Korean Journal of Agricultural Science (농업과학연구)

Institute of Agricultural Science, CNU (충남대학교 농업과학연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Provision of efficient online information for agricultural biotechnology

  • Lee, Bumkyu (Department of Environment Science & Biotechnology, Jeonju University) ;
  • Kim, Jong Mi (Korea Public Management Institute)
  • Received : 2020.02.13
  • Accepted : 2020.03.17
  • Published : 2020.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study identified consumer perceptions of biotechnology crops, provided the types and sources of information on agricultural biotech that consumers demand, and derived effective methods of providing agricultural biotech information by analyzing problems and improving the information available online regarding agricultural biotech. The analysis of sources of information on agricultural biotech showed that there were differences between preference and reliability. Respondents preferred the Internet (47.6%) and TV (36.3%), while they relied on TV (36.3%) the most, followed by the Internet (26.6%), and academic papers and technical books (23.1%). Only 27.1% of the respondents answered that they collect information on agricultural biotech proactively. The higher frequency of information collection indicated a higher satisfaction rate with the information that was being collected. Survey results for the websites that respondents preferred and relied on to collect information were that the most preferred websites were web portals (53.4%), while reliability rates across the various types of websites were relatively even: web portals (28.4%), academic institution websites (19.1%), and websites that provide professional information (18.2%). Surveys that examined factors that were important in choosing the websites for collecting information on biotech indicated that factors such as "Providing verified data and citation" and "Providing objectivity" were the most important. Examining the preferences and factors of preference by content type showed that the demand for visual aids, such as photos, tables, graphs, and videos, was high, and there were statistically significant differences between the factors of preference by content type.

Keywords

References

  1. Cho HM. 2016. Study of trend of reporting on GMO as a convergence technology: Focused on analyzing articles in major domestic daily newspapers from 1994 to 2015. Journal of Digital Convergence 14:267-281. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2016.14.12.267
  2. Chung SC, Kim JM, Lee N, Kim W. 2015. Consumers'acceptance model of genetic modification: Exploratory investigation for the cross-national comparison. Korean Public Management Review 29:227-255. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2015.29.3.009
  3. Han SM, Kim YT, Won OJ, Choi KH, Rho YH, Park KW. 2016. The importation of genetically modified crops and its environmental impacts in Korea. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 43:215-220. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20160024
  4. James C. 2018. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2017, BRIEF 53. Accessed in http://www.isaaa.org on 5 January 2020.
  5. KBCH (Korea Biosafety Clearing House). 2017. Biosafety white paper 2017. Accessed in http://www.biosafety.or.kr on 2 January 2020. [in Korean]
  6. KBCH (Korea Biosafety Clearing House). 2020. Stats of GM crops in Korea. Accessed in http://www.biosafety.or.kr on 2 January 2020. [in Korean]
  7. Kim BY, Lee NK, Song NE. 2015. Assessment of stakeholders' attitude & perception towards GM foods in South Korea: Implications for differentiated risk communication & media management. East and West Studies 27:29-42. [in Korean]
  8. Kim HC, Kim MR. 2001. Consumers'recognition and information need about GMO in Youngnam region. Journal of East Asian Society of Dietary Life 11:247-258. [in Korean]
  9. Kim HC, Kim MR. 2002. Consumers'awareness and information-seeking behaviors towards genetically modified organism (GMO). Family and Environment Research 40:73-84. [in Korean]
  10. Kim HS, Kim MJ. 2004. Housewives' basic knowledge, recognition, and willingness to buy GMO. Korean Journal of Human Ecology 7:113-129. [in Korean]
  11. Kim JM. 2019. Ask a consumer for the Green-Bio. Korea Public Management Institute. Hallymwon Publishing, Seoul, Korea. [in Korean]
  12. Kim JM, Chung SC. 2016. Impacts of the compositional features of risk communication on the public acceptance of genetically modified organism. Korean Public Management Review 30:303-329. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2016.30.3.013
  13. Kim Y, Kang C, Lee M, Park J, Park Y, Cheu S. 2018. A study on the response strategies of agriculture and rural areas in the fourth industrial revolution (Year 1 of 2). Korea Rural Economic Institute, Naju, Korea. [in Korean]
  14. KREI (Korea Rural Economic Institute). 2009. A study on developing risk communication strategies for genetically modified organisms. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Sejong, Korea. [in Korean]
  15. Kwon SH, Chung IS, Choi MK, Chae KY, Kyung KH. 2008. Changes in Korean consumer's perception and attitudes toward genetically-modified foods. Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety 23:182-190. [in Korean]
  16. Lee B, Kim K, Ra N, Lee K, Kweon SJ, Cho HS, Ryu TH. 2014. Farmers' perception and cultivating intention on genetically modified organisms. Korean Journal of International Agriculture 26:73-81. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.12719/KSIA.2014.26.1.73
  17. Lee B, Suh S. 2011. A study on the trends and biosafety assessment of genetically modified crops. Research of Environmental Law 33:1-25. [in Korean]
  18. Lee HJ, Lee JK, Min YS, Choi JY, Shim KC. 2010. Perception of elementary school, middle school and high school students about genetically modified organism. Biology Education 38:52-62. [in Korean] https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2010.38.1.52
  19. Park HY, Kim SW. 2005. A study on consumers' information demand of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association 43:175-189. [in Korean]
  20. Park SH. 1999. Genetically modified food and its safety assessment. Korea Soybean Digest 16:20-30. [in Korean]
  21. PG Economics. 2011. Sustainable, profitable and productive agriculture continues to be boosted by the contribution of biotech crops. PG Economic, Dorchester, UK.
  22. Soh YJ. 2000. Institutionalization of risk communication: Focused on the nuclear technology. Social Science Review39:27-63. [in Korean]
  23. Teng JT. 2009. Optimal ordering policies for a retailer who offers distinct trade credits to its good and bad credit customers. International Journal of Production Economics 119:415-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.04.004