基因编辑与基因修饰:立陶宛消费者、生产者和农民的意识、态度和行为意图

Q3 Chemical Engineering Chemical engineering transactions Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.3303/CET2187073
L. Bašinskienė, B. Šeinauskienė
{"title":"基因编辑与基因修饰:立陶宛消费者、生产者和农民的意识、态度和行为意图","authors":"L. Bašinskienė, B. Šeinauskienė","doi":"10.3303/CET2187073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.","PeriodicalId":9695,"journal":{"name":"Chemical engineering transactions","volume":"53 1","pages":"433-438"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gene Editing Versus Gene Modification: Awareness, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Lithuanian Consumers, Producers, and Farmers\",\"authors\":\"L. Bašinskienė, B. Šeinauskienė\",\"doi\":\"10.3303/CET2187073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemical engineering transactions\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"433-438\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemical engineering transactions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2187073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Chemical Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemical engineering transactions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2187073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Chemical Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

基因编辑(GE)和基因修饰(GM)技术表现出明显的差异。转基因技术引入了物种固有的DNA变化,而转基因技术则吸收了外来物种的变化。最近的许多科学研究都强调了转基因的潜在好处,指出了解决世界人口增长所带来的粮食供应问题的机会。然而,转基因技术在食品生产中的实施将取决于公众对转基因和基因编辑食品的认识、接受和态度。基于理性行为理论(TRA),我们调查了立陶宛的消费者、农民和生产者对转基因和转基因食品的认识、态度和行为意图。251名消费者、50名农民、56名食品生产者参加了此次调查。在所有样本中(分别为消费者、农民和生产者),转基因技术相关产品的自我认知水平显著高于转基因产品的自我认知水平。所有样品对GEO的认识都相对较低。在所有受访者群体中,对转基因生物和GEO的支持程度也很低。所有群体——消费者、农民和生产者——对转基因食品的负面评价要低于对转基因原材料的负面评价。在统计上,未来使用GEO的总体可能性明显高于转基因生物。与消费者和农民相比,生产者在未来更不可能使用转基因生物。在GEO方面也观察到同样的倾向,在消费者、农民和生产者的样本中存在统计学上的显著差异。
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
Gene Editing Versus Gene Modification: Awareness, Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions of Lithuanian Consumers, Producers, and Farmers
Gene editing (GE) and gene modification (GM) technologies demonstrate noticeable differences. GE technologies introduce changes in DNA, which are intrinsic to the species, while GM technologies incorporate changes from foreign species. The potential benefits of GE have been highlighted in a number of recent scientific studies, pointing to the opportunities that are opening up in addressing the food availability problems as a result of the growing world population. However, the implementation of GE technology in food production would rely on public awareness, acceptance, and attitudes toward genetically modified and genetically edited food products. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we surveyed Lithuanian consumers, farmers, and producers for their awareness, attitudes, and behavioural intentions towards GM and GE food. The 251 consumers, 50 farmers, and 56 food producers participated in the survey. Consistent across all samples (consumers, farmers, and producers, respectively), GM technology-related products’ self-assed awareness was significantly higher than the level of self-assed awareness of GE products. Awareness of GEO in all samples is relatively low. The level of support for GMO and GEO is also low in all groups of respondents. All groups – consumers, farmers, and producers – are less negative about food produced from GE than from GM raw materials. There was a statistically significantly higher overall likelihood for future use of GEO than the GMO. Producers would be less likely than consumers and farmers to use GMOs in the future. The same inclinations are observed with regard to GEO, with statistically significant differences in the sample of consumers, farmers, and producers.
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
Chemical engineering transactions
Chemical engineering transactions Chemical Engineering-Chemical Engineering (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Chemical Engineering Transactions (CET) aims to be a leading international journal for publication of original research and review articles in chemical, process, and environmental engineering. CET begin in 2002 as a vehicle for publication of high-quality papers in chemical engineering, connected with leading international conferences. In 2014, CET opened a new era as an internationally-recognised journal. Articles containing original research results, covering any aspect from molecular phenomena through to industrial case studies and design, with a strong influence of chemical engineering methodologies and ethos are particularly welcome. We encourage state-of-the-art contributions relating to the future of industrial processing, sustainable design, as well as transdisciplinary research that goes beyond the conventional bounds of chemical engineering. Short reviews on hot topics, emerging technologies, and other areas of high interest should highlight unsolved challenges and provide clear directions for future research. The journal publishes periodically with approximately 6 volumes per year. Core topic areas: -Batch processing- Biotechnology- Circular economy and integration- Environmental engineering- Fluid flow and fluid mechanics- Green materials and processing- Heat and mass transfer- Innovation engineering- Life cycle analysis and optimisation- Modelling and simulation- Operations and supply chain management- Particle technology- Process dynamics, flexibility, and control- Process integration and design- Process intensification and optimisation- Process safety- Product development- Reaction engineering- Renewable energy- Separation processes- Smart industry, city, and agriculture- Sustainability- Systems engineering- Thermodynamic- Waste minimisation, processing and management- Water and wastewater engineering
期刊最新文献
Incorporation of a Filter Media by Cellulose Fibers in Biosafety from Sugarcane Bagasse by Alkaline Hydrolysis Air Deterioration Gases in the Social Confinement Period by COVID-19 in Bogotá, Quito, Lima, Santiago de Chile and Buenos Aires Modelling of Methanol Synthesis The Potential of Liquefied Oxygen Storage for Flexible Oxygen-Pressure Swing Adsorption Unit Optimal Operational Profiles in an Electrodialysis Unit for Ion Recovery
×
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