support for food biotechnology in The united State

Teknologi tepat guna dalam berbagai sektor terutama konstruksi pabrik makanan dalam hal bioteknologi bisa menjadi acuan dasar pengembangan dan kemandirian dalam infrastruktur pangan yang berkelanjutan dibawah kutipannya

bio

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council

we noted that ific’s annually conducted pr media fest on this issue is based on surveys including such unbiased questions as whether consumers would be more or less likely to buy foods modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher or enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

we also noted that in a footnote to their press release this u.s. communications organization noted that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries.

precisely who these supporters are was not specified and a visit to the ific website also failed to reveal its funders. but an ngineer has now forwarded us a pdf of a power point presentation in which the head of the ific spells out, for the likes of the food and consumer products manufacturers of canada, just who its funders are.

the full list is reproduced below and hey, wouldn’t you know it, in addition to the usual food/beverage suspects nestle, unilever et al, the list includes monsanto, not to mention aventis, basf, cargill, dow, dupont, and syngenta.

our industrious ngineer comments, ‘looks like we have big biotech doing a big tobacco hiding their own soapbox at the back of everyone else’s.’

2002 ific supporters
a. e. staley manufacturing company
ajinomoto u. s. a., inc.
archer daniels midland company
aventis cropscience
basf
burger king corporation
cargill, incorporated
the coca cola company
danisco cultor
the dannon company, inc.
dow agrosciences, llc
dupont agricultural products
jack in the box, inc.
frito lay, inc.
general mills, inc.
gerber products company
hershey foods corporation
h. j. heinz company
keebler company
a. e. staley manufacturing company
ajinomoto u. s. a., inc.
archer daniels midland company
aventis cropscience
basf
burger king corporation
cargill, incorporated
the coca cola company
danisco cultor
the dannon company, inc.
dow agrosciences, llc
dupont agricultural products
jack in the box, inc.
fritolay, inc.
general mills, inc.
gerber products company
hershey foods corporation
h. j. heinz company
keebler company
kellogg usa, inc.
kraft foods
m& m/ mars
mcdonald’s corporation
mcneil nutritionals
mead johnson nutritionals
merisant
monsanto company
the pepsi cola company
nestle usa, inc.
nutrinova, inc.
ocean spray cranberries, inc.
taco bell corporation
the procter & gamble company
ross products division/ abbott laboratories
sara lee corporation
syngenta
unilever kellogg usa, inc.
kraft foods
m& m/ mars
mcdonald”šs corporation
mcneil nutritionals
mead johnson nutritionals
merisant
monsanto company
the pepsi cola company
nestle usa, inc.
nutrinova, inc.
ocean spray cranberries, inc.
taco bell corporation
the procter & gamble company
ross products division/ abbott laboratories
sara lee corporation
syngenta
unilever bestfoods

the ific presentation this list comes from can be found at:

for a pdf/3.7 mb download select:
cficfcpmc obesity seminar, june 25, 2002
sylvia rowe
ific
the american obesity experience: ific strategies

norfolk genetic information networking,

the press release below which tells us that, ‘support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.’ reports the results from the latest annual survey of the international food information council. but you’ll have to read down to a footnote to discover that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries. precisely who those supporters are is not specified.

the ific press release also fails to mention just how loaded hoban’s survey questions are. questions like:

all things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?

according to karen charman in a pr watch article on hoban and his slanted ific surveys:

‘james beniger, a communications professor at the university of southern california and past president of the american association for public opinion research, reviewed the ific survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. ucla communications professor michael suman agreed, adding that the questions only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. it’s like saying ‘here’s biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?’ the results might be different, suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. if that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision? ‘ [the professor who can read your mind by karen charman in pr watch vol. 6, no. 4 / fourth quarter 1999

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council by cogent research in august 2002.

nearly three quarters 71% vs. 65% in 2001 of the us population said they would be likely to buy produce that had been enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

in addition, more than half of american consumers 54% would be likely to purchase the same produce if it had been enhanced to taste better or fresher, a number that has remained stable since october 1999. most 61% of consumers still expect to benefit from biotechnology over the next five years. of those expecting benefits, 41% look to improved quality, taste, and variety, 39% cite the area of health and nutrition, and 20% expect biotech to reduce levels of chemicals and pesticides in food production.

overall awareness of biotechnology remains high, with 72% of americans stating they have read or heard information about the issue, and nearly half of consumers 48% have heard about a new area of biotechnology called plantmade pharmaceuticals.

a majority 59% of americans support the fda’s labeling policywhich requires disclosure on a food label only if biotechnology introduces an allergen or substantially changes the food’s nutritional content. also, when asked what information they would like to see added to food labels, 78% of consumers said nothing and just 1% cited information related to biotech ingredients.

the survey was conducted in august 2002 by cogent research of cambridge, massachusetts. telephone surveys of 1001 us adults age 18 and over were completed, and the attached results are representative of the us population.

the press release below which tells us that, ‘support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.’ reports the results from the latest annual survey of the international food information council. but you’ll have to read down to a footnote to discover that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries. precisely who those supporters are is not specified.

the press release also fails to tell you that the surveys were devised for the ific by dr thomas hoban, professor of sociology and food science at north carolina state university and a rabid supporter of genetic engineering. hoban is listed by cs prakash as an agbioworld expert.
the ific press release also fails to mention just how loaded hoban’s survey questions are. questions like:

all things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?
according to karen charman in a pr watch article on hoban and his slanted ific surveys:

‘james beniger, a communications professor at the university of southern california and past president of the american association for public opinion research, reviewed the ific survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. ucla communications professor michael suman agreed, adding that the questions only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. it’s like saying ‘here’s biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?’ the results might be different, suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. if that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision? ‘ [the professor who can read your mind by karen charman in pr watch vol. 6, no. 4 / fourth quarter 1999

support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.
september 23, 2002
ific

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council by cogent research in august 2002.

nearly three quarters 71% vs. 65% in 2001 of the us population said they would be likely to buy produce that had been enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

in addition, more than half of american consumers 54% would be likely to purchase the same produce if it had been enhanced to taste better or fresher, a number that has remained stable since october 1999. most 61% of consumers still expect to benefit from biotechnology over the next five years. of those expecting benefits, 41% look to improved quality, taste, and variety, 39% cite the area of health and nutrition, and 20% expect biotech to reduce levels of chemicals and pesticides in food production.

overall awareness of biotechnology remains high, with 72% of americans stating they have read or heard information about the issue, and nearly half of consumers 48% have heard about a new area of biotechnology called plantmade pharmaceuticals.

a majority 59% of americans support the fda’s labeling policywhich requires disclosure on a food label only if biotechnology introduces an allergen or substantially changes the food’s nutritional content. also, when asked what information they would like to see added to food labels, 78% of consumers said nothing and just 1% cited information related to biotech ingredients.

the survey was conducted in august 2002 by cogent research of cambridge, massachusetts. telephone surveys of 1001 us adults age 18 and over were completed, and the attached results are representative of the us population.

pada dasarnya harga besi cnp baja akan lebih bagus bila digunakan untuk konstruksi bangunan yang berkwalitas semua tergantung dari perbandingan nya untuk pabrik makanan dan juga distributor besi unp baja yang sudah ternama