Analyzing public sentiment toward GMOs via social media between 2019-2021

References

• WHO, Food, genetically modified. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• The Royal Society, What GM crops are being grown and where? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/what-gm-crops-are-currently-being-grown-and-where/. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. FDA., GMO crops, animal food, and beyond. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Norero D . GMO crops have been increasing yield for 20 years, with more progress ahead. Alliance For Science. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2018/02/gmo-crops-increasing-yield-20-years-progress-ahead/#:~:text=Recently%2C%20Italian%20researchers%20published%20a,popular%20and%20important%20staple%20food. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Fleming D, Musser F, Reisig D, Greene J, Taylor S, Parajulee M, Lorenz G, Catchot A, Gore J, Kerns D, et al. Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton on insecticide use, heliothine counts, plant damage, and cotton yield: a meta-analysis, 1996-2015. PLOS One. 2018;13(7):e0200131. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science. 2007;316(5830):1475–77. doi:10.1126/science.1139208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klümper W, Qaim M. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS One. 2014;9(11):e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips T. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education. 2018;1:213.
   Google Scholar
• Naqvi S, Zhu C, Farre G, Ramessar K, Bassie L, Breitenbach J, Perez Conesa D, Ros G, Sandmann G, Capell T, et al. Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(19):7762–67. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901412106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wesseler JHH, Kaplan S, Zilberman D. The cost of delaying approval of golden rice. Agric Resour Econ Update. 2014;17:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Elitzur T, Yakir E, Quansah L, Zhangjun F, Vrebalov J, Khayat E, Giovannoni JJ, Friedman H. Banana MaMADs transcription factors are necessary for fruit ripening and molecular tools to promote shelf-Life and food security. Plant Physiol. 2016;171(1):380–91. doi:10.1104/pp.15.01866.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minkel JR GM tomato tastes better. Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gm-tomato-tastes-better/. Accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• European Green Capital., https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/countriesruleoutgmos/. Accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Walden B, Twenty-Six countries ban GMOs—Why won’t the US? (2013). https://www.thenation.com/ar. Accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Bonny S. Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs?: factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electron J Biotechnol. 2003;6(1):7–8. doi:10.2225/vol6-issue1-fulltext-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):842–51. doi:10.3945/an.115.008870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morning Consult., WorDs consumers like on food labels. https://morningconsult.com/form/words-consumers-like-on-food-labels/. Accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Backlinko., How many people use social media in 2022? (65+ Statistics). https://backlinko.com/social-media-users (2021). Date accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center., Internet, science & tech, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband, Accessed 11/29/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Olston C, Najork M. Web crawling. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval. 2010;4(3):175–246. doi:10.1561/1500000017.
   Google Scholar
• Brandwatch., GeT a deeper understanding of consumer sentiment with emotion analysis.Brandwatch https://www.Brandwatch.com/blog/get-a-deeper-understanding-of-consumer-sentiment-with-emotion-analysis Accessed 11/29/2022
   Google Scholar
• Karami A, Zhu M, Goldschmidt B, Boyajieff HR, Najafabadi MM. COVId-19 vaccine and social media in the U.S: exploriNg emotions and discussions on twitter. Vaccines. 2021;9(10):1059. doi:10.3390/vaccines9101059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandak A. Sentiment analysis on tweets in the 2020 US presidential election. J High Sch Sci. 2022;32492. https://jhss.scholasticahq.com/article/32492
   Google Scholar
• Rachman FF, Nooraeni R, Yuliana L. Public opinion of transportation integrated (Jak Lingko), in DKI Jakarta Indonesia. Procedia Comput Sci. 2021;179:696–703. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.057.
   Google Scholar
• Pedraza PD, Visintin S, Tijdens K, Kismihók G. Survey vs scraped data: comparing time series properties of web and survey vacancy data. IZA J Labor Econ. 2019;8(1). doi:10.2478/izajole-2019-0004.
   Google Scholar
• Brandwatch., Consumer research. Brandwatch https://www.brandwatch.com/products/consumer-research/features/. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Brandwatch., Social listening and analytics digital innovation and transformation. https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/brandwatch-social-listening-and-analytics/. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Yirka B, Negativity found to increase chances of Twitter posts going viral. https://phys.org/news/2021-04-negativity-chances-twitter-viral.html. Accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Simonofski A, Fink J, Burnay C. Supporting policy-making with social media and e-participation platforms data: a policy analytics framework., Gov. Inf Q. 2021;38(3):101590. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101590.
   Google Scholar
• Lanius C, Weber R, MacKenzie WI. Use of bot and content flags to limit the spread of misinformation among social networks: a behavior and attitude survey. Soc Netw Anal Min. 2021;11(1):32. doi:10.1007/s13278-021-00739-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brkan M. ArtificIal intelligence and democracy: the impact of disinformation, social bots and political targeting. Delphi - Interdiscip Rev Emerg Technol. 2019;2(2):66–71. doi:10.21552/delphi/2019/2/4.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Qi X, Chen Z, Liu J. SocIal bots’ involvement in the covid-19 vaccine discussions on Twitter. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1651. doi:10.3390/ijerph19031651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drissner J, Haase H-M, Hille K. Short-term environmental education - Does it work? - an evaluation of the ‘green classroom’. J Biol Educ. 2010;44(4):149–55. doi:10.1080/00219266.2010.9656215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López R, Tejada J, Thelwall M. Spanish sentistrength as a tool for opinion mining Peruvian Facebook and Twitter. Artif Intell Driven Solut Bus Eng Probl. 2012;82–85.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes JL, Britt BC, Evans W, Rush SW, Towery NA, Adamson AC. CAn social media listening platforms’ artificial intelligence be trusted? Examining the accuracy of Crimson Hexagon’s (Now Brandwatch Consumer Research’s) AI-Driven analysesCan Social Media Listening Platforms’ Artificial Intelligence Be Trusted? Examining the Accuracy of Crimson Hexagon’s (Now Brandwatch Consumer Research’s) AI-Driven Analyses. J Advert. 2021;50(1):81–91. doi:10.1080/00913367.2020.1809576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statista., Countries with most Twitter users 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/. Date accessed 11/28/2022.
   Google Scholar