PubMed · 15559597
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Leigh Page. 2004. Stretched thin.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15559597/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
It has been predicted that by 2025 there will be an annual shortfall of cereals for feeding the human population of 68.5 million tones. One possible solution is the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, which are already grown extensively (59 million ha of GM crops were planted in 2002) in the USA, South America, Africa and China. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement about the advisability of using such crops, particularly in Europe. Obviously, the safety of the food derived from the GM crops is a primary consideration. Safety assessment relies on establishing that the food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart and specific testing for allergenicity of proteins and toxicity of metabolites and the whole food. There appears to be international agreement on the principles of safety assessment. Safety to the environment is equally important, but will not be covered in this presentation. The public's perception of the risk of new technology is critical to its acceptance. Perception of risk, in turn, depends on the credibility of the source of the information and trust in the regulatory process. In many countries, the public appears to have lost its trust in the scientists and government dealing with GM food, making the acceptability of GM crops uncertain. Of equal importance are the socio-economic factors that impinge on the viability of GM produce. These include intellectual property protection, trade liberalization (through subsidy and tariff barriers in developed countries) and the intensity of bio safety regulations. The socio-economic interests of developed and developing countries may diverge and may even be contradictory in any one country. Acceptance of GM crops will thus depend on detailed issues surrounding particular crops and economies.
In a controversial expansion of workplace civil rights, the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) extended anti-discrimination protection to individuals with "mental impairments." One of the most critical barriers to the employment of individuals with mental disabilities is the degree of social stigma such disabilities incur, and there is compelling evidence that employers have stigmatizing attitudes and have discriminated against those with mental disabilities. This study examines the role played by stigma in employers' response to the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA). A stratified sample of one hundred ninety employers were surveyed in 1996-1997 in a major Southern metropolitan area. Telephone interviews were completed with one hundred seventeen employers (response rate of 61.6%). The article describes employers' experiences with employees with mental disabilities and accommodations, specific employment practices, and attitudes towards those with mental disabilities. Stigma played an important role in conformity to the ADA (operationalized as either hiring or having specific recruiting policies for hiring individuals with mental disabilities). Furthermore, employers expressing coercive (fear of a lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do) rationales for compliance were more likely to hold stigmatized attitudes. Employers' beliefs about mental disability form a crucial foundation for truly supportive work environments (those that value difference and diversity), and further research is needed to determine if over time the ADA is successful in changing attitudes as well as behavior.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.