The Media’s Taste for Gene-Edited Food
Comparing Media Portrayals within US and European Regulatory Environments
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 11261331 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Marie Dahlstrom (0000-0001-5128-227X, Iowa State University, autor de correspondencia), Zhe Wang (0000-0002-3939-4452, Iowa State University), Sonja Lindberg (0000-0002-4926-7270, Iowa State University), Kasey Opfer (Iowa State University), Christopher L Cummings (0000-0002-3840-556X, Iowa State University) |
| Año | 2023 |
| Volumen | 48 |
| Número | 6 |
| Páginas | 1393-1420 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2023-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/01622439221108537 |
| OpenAlex | W4283744849 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 4 |
| Referencias citadas | 43 |
Recent gene-editing technologies are heralded by proponents as a revolution for developing gene-edited foods (GEFs) while critics demand increased governance and scrutiny of potential societal impacts. Governance of GEFs is different in the United States, where GEFs are entering the market, and Europe, which restricts GEF development. Definitive regulations for governing GEFs are not yet solidified in either region. We identify and compare how English-language media in the United States and Europe portray potential risks, benefits, and regulation of GEFs, and we explore how these portrayals may reflect their regulatory environments. Results show that the regions similarly prioritize benefit frames that emphasize the social and scientific progress GEFs may bring, and few articles express skepticism about potential benefits. Comparing samples across regions exposes differences between Europe and the United States in the risk and benefit portrayals and in governance initiatives. Both regions prioritize policy risks that are counter to their current oversight regimes: the US media sample focused on GEFs being underregulated while the European sample emphasize risks of too much regulation. This may demonstrate the power of media to reflect and even cultivate public opinion and may influence future policy revisions within these distinct regulatory environments
Business · Corporate governance · Economics · Political science · Public economics · Public relations · Scrutiny · Skepticism · Climate Change Communication and Perception · CRISPR and Genetic Engineering · Genetically Modified Organisms Research · Law
Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture
Regulating gene editing in agriculture and food in the European Union
Gene-Edited Food Adoption Intentions and Institutional Trust in the United States
Identifying public trust building priorities of gene editing in agriculture and food
Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States
GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception
The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9
Biotechnology and the Popular Press in Northern Belgium
Biotechnology in Switzerland
The Role of Scientific Source Credibility and Goodwill in Public Skepticism Toward GM Foods
Of Society, Nature, and Health
“Words of mass destruction”
Attitudes to genetically modified food over time
Mass media framing of biotechnology news
The Media and Genetically Modified Foods
The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology
Framing as a Theory of Media Effects
Arguments and actors in recent debates over US genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
The Precautionary Principle in EU Regulation of GMOs
Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate
A Core Precautionary Principle
Adversarial Legalism and American Government
Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union
The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media
Heightening Uncertainty Around Certain Science
User Engagement in Public Discourse on Genetically Modified Organisms
| Obras citantes distintas | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 1,33 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Velocidad de citación | recent |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 4 |