1,720,959 research outputs found
Americans’ perceptions of and likely responses to the threat of avian influenza in the U.S. food supply
No full textHighly pathogenic avian influenza has affected poultry consumption in all affected countries as well as some countries that have not been affected. If, as some predict, there is an outbreak of avian influenza in poultry in the U.S., there will likely be serious repercussions on the entire food system.To predict what might happen if avian influenza emerged in poultry or wild birds in the U.S. researchers at the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, conducted a national survey of public knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors related to the threat of avian influenza in the food supply.MethodologyA total of 1200 telephone interviews, lasting an average of 22 minutes, were completed between May 3, and June 5, 2006.2 The survey sample was selected through a random digit dial list. The sample selection procedures ensure that every household within the United States has an equal chance to be included in the survey. Each selected number was called a maximum of 15 times with calls distributed across days and times to try to reach a member of the household. The data was weighted using appropriate U.S. census weights for gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education. The cooperation rate was 60%. This paper summarizes the findings of the survey.Rutgers Food Policy Institute (FPI) Research Report RR-1106-01
Public Opinion and Media Coverage of Animal Cloning and the Food Supply: Executive Summary
No full textAs part of its research program examining public knowledge, attitudes and opinions about food biotechnology, the Food Policy Institute recently completed a project examining public opinions about animal cloning and the products of animal cloning in the food supply. The project consisted of three components: 1) a review of the publicly available surveys of public opinion related to the issue; 2) a set of interviews with a group of opinion leaders looking at their mental models of animal cloning and the food supply; and, 3) an examination of media coverage of cloning and animals on websites, in news stories on the Internet, and in American print news stories published in 2005. The purpose of the study was to examine the intersection of rhetoric and opinion regarding the controversial issues related to animals, cloning, and the food supply.Rutgers Food Policy Institute Research Report: RR-1106-011
Public Response to the Contaminated Spinach Recall of 2006
No full textOn September 14, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory to consumers not to eat bagged fresh spinach because of suspected contamination by E. coli O157:H71. This advisory was based on information provided to the FDA by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concerning a multi-state foodborne illness outbreak possibly associated with the consumption of fresh spinach. The FDA also informed the public that E. coli O157:H7 causes diarrhea, often with bloody stools, and urged those who believed they experienced symptoms of illness after consuming bagged spinach to contact their health care providers.
The following day, the advisory was expanded to include all fresh spinach because the FDA had been informed that bagged spinach was sometimes sold in an un-bagged form at the retail level. Simultaneously, a series of voluntary recalls of fresh spinach began nationwide, as stores and restaurants quickly removed fresh spinach from their shelves and menus. By then, however, some of the contaminated spinach had already been consumed, with most people having already become ill between August 19 and September 5, 2006. As the investigation continued, the focus narrowed to products from Natural Selection Foods, LLC, of San Juan Bautista, California, with "Best if Used by Dates" of August 17, 2006 through October 1, 2006.
On September 20, the FDA issued an updated press release, advising consumers to continue to avoid consuming fresh spinach or products containing fresh spinach. They added however, that it was safe to eat frozen spinach, canned spinach and spinach included in pre-made meals manufactured by food companies. The following day, the FDA issued a statement that they, working closely with the CDC and the State of California, had determined that the spinach implicated in the outbreak had been grown in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Clara counties in California. The FDA was cautious in stating that produce other than spinach grown in these counties had not been implicated in the outbreak, however, the advisory against eating spinach was still in effect.
Finally, on September 22, the FDA advised the public that they could be confident in consuming spinach grown outside the three counties in California that had been implicated in the outbreak. They added that “industry is working to get spinach from areas not implicated in the current E. coli O157:H7 outbreak back on the market”; suggesting that the incident was over. However, as late as October 6, the FDA continued to remind retailers, food service operators and consumers that they should not sell or consume raw spinach or blends that might contain spinach that were “the subject of the earlier recalls.”
Ultimately, nearly 200 people in 26 states were reported to the CDC as having potentially been infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H79. More than 100 of these cases were hospitalized, and 31 developed a form of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This resulted in the deaths of three people (two elderly women and a two-year old boy) in confirmed cases of infection believed to be associated with the outbreak.
Due to the nature, scope, and significance of this contamination incident, and the potential lessons that might be learned from it, the Food Policy Institute (FPI) at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey undertook an analysis of the information that key actors attempted to deliver as events unfolded, the media coverage of those messages and events, and the information that consumers received, remembered, and acted upon. This report focuses on the third portion of this analysis; that is, what did consumers know, where did they get that
information, and what did they do in response to the advisories issued by the FDA warning them not to eat fresh spinach.Food Policy Institute Research Report # RR-0107-013
Avian Influenza in Poultry: American Knowledge, Perceptions, and Responses
No full textComputer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,200 non-institutionalized American adults (aged 18 and over) between May 3, 2006 and June 5, 2006. The results indicated:
• Avian influenza is on the national agenda
- Most Americans (93%) indicate they have heard of avian influenza.
- Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they have discussed avian influenza with someone else.
• Still, most Americans don’t know much about avian influenza
- More than half of Americans say they know ‘little’ or ‘nothing’ about avian influenza.
- On average, Americans correctly answer fewer than 60% of a series of 22 objective knowledge
questions.
• Uncertainty regarding food-related transmission
- The majority of Americans are aware that animal to human transmission of the avian influenza virus
can occur from contact with live infected birds or feces from infected birds.
- About one-third are unsure if transmission is possible from eating infected meat or eggs.
• Conflicting beliefs about preventing infection
- More than two-thirds of Americans believe the virus is present in uncooked meat of infected
chickens.
- Yet, less than half believe that proper cooking chicken kills the avian influenza virus.
- Few Americans believe infected live birds are easily recognizable; yet, many believe infected raw
meat is readily identifiable.
• Americans perceive the general risks posed by avian influenza to be low
- Americans aren’t very worried about illness with avian influenza.
- Americans report their risk of infection with avian influenza in the next year to be relatively low and
other Americans’ risk of infection to be higher, but still moderate.
• Yet, Americans see avian influenza in chicken as more risky
- The majority of Americans report greater perceived risk specifically associated with the consequences of eating chicken infected with avian influenza.
• Most Americans currently view chicken as safe and continue to eat it
- More than nine-in-ten Americans say they currently eat chicken.
- Americans report that chicken products in the U.S. are currently safe to eat.
• The proximity of avian influenza cases affects Americans likelihood of eating chicken
- The nearer avian influenza comes to the U.S., the less likely Americans are to eat chicken.
- Avian influenza does not necessarily have to emerge in the U.S. to affect poultry consumption.
• Many Americans are unlikely to eat chicken if the avian influenza virus is found inside the
U.S.
- Americans say they are relatively unlikely to eat chicken in the U.S. if avian influenza is found in wild
birds in the U.S. or if someone became sick with avian influenza from eating chicken in the U.S.
- Americans report being least likely to eat chicken in the U.S. if avian influenza was found in chickens
on farms in the U.S. and 39% report that they would definitely not eat chicken.
- Americans report reluctance to eat any chicken products if U.S. chickens are infected.
• Even with a strong, specific assurance of safety, many Americans report that they would be
unlikely to eat chicken again if the avian influenza virus is found inside the U.S.
- One-fifth (20%) say they would never eat chicken again.
- Those participants who said they would eat chicken again, report that it would take an average of 144 days for them to start eating it again (SD=337.67; Mdn=42).Suggested Citation:
Condry, S. C., Hallman, W. K., Vata, M., & Cuite, C. L. (2007). Avian influenza in poultry: Americans’
knowledge, perceptions, and responses. (Publication number RR-0507-014). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Food Policy Institute
Public perceptions of the risks of deliberate contamination of the food supply in the United States
No full textThe threat of agricultural terrorism has increasing become the focal point of interest for government, industry, and the public. As such, interviews were conducted with 1,001 American adults to examine their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the risks associated with contamination of the food supply and their likely responses to the threat of deliberate food contamination. Respondents were also randomly assigned to be interviewed about attitudes and behaviors related to one of four contaminants (anthrax, botulism, salmonella, and cyanide) that might be used in a deliberate contamination incident. The results suggest that Americans know little about the food supply chain or about likely points of vulnerability within the system. Yet, more than half say they have thought about terrorism and the food supply. The majority also say that future terrorist attacks on the food and water supply within the United States are likely, and are only somewhat confident in the ability of grocery stores and the federal government to ensure food safety. More than one-fifth believe that deliberate contamination already occurs at least ‘somewhat often’. While perceived risk varied based on the type of contaminant used in a deliberate attack on the food supply, there were no differences in respondents’ affective reactions. However, when asked to predict their behaviors in a deliberate food contamination event, there were differences reported in confidence in the food supply, the amount of food respondents would purchase, and in the length of time it would take for them to resume their pre-contamination buying behaviors.Poster presented December 5, 2005 at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, Orlando, Florida.Peer reviewe
Food recalls and food safety perceptions: The September 2006 spinach recall case
No full textThis study analyzes public perceptions on food safety using a national survey conducted soon after the nationwide spinach recall (November 2006). We explore relationships between peoples’ perceived risks of food contamination (spinach in this case) and their trust in the institutions in charge of safeguarding/ensuring safety. Finally, we explore relationships between individual observance of basic good food handling practices and food safety. Trust in institutions through which food passes and regulatory agencies were shown to be critical in determining food safety perceptions. For example, skepticism with which the public views food corporations (processors, transporters or retailers) impacted food safety perceptions negatively. On the other, confidence in the USDA as a regulatory agent was viewed positively and hence contributed toward viewing the four types of spinach as safe for consumption.Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 602, May 2007, North Dakota State Universit
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
