IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v7y2017i1d10.1007_s13412-016-0371-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Arguments and actors in recent debates over US genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Mintz

    (New York University)

Abstract

The American public remains divided on the issue of genetic modification. A 2014 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 57 % of 2002 respondents consider genetically modified organisms generally unsafe. In comparison, 88 % of 3748 scientists consider GMOs generally safe. To understand this divergence in opinion related to GMOs, I analyzed 200 headlines and articles from the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post published between 2011 and 2013. I focused on the key arguments and who is making them. The results showed that newspapers presented 207 favorable and 250 unfavorable mentions of GMOs. The findings revealed the arguments “GMO technical performance” and “potential for environmental harm,” along with actors described as the “biotechnology industry” and “U.S. government,” received more media attention, measured by the frequency of mentions in articles. The arguments, and the actors that drive them, play a vital role in public opinion forming and affect ethical, practical, political, and scientific considerations of GMOs. This research provides insight into arguments influencing public opinion on genetic modification and actors with the potential to change the GMO debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Mintz, 2017. "Arguments and actors in recent debates over US genetically modified organisms (GMOs)," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-016-0371-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-016-0371-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-016-0371-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-016-0371-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn & Christina Benighaus, 2013. "Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 293-313, April.
    2. Thomson, Joan & Dininni, Laura, 2005. "What the Print Media Tell Us About Agricultural Biotechnology: Will We Remember?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1-6.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    4. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Hossain, Ferdaus & Hallman, William K. & Schilling, Brian J. & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 2003. "Public Perception Of Food Biotechnology: Uncovering Factors Driving Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-7, March.
    5. n/a, 2015. "Book Reviews," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    6. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    7. Font, Montserrat Costa, 2011. "Mapping social and environmental concerns and the acceptability of genetically modified organisms in the European Union," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 903-908.
    8. Hossain, Ferdaus & Onyango, Benjamin M. & Schilling, Brian J. & Hallman, William K., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Biotechnology And Acceptance Of Genetically Modified Food," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S. & Hahn, David E., 2006. "A Continuum of Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Foods in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Philip H. Howard, 2009. "Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    2. Brianne Suldovsky & William K. Hallman, 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Katarzyna Zagórska & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2022. "“GMO – Doesn’t Have To Go!” – Consumers’ Preferences Towards Genetically Modified Products Labelling and Sale," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. O'Shaughnessy, Matthew & Schiff, Daniel & Varshney, Lav R. & Rozell, Christopher & Davenport, Mark, 2021. "What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?," OSF Preprints pkeb8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    6. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    7. Ekanem, Enefiok P. & Muhammad, Safdar & Mafuyai-Ekanem, Mary & Tegegne, Fisseha & Singh, Surendra P., 2005. "Producer Biotech Food Knowledge Differences: Findings from a Three-State Survey," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(1), pages 1-6, March.
    8. Galushko, Viktoriya & Gray, Richard & Smyth, Stuart & Arnison, Paul, 2010. "Resolving FTO Barriers in GM Canola," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188092, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    9. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    10. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Book, Laura A. & Tanford, Sarah & Chang, Wen, 2018. "Customer reviews are not always informative: The impact of effortful versus heuristic processing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 272-280.
    12. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    13. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    14. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.
    15. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Paul Vincelli, 2016. "Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    20. Birkelund, Johan & Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M., 2022. "A culture of cheating: The role of worldviews in preferences for honesty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-016-0371-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.