Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:29:02.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The barriers to further adoption of organic farming and genetic engineering in Australia: views of agricultural professionals and their information sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2008

Sarah Ann Wheeler
Sarah Ann Wheeler*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis, University of South Australia, City West Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, 5001, Australia.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has shown that agricultural professionals are one of the major influences on farmer adoption of agricultural innovations. Genetic engineering and organic farming represent two vastly different innovations in agriculture, and both assert to have important sustainability outcomes. This paper presents the views from a telephone survey of agricultural scientists, extension officers and academics in Australia (n=185) on the barriers to further adoption of organic farming and agricultural genetic engineering, as well as exploring where they obtain their information about the two innovations. Many professionals believe that market issues (in terms of small market size and the extent that consumers are willing to pay premiums) will limit the size of farmer adoption of organics in Australia, while on-farm issues (in terms of production difficulties and pest and disease problems) are named as the second largest barrier to further adoption. On the other hand, professionals from the targeted sample, who were more knowledgeable about organic farming, named information needs and lack of government support as the major barrier facing further diffusion of organic farming. In contrast, public attitudes and negative media portrayal are named as the largest barrier facing further adoption of genetic engineering in Australia. The uncertainty surrounding the research into genetic engineering (and the lack of long-term research) is believed to be the second largest barrier facing further diffusion of genetic engineering while market problems are seen as the third largest barrier.

Keywords

organic farminggenetic engineeringagricultural professionalsbarriersinformation sourcestechnology adoption
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 161 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Feder, G. and Umali, D. 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43:215–239.Google Scholar
2 Guerin, L. and Guerin, T. 1994. Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34:549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
4 Pannell, D., Marshall, G., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., and Wilkinson, R. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46:1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Forté-Gardner, O., Young, F., Dillman, D., and Carroll, M. 2004. Increasing the effectiveness of technology transfer for conservation cropping systems through research and field design. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41:40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Van den Ban, A. and Hawkins, H. 1988. Agricultural Extension. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex.Google Scholar
8 OFRF. 1999. Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
9 Duram, L. 2000. Agents' perceptions of structure: how Illinois organic farmers view political, economic, social and ecological factors. Agriculture and Human Values 17:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Lampkin, N. and Padel, S. (eds). 1994. The Economics of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Padel, S., Lampkin, N., and Foster, C. 1999. Influence of policy support on the development of organic farming in the European Union. International Planning Studie 4:303–315.Google Scholar
12 OFRF. 2004. Final Results of the Fourth National Organic Farmers Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
13 Grimes, S. 2005. Regulatory Contradictions in Organic Food Policy in South Australia. Shaping Sustainable Systems, 15th IFOAM Organic World Congress, 20–23 September, Adelaide, SA.Google Scholar
14 Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., and Bredahl, L. 2003. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 23:1117–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 James, S. and Burton, M. 2003. Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system. Australian Journal Agricultural Resource Economics 47:501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Hall, C., Moran, D., and Allcroft, D. 2004. The economic value of GM risk perceptions: a meta-analysis of WTP studies using multi-level modelling. The Agricultural Economics Society 78th Annual Conference, 2–4 April 2004, Imperial College, England.Google Scholar
17 Priest, S. 2000. US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology 18:939–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Koivisto, U. and Magnusson, M. 2003. Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters? Appetite 41:207–209.Google Scholar
19 Costa, J. and Mossialos, E. 2006. The public as a limit to technology transfer: the influence of knowledge and beliefs in attitudes towards biotechnology in the UK. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31:629–645.Google Scholar
20 Smith, J. 2007. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction.Google Scholar
21 Cronin, K. and Jackson, L. 2004. Hands across the water: developing dialogue between stakeholders in the New Zealand biotechnology debate. Ministry of Research, Science and Technology ‘Dialogue’ Programme, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
22 Egri, C. 1994. Power, politics and the innovation process: analysis of an organisational field in agriculture. PhD thesis, Department of Commerce, University of British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
23 Larson, K. and Duram, L. 2000. Information dissemination in alternative agricultural research: an analysis of researchers. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15:171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Midmore, P., Padel, S., McCalman, H., Isherwood, J., Fowler, S., and Lampkin, N. 2001. Attitudes Towards Conversion to Organic Production Systems: A Study of Farmers in England. Institute of Rural Studies, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
25 Wheeler, S. 2007. Contrasting the beliefs of Australian agricultural professionals about the benefits and costs of genetic engineering and organic agriculture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Wheeler, S. 2007. What influences agricultural professionals' views towards organic agriculture? Ecological Economics, in press.Google Scholar
27 Wheeler, S. 2007. Does knowledge play a role in influencing Australian agricultural professionals' beliefs towards genetic engineering? Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis paper, September, University of South Australia, Adelaide.Google Scholar
28 Salleh, A. 2005. Journalism at Risk: Factors Influencing Journalistic Coverage of the GM Food and Crops Debate and Prospects for Critical Journalism. Unpublished thesis, School of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
29 White, T. 1998. Get out of my Lab, Lois! In Search of the media gene. In Hindmarsh, R., Lawrence, G., and Norton, J. (eds). Altered Genes: Reconstructing Nature—the Debate. Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards.Google Scholar
30 Cormick, C. 2002. Media relations—media coverage of biotechnology: just how bad is it? Australasian Biotechnology 12:33–34.Google Scholar