and communities linked into the surrounding landscape and milieux. Particular emphasis will be given to aspects of planning policy and management. The journal is international and interdisciplinary in scope and content.
期刊最新文献
Farm-level acceptability of contract attributes in agri-environment-climate measures for biodiversity conservation Is Australia's urban-regional schism on climate reality or rhetoric? Exploring the institutional factors in mitigating rural gentrification-led displacement: The case of Xiaozhou Village in Guangzhou, China Beyond the ‘gender gap’ in agriculture: Africa's Green Revolution and gendered rural transformation in Rwanda The potential of local online shopping platforms for villages and small and medium-sized towns
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1