Public engagement in food policy

Understanding Consumers of Food Products

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 592-609

  Rowe, Gene ^a  

^a NORWICH RESEARCH PARK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51649105110     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1533/9781845692506.5.592     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. Bier V.M. On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2001, 71:139-150.
2. Byrne D. EFSA: Excellence, Integrity and Openness 2002.
3. Chess C., Purcell K. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works?. Environmental Science and Technology 1999, 33(16):2685-2692.
4. Chipman H., Kendall P., Slater M., Auld G. Audience responses to a risk communication message in 4 media formats. Journal of Nutrition Education 1996, 28(3):133-139.
5. Clarke A. Evaluation research: an introduction to principles, methods and practice 1999, Sage, London.
6. EFSA EFSA plans greater public involvement in its work 2003, Press release, 3 December 2003.
7. Einsiedel E.F., Jelsoe E., Breck T. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science 2001, 10(1):83-98.
8. Ellahi B. UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 1995, 6(2):35-41.
9. Fiorinod J. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1990, 15(2):226-243.
10. Food Standards Agency Statement of General Objectives and Practices 2000, Food Standards Agency, London.
11. Frewer L.J. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision-making: implications for emerging technologies. Ambio 1999, 28:569-574.
12. Frewer L.J., Shepherd R. 'Consumer Perceptions of Modern Food Biotechnology', in Roller S and Harlander S, Genetic engineering for the food industry: A strategy for food quality improvement 1998, 27-46. Blackie Academic, New York.
13. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 1996, 16:473-486.
14. Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. Risk management as a post-normal science. Risk Analysis 1992, 12(1):95-97.
15. Golding D., Krimsky S., Plough A. Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Analysis 1992, 12(1):27-35.
16. Gregory N.G. Consumer concerns about food. Outlook on Agriculture 2000, 29(4):251-257.
17. Hilgartner S. The dominant view of popularization - Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 1990, 20(3):519-539.
18. Horlick-Jones T. Meaning and contextualisation in risk assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 1998, 59:79-89.
19. Horlick-Jones T. 'Experts in risk? do they exist?',. Health, Risk & Society 2004, 6(2):107-114.
20. Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Rowe G., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., O'Riordan T. A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003. Programme on Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02 2004, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
21. Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Rowe G., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., Murdock G., O'Riordan T. The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement 2006, London, Routledge, (in press).
22. Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Rowe G., Pidgeon N., Poortinga W., O'Riordan T. On evaluating the GM Nation? public debate about the commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain' 2006, New Genetics and Society, (in press).
23. Irwin A., Wynne B. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (edited) 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Jasanoff S. The 5th branch - Science advisers as policy-makers 1990, MA, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
25. Jasanoff S. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science 1997, 6(3):221-232.
26. Joss S., Durant J. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (edited) 1995, The Science Museum, London.
27. Künast R. Government policy statement on the new consumer protection and agricultural policies 2001, http://www.verbraucherministerium.de.
28. Moscovici S., Zavalloni M. The group as a polariser of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1969, 12:125-135.
29. National Research Council Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society 1996, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
30. Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods 1990, Sage, London. 2nd edn.
31. Pidgeon N.F., Poortinga W., Rowe G., Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., O'riordan T. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation? public debate. Risk Analysis 2005, 25(2):467-479.
32. Post Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology 2001, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, London, Report 152.
33. Public Debate Steering Board (Pdsb) GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate 2003, Department of Trade and Industry, London. http://www.gmnation.org.uk.
34. Rcuk Evaluating science and society programmes 2005, Research Councils UK, London.
35. Renn O. Risk communication: Toward a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials 1992, 20:465-519.
36. Renn O., Webler T., Wiedemann P. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse 1995, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
37. Robson C. Real world research 2002, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2nd edn.
38. Rossi P.H., Freeman H.E., Lipsey M.W. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach 1999, Sage Publications, London. 6th edn.
39. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2000, 25(1):3-29.
40. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2004, 29(4):512-556.
41. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2005, 30(2):251-290.
42. Rowe G., Reynolds C., Frewer L.J. 'Public participation in developing policy related to food issues', in Frewer L J, Risvik E, Schifferstein H N J and von Alvensleben R 2001, 415-432. Food Choice in Europe, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
43. Rowe G., Horlick-Jones T., Walls J., Pidgeon N.F. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK "GM Nation?" public debate. Public Understanding of Science 2005, 14(4):331-352.
44. Rowe G., Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. A comparison of responses to internet and postal surveys in a public engagement context. Science Communication 2006, 27(3):352-375.
45. Ryfe D.M. Does deliberative democracy work?. Annual Review of Political Science 2005, 8:49-71.
46. Slovic P. The perception of risk 2000, Earthscan, London.
47. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Response Effects in Surveys 1974, Aldine, Chicago.
48. Sunstein C.R. Group judgments: Statistical means, deliberation, and information markets. New York University Law Review 2005, 80(3):962-1049.
49. Verbeke W. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat revisited after the Belgian dioxin crisis. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12(8):489-498.
50. Walls J., Pidgeon N., Weyman A., Horlick-Jones T. 'Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation', Health. Risk & Society 2004, 6(2):133-150.
51. Wood W., Lundgren S., Ouellette J.A., Busceme S., Blackstone T. Minority influence: A metaanalytic review of social-influence processes. Psychological Bulletin 1994, 115(3):323-345.
52. Wynne B. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1991, 16(1):111-121.