Search results

In 2005, Swiss citizens endorsed a moratorium on gene technology, resulting in the prohibition of the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops and the growth of genetically modified animals until 2013. However, scientific research was not affected by this moratorium, and in 2008, GMO field experiments were conducted that allowed us to examine the factors that influence their acceptance by the public. In this study, trust and confidence items were analyzed using principal component analysis. The analysis revealed the following three factors: "economy/health and environment" (value similarity based trust), "trust and honesty of industry and scientists" (value similarity based trust), and "competence" (confidence). The results of a regression analysis showed that all the three factors significantly influenced the acceptance of GM field experiments. Furthermore, risk communication scholars have suggested that fairness also plays an important role in the acceptance of environmental hazards. We, therefore, included measures for outcome fairness and procedural fairness in our model. However, the impact of fairness may be moderated by moral conviction. That is, fairness may be significant for people for whom GMO is not an important issue, but not for people for whom GMO is an important issue. The regression analysis showed that, in addition to the trust and confidence factors, moral conviction, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness were significant predictors. The results suggest that the influence of procedural fairness is even stronger for persons having high moral convictions compared with persons having low moral convictions.

SIMPLE SUMMARY: While developments in animal welfare science have led to a greater understanding of the welfare needs of calves (Bos taurus), there are prevailing concerns that current knowledge has not been adopted in practice. Given that the perceptions of veterinarians have direct implications for the level of welfare protection afforded to calves, this study investigated the current thinking of veterinarians towards the welfare of young calves in New Zealand. Through a nationwide survey, the findings revealed that veterinarians strongly disagreed with the specifications of certain calf welfare regulations. Veterinarians also expressed diverse concerns for the potential risks of calf welfare compromise across the production chain and identified multiple barriers to implementing welfare-related change. The findings indicate considerable support among veterinarians for strengthening the level of welfare protection afforded to calves in New Zealand. Given the asymmetries that exist between the current regulatory framework and veterinary perspectives, the findings suggest that more needs to be done to improve calf welfare in New Zealand. ABSTRACT: Despite recent legislative amendments to address areas of highest risk to the welfare of calves (Bos taurus) in New Zealand, there are prevailing concerns that animal welfare science knowledge has not been adopted in practice. As a part of a larger, nationwide study investigating the perceptions of veterinarians towards calf welfare, the aim of the current work was to investigate the perceptions of veterinarians towards the level of welfare protection afforded to young "bobby" calves in New Zealand. This study also explored concerns for welfare compromise and identified barriers to welfare-related change for calves more generally. An electronic mixed-methods survey was completed by 104 veterinarians registered with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The findings revealed that veterinarians strongly disagreed with the specifications of certain calf welfare ...

Food systems need to focus more on health, prosperity, and environmental sustainability. This requires changes in what, where, how and by whom food is produced, marketed, and consumed. Interdisciplinary research and trans-disciplinary collaboration are needed. Stakeholders need to agree on their respective roles, values, responsibilities and modus operandi so that research better responds to real-world challenges and opportunities. This viewpoint argues that this is especially the case in the Global South post Covid-19. Without these changes, there will continue to be unrealistic expectations of impact from agricultural research, and disappointment when these are not realised.