Search

Prevention behaviors are important in mitigating the transmission of COVID‐19. The protection motivation theory (PMT) links perceptions of risk and coping ability with the act of adopting prevention behaviors. The goal of this research is to test the application of the PMT in predicting adoption of prevention behaviors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Two research objectives are achieved to explore motivating factors for adopting prevention behaviors. (1) The first objective is to identify variables that are strong predictors of prevention behavior adoption. A data‐driven approach is used to train Bayesian belief network (BBN) models using results of a survey of N=7797$N=7797$ participants reporting risk perceptions and prevention behaviors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A large set of models are generated and analyzed to identify significant variables. (2) The second objective is to develop models based on the PMT to predict prevention behaviors. BBN models that predict prevention behaviors were developed using two approaches. In the first approach, a data‐driven methodology trains models using survey data alone. In the second approach, expert knowledge is used to develop the structure of the BBN using PMT constructs. Results demonstrate that trust and experience with COVID‐19 were important predictors for prevention measure adoption. Models that were developed using the PMT confirm relationships between coping appraisal, threat appraisal, and protective behaviors. Data‐driven and PMT‐based models perform similarly well, confirming the use of PMT in this context. Predicting adoption of social distancing behaviors provides insight for developing policies during pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Societal Impact Statement: A diverse portfolio of genetically engineered food crops, as well as animal livestock and fish, are currently being developed and commercialized. To ensure their contributions to long‐term sustainability, a broad range of environmental, health, ethical, and societal parameters should be used in their evaluations. This paper proposes a set of parameters to evaluate the sustainability of genetically engineered food and agriculture products and discusses mechanisms to improve their governance and oversight. With such holistic evaluations, genetic engineering applications that are deemed beneficial to sustainable agriculture could be identified in an effort to foster sustainability. Summary: To achieve international sustainable development goals, food and agricultural production need to rely on sustainable and resilient practices. Traditional breeding as well as the use of new agricultural technologies, including genetic engineering and gene editing, have the potential to help achieve sustainable agrifood production. Although numerous oversight mechanisms exist to guarantee the secure and sustainable advancement and utilization of genetically engineered agrifoods, the majority of these mechanisms heavily depend on a narrow set of parameters to assess risks and safety concerning human health and nontarget organisms. However, a more comprehensive range of parameters should be considered to promote environmental and social sustainability in a more holistic manner. This Opinion article argues that to achieve a more sustainable agrifood production that relies on genetic engineering, governance systems related to new agrifood biotechnologies should incorporate a broader array of environmental, health, ethical, and societal factors to ensure their sustainability in the long‐term. To facilitate this process, we propose a set of parameters to help evaluate the sustainability of agrifoods that rely on genetic engineering. We then discuss major challenges and opportunities for formalizing sustainability parameters in US governance policy and decision‐making systems. Overall, this work contributes to further developing a more comprehensive assessment framework that aims to minimize potential risks and maximize potential benefits of agrifood biotechnology while also fostering sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent gene editing tools and techniques continue to develop at a swift pace and gene-edited foods boast significant promise to create identifiable benefits for end-use consumers, although there are currently few publicly identifiable products in the commercial marketplace. While competing stakeholders are active in this space, few public-facing media stories have surfaced and there have been few studies of public opinion of gene-edited foods. This article reports findings of the first representative survey study of public opinion toward gene-edited foods in the United States. This work finds that Americans are divided on their perceptions of this new technology and provides robust and granular assessment and identification of socioeconomic and belief-based classifications to better describe the current state of public opinion in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent gene-editing technologies are heralded by proponents as a revolution for developing gene-edited foods (GEFs) while critics demand increased governance and scrutiny of potential societal impacts. Governance of GEFs is different in the United States, where GEFs are entering the market, and Europe, which restricts GEF development. Definitive regulations for governing GEFs are not yet solidified in either region. We identify and compare how English-language media in the United States and Europe portray potential risks, benefits, and regulation of GEFs, and we explore how these portrayals may reflect their regulatory environments. Results show that the regions similarly prioritize benefit frames that emphasize the social and scientific progress GEFs may bring, and few articles express skepticism about potential benefits. Comparing samples across regions exposes differences between Europe and the United States in the risk and benefit portrayals and in governance initiatives. Both regions prioritize policy risks that are counter to their current oversight regimes: the US media sample focused on GEFs being underregulated while the European sample emphasize risks of too much regulation. This may demonstrate the power of media to reflect and even cultivate public opinion and may influence future policy revisions within these distinct regulatory environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]