Better than antibiotics. Public understandings of risk, human health and the use of synthetically obtained livestock vaccines in five European countries

References

• Andersen, S., & Holm, L. (2018). Naturalness as a safe haven: Parental consumption practices and the management of risk. Young Consumers, 19(3), 296–309. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-12-2017-00763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avellaneda, R., & Hagen, K. (2016). Synthetic Biology: Public Perceptions of an Emergent Field. In M. Engelhard (Ed.), Synthetic biology analysed: Tools for discussion and evaluation. Springer International. p. 127-170
   Google Scholar
• Barbour, R. S. (2018). Doing Focus Groups. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1989). On the way to the Industrial Risk-Society? Outline of an argument. Thesis Eleven1989;23(1):86-103.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1993). Risk society, towards a new modernity U. Beck & J. Daly (Edited by). Sage. Reprint.
   Google Scholar
• Bergman, K., Eli, K., Osowski, C. P., Lövestam, E., & Nowicka, P. (2019). Public expressions of trust and distrust in governmental dietary advice in Sweden. Qualitative Health Research, 29(8), 1161–1173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318825153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bildtgård, T. (2008). Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies. Social Science Information, 47(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018407085751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772
   Google Scholar
• Ditlevsen, K., & Andersen, S. S. (2020). The purity of dirt: revisiting Mary Douglas in the light of contemporary consumer interpretations of naturalness, purity and dirt. Sociology, 55(1), 179–196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520934980
   Google Scholar
• Ditlevsen, K., Glerup, C., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2020). Synthetic livestock vaccines as risky interference with nature? lay and expert arguments and understandings of “naturalness”. Public Understanding of Science, 29(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520906083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ditlevsen, K., Sandøe, P., & Lassen, J. (2019). Healthy food is nutritious, but organic food is healthy because it is pure: the negotiation of healthy food choices by Danish consumers of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 46–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and danger, an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and Culture - An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dragojlovic, N., & Einsiedel, E. (2013). Framing synthetic biology: evolutionary distance, conceptions of nature, and the unnaturalness objection. Science Communication, 35(5), 547–571. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012470707
   Google Scholar
• Draper, A., & Green, J. (2002). Food safety and consumers: constructions of choice and risk. Social Policy & Administration, 36(6), 610–625. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EU. (2013). Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development: Agriculture in the European Union - Statistical and economic information. Report. European commission.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskell, G., Stares, S., & Allansdottir, A. (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?. Publications Office.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity, self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, S., Clodoveo, M. L., Gennaro, B. D., & Corbo, F. (2018). Factors determining neophobia and neophilia with regard to new technologies applied to the food sector: A systematic review. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halkier, B. (2015). Fokus grupper. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder (pp. 137–152). Hans Reitzel.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth, A. (2013). A “superstorm”: When moral panic and new risk discourses converge in the media. Health, Risk & Society, 15 (8), 681–698. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.851180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, J., Caplanova, A., & Novak, M. (2015). Public attitudes to GM foods. The balancing of risks and gains. Appetite, 92(C), 303. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.031
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lassen, J., & Jamison, A. (2006). Genetic technologies meet the public: the discourses of concern. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905280021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2009). GM plants, farmers and the public – A harmonious relation?. Sociologia Ruralis, 49 (3), 258–272. Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00490.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lassen, J. (2018). Listened to, but not heard! the failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies. Public Understanding of Science, 27(8), 923–936. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518766286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mejlgaard, N. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: clusters and consequences. Science & Public Policy, 39(6), 741–750. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennings, J. M. E., Wansink, B., & Meulenberg, M. T. G. (2002). A note on modeling consumer reactions to a crisis: the case of the mad cow disease. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00050-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. (2005). The metaphors of risk: biotechnology in the news. Health, Risk & Society, 7 (3), 203–208. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570500229572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scudamore, J. M. (2007). Consumer attitudes to vaccination of food-producing animals. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz, 26(2), 451–459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.26.2.1755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonkin, E., Meyer, S. B., Coveney, J., Webb, T., & Wilson, A. M. (2016). The process of making trust related judgements through interaction with food labelling. Food Policy, 63, 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UCPH. (2017). MycoSynVac WP08 report of Deliverable: Public and expert concerns. (project report).
   Google Scholar
• Zingg, A., & Siegrist, M. (2012). People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics. FOOD POLICY, 37(3), 226–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar