Skip to main content

Public Engagement Regarding Aquaculture Products Produced Through Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Aquaculture, Innovation and Social Transformation

Aquaculture of fish is a centuries old practice that can provide a stable supply of dietary protein. In the contemporary context, expanded use of traditional forms of aquaculture, coupled with technological innovation in culturing practices, has led to the “Blue Revolution” in aquaculture. Amidst rapid decline of the remaining oceans stocks that can be sustainably harvested, aquaculture production of food fish contributes one third of all fish consumed (FAO 2002). The increase in aquaculture productivity on a global scale has been rapid, including in developing countries where population growth puts renewed pressure on aquacultured fish. The most rapid growth in aquaculture has been in industrialized countries, however, which, having had little traditional aquaculture, were almost exclusively reliant on the capture fishery and imports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agriculture and Agrifood Canada. 2003. “Canada’s Fish and Seafood Industry,” http://ats.agr.ca/ seafood/industry-e.htm. Accessed: July 2, 2007.

  • Concerted Action Group. 1997. “Europe ambivalent on biotechnology.” Nature 387: 845–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2003. “Aquaculture” http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/ statistics/aqua/aqua02_e.htm. Accessed: July 2, 2007.

  • Einsiedel, E.F. 2000. Consumers and GM food labels: providing information or sowing confusion? AgBioForum 3(4): 231–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E.F., Finlay, K., and Arko, J.C. 2000 “Meeting the Public’s Needs for Information on Biotechnology.” Technical paper prepared for the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G.L., Goddard, S.V., Wu, Y. 1999. Antifreeze proteins and their genes: From basic research to business opportunity. Chemical Technology 30: 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2002. The state of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: FOA

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., and Shepherd, R. 1997. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production: The influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 8: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R. 1995. Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? British Food Journal 97: 31–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A.W and Sharma, S. 2004. Customer Knowledge Development: Antecedents and Impact on New Product Performance. Journal of Marketing 68(4): 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambraki, I.A., 2002. An exploratory qualitative and quantitative study on consumers’ attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Dissertation Abstracts International- MAI 40/06, p. 1504, Dec. 2002, UMI#AAT MQ67357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, M.A. 2000. Impacts of industrial animal production on rivers and estuaries. American Scientist 88: 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S, and Frewer, L.J. 2001. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food, Quality and Preference 12(1): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.V., Sheeshka, J., Finlay, K., and Marmurek, H. 2005. Judgment of Labels for Genetically Modified Foods among Canadian Consumers. (unpublished)

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K, and Ramaswamy, V. 2003. The New Frontier of Experience Innovation. Sloan Management Review 44(4): 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G.L and Hauser, J.R. 2004. ‘Listening In’ to Find and Explore New Combinations of Customer Needs. Journal of Marketing 68 (April): 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K. O’Neill, B, and Tzankova, Z. 2004. “At a Crossroads: Will Aquaculture Fulfill the

    Google Scholar 

  • Promise of the Blue Revolution?” A SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse (http://www.seaweb.org/ resources/documents/reports_crossroads.pdf). Accessed: July 2, 2007.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Castle, D., Finlay, K., Clark, S. (2008). Public Engagement Regarding Aquaculture Products Produced Through Biotechnology. In: Culver, K., Castle, D. (eds) Aquaculture, Innovation and Social Transformation. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8835-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics