Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:48:35.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

My view

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ray D. William ,
Alex Ogg  and
Carolyn Raab
Ray D. William
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Alex Ogg
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Weed Research, P.O. Box 53, Ten Sleep, WY 82442
Carolyn Raab
Affiliation:
Extension Family and Community Development Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 149
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Literature Cited

Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, Germs, & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Grobe, D. and Douthitt, R. 1995. Consumer acceptance of recombinant bovine hormone: interplay between beliefs and perceived risks. J. Consum. Aff. 29:128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groth, E. III. 1991. Communicating with consumers about food safety and risk issues. Food Technol. 45:248–253.Google Scholar
Hoban, T. J. 2000. Public perceptions and understanding of agricultural biotechnology. Economic Perspectives 4 (4): http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1099/ijee/bio-tec.htm. Accessed October 4, 2000.Google Scholar
Petroski, H. 1993. Predicting disaster. Am. Sci. 81:110–113.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285.Google Scholar
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., and Frewer, L. J. 1995. Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16:267–285.Google Scholar