Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers

Farmers have been characterized as people whose ties to the land have given them a deep awareness of natural cycles, appreciation for natural beauty and sense of responsibility as stewards. At the same time, their relationship to the land has been characterized as more utilitarian than that of others who are less directly dependent on its bounty. This paper explores this tension by comparing the attitudes and beliefs of a group of conventional farmers to those of a group of organic farmers. It was found that while both groups reject the idea that a farmer’s role is to conquer nature, organic farmers were significantly more supportive of the notion that humans should live in harmony with nature. Organic farmers also reported a greater awareness of and appreciation for nature in their relationship with the land. Both groups view independence as a main benefit of farming and a lack of financial reward as its main drawback. Overall, conventional farmers report more stress in their lives although they also view themselves in a caretaker role for the land more than do the organic farmers. In contrast, organic farmers report more satisfaction with their lives, a greater concern for living ethically, and a stronger perception of community. Finally, both groups are willing to have their rights limited (organic farmers somewhat more so) but they do not trust the government to do so.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83671/1/Sullivan,_S.,_E._McCann,_R._De_Young_&_D._Erickson_(1996)._Farmers_attitudes_about_farming_and_the_environment,_JAEE,_9,_123-143.pd

Seeding Science, Courting Conclusions: Reexamining the Intersection of Science, Corporate Cash, and the Law

Social scientists have expressed strong views on corporate influences over science, but most attention has been devoted to broad, Black/White arguments, rather than to actual mechanisms of influence. This paper summarizes an experience where involvement in a lawsuit led to the discovery of an unexpected mechanism: A large corporation facing a multibillion-dollar court judgment quietly provided generous funding to well-known scientists (including at least one Nobel prize winner) who would submit articles to "open," peer-reviewed journals, so that their "unbiased science" could be cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court. On balance, the corporation's most effective techniques of influence may have been provided not by overt pressure, but by encouraging scientists to continue thinking of themselves as independent and impartial

Assessing the environmental implications of agricultural biotechnologies: a sociological perspective

There is no evidence that the public is becoming anti-science or anti-biotechnology. There have been no major changes in public trust in science over the past two decades. Agriculture has significant issues to address if it is to build on this trust. Many agricultural groups are active politically (in pursuit of “right to farm” legislation) in ways that many in the public find to be narrowly self-interested. Agriculture needs to reestablish itself as a public (rather than primarily a private) goods-generating set of institutions

Biotech Tradeoffs in the Rural Economy

Few biotechnology products have begun commercial production, yet they are already being portrayed as catalysts for wide-ranging unpredictable change. One biotech product, bovine growth hormone, is touted to revolutionize the dairy industry by dramatically raising milk production per cow. Biotechnology's benefits to rural American may come chiefly in expanded demand for raw material