135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26246798)
1. Comparative analysis of the labelling of nanotechnologies across four stakeholder groups.
Capon A; Gillespie J; Rolfe M; Smith W
J Nanopart Res; 2015; 17(8):327. PubMed ID: 26246798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes.
Capon A; Gillespie J; Rolfe M; Smith W
BMC Public Health; 2015 Apr; 15():424. PubMed ID: 25928741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of 'chemicals' by the Australian public?
Capon A; Rolfe M; Gillespie J; Smith W
Public Health Res Pract; 2016 Apr; 26(2):. PubMed ID: 27734061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Nutrition labelling: perspectives of a bi-national agency for Australia and New Zealand.
Curran MA
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr; 2002; 11(2):S72-6. PubMed ID: 12074190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Challenges to pharmaceutical policymaking: lessons from Australia's national medicines policy.
Lipworth W; Doran E; Kerridge I; Day R
Aust Health Rev; 2014 May; 38(2):160-8. PubMed ID: 24589424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Managing uncertainty about food risks - Consumer use of food labelling.
Tonkin E; Coveney J; Meyer SB; Wilson AM; Webb T
Appetite; 2016 Dec; 107():242-252. PubMed ID: 27524658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. What do we know about the effects of exposure to 'Low alcohol' and equivalent product labelling on the amounts of alcohol, food and tobacco people select and consume? A systematic review.
Shemilt I; Hendry V; Marteau TM
BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):29. PubMed ID: 28077126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Nanotechnologies in agriculture and food - an overview of different fields of application, risk assessment and public perception.
Grobe A; Rissanen ME
Recent Pat Food Nutr Agric; 2012 Dec; 4(3):176-86. PubMed ID: 23013411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Consumers' Response to an On-Shelf Nutrition Labelling System in Supermarkets: Evidence to Inform Policy and Practice.
Hobin E; Bollinger B; Sacco J; Liebman E; Vanderlee L; Zuo F; Rosella L; L'abbe M; Manson H; Hammond D
Milbank Q; 2017 Sep; 95(3):494-534. PubMed ID: 28895220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers' responses to seven labelling formats.
Watson WL; Kelly B; Hector D; Hughes C; King L; Crawford J; Sergeant J; Chapman K
Appetite; 2014 Jan; 72():90-7. PubMed ID: 24126243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Sunscreen ingredients and labelling: a survey of products available in the UK.
Wahie S; Lloyd JJ; Farr PM
Clin Exp Dermatol; 2007 Jul; 32(4):359-64. PubMed ID: 17376206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk Governance of Nanomaterials: Review of Criteria and Tools for Risk Communication, Evaluation, and Mitigation.
Isigonis P; Hristozov D; Benighaus C; Giubilato E; Grieger K; Pizzol L; Semenzin E; Linkov I; Zabeo A; Marcomini A
Nanomaterials (Basel); 2019 May; 9(5):. PubMed ID: 31060250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens' jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?
Withall E; Wilson AM; Henderson J; Tonkin E; Coveney J; Meyer SB; Clark J; McCullum D; Ankeny R; Ward PR
BMC Public Health; 2016 Dec; 16(1):1241. PubMed ID: 27938403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling in New Zealand: an exploration of stakeholder views about research and implementation.
Signal L; Lanumata T; Ni Mhurchu C; Gorton D
Health Promot J Austr; 2012 Apr; 23(1):48-51. PubMed ID: 22730939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The practice and perception of precautionary allergen labelling by the Australasian food manufacturing industry.
Zurzolo GA; Peters RL; Koplin JJ; de Courten M; Mathai ML; Tye-Din JA; Tang MLK; Campbell DE; Ponsonby AL; Prescott SL; Gurrin L; Dharmage SC; Allen KJ
Clin Exp Allergy; 2017 Jul; 47(7):961-968. PubMed ID: 28295718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Framing health for land-use planning legislation: A qualitative descriptive content analysis.
Harris P; Kent J; Sainsbury P; Thow AM
Soc Sci Med; 2016 Jan; 148():42-51. PubMed ID: 26650929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The ethical and legal implications of nanotechnologies: a preliminary survey to picture the perceptions of law students and medical students.
Daloiso V; Ricci G; Minacori R; Sacchini D; Spagnolo AG
Clin Ter; 2014; 165(2):e109-14. PubMed ID: 24770817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The acceptability to stakeholders of mandatory nutritional labelling in France and the UK--findings from the PorGrow project.
Holdsworth M; Delpeuch F; Kameli Y; Lobstein T; Millstone E
J Hum Nutr Diet; 2010 Feb; 23(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 19843198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.
Satterfield T; Kandlikar M; Beaudrie CE; Conti J; Herr Harthorn B
Nat Nanotechnol; 2009 Nov; 4(11):752-8. PubMed ID: 19893527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Consumer trust in the Australian food system - The everyday erosive impact of food labelling.
Tonkin E; Webb T; Coveney J; Meyer SB; Wilson AM
Appetite; 2016 Aug; 103():118-127. PubMed ID: 27063669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
