IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inrace/202762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-Benoit, Joly
  • Claire, Marris

Abstract

Comment expliquer que l’utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) dans l’agriculture et l’alimentation pose problème en France où ils ne sont pratiquement pas utilisés et semble aller de soi aux États-Unis, où ils le sont à grande échelle ? Selon certains, les consommateurs américains ont accepté les aliments transgéniques, du fait d’une différence d’attitude à l’égard des risques, de l’alimentation et de la nature. Rejetant cette explication, cet article présente une analyse comparée de la trajectoire des OGM comme problème public en France et aux États-Unis. Il démontre que les arguments très similaires sont mis en avant par les opposants et protagonistes se focalisent sur les mêmes zones de conflits. Mais alors qu’en France (et plus largement en Europe), les arguments des opposants « cristallisent » au cours d’épreuves spécifiques et contribuent à la définition des dimensions cognitives et normatives des OGM comme problème public, cette «cristallisation » n’a pas lieu aux États-Unis. Trois facteurs semblent expliquer cette différence : (i) les choix réglementaires très différents réalisés en 1990 ; (ii) le fait que l’utilité des plantes transgéniques est mal perçue en France alors que leur assimilation avec le projet d’une agriculture intensive et exportatrice est perçue positivement aux États-Unis ; (iii) l’influence grandissante d’un cadre plus large et «constructiviste » pour l’analyse des risques en Europe, alors qu’aux États-Unis les instances réglementaires continuent à fonder leur légitimité sur la « sound science ».

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-Benoit, Joly & Claire, Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:inrace:202762
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.202762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/202762/files/68-69-11-45.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.202762?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Les Levidow & Susan Carr & David Wield, 2000. "Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 189-208, July.
    2. David Vogel, 2001. "Ships Passing in the Night: The Changing Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 16, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    3. Alexis Roy & Pierre-Benoit Joly, 2000. "France: broadening precautionary expertise?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 247-254, July.
    4. Anne-Marie Chèvre & Frédérique Eber & Alain Baranger & Michel Renard, 1997. "Gene flow from transgenic crops," Nature, Nature, vol. 389(6654), pages 924-924, October.
    5. Claire Marris, 2001. "La perception des OGM par le public: remise en cause de quelques idées reçues," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 58-79.
    6. John E. Losey & Linda S. Rayor & Maureen E. Carter, 1999. "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae," Nature, Nature, vol. 399(6733), pages 214-214, May.
    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. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 68, pages 11-45.
    2. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Post-Print hal-01201044, HAL.
    3. Post, Diabanna L & Da Ros, Jérôme M, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    4. Millstone, Erik, 2009. "Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 624-636, May.
    5. Diabanna L. Post & Jérôme M. Da Ros, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 68, pages 75-101.
    6. Diabanna L. Post & Jérôme M. da Ros, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Post-Print hal-01201055, HAL.
    7. Pierre-Benoît Joly, 2001. "Les OGM entre la science et le public? Quatre modèles pour la gouvernance de l'innovation et des risques," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 11-29.
    8. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    9. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    10. Pekrun, C. & Lane, P.W. & Lutman, P.J.W., 2005. "Modelling seedbank dynamics of volunteer oilseed rape (Brassica napus)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 1-20, April.
    11. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    12. Pardey, Philip G. & Koo, Bonwoo & Drew, Jennifer & Nottenburg, Carol, 2012. "The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008," Staff Papers 119346, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    13. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    14. Cohen, Joel I. & Paarlberg, Robert, 2004. "Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries--A Report from the Field," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1563-1577, September.
    15. Hartung, Frank & Krause, Dörthe & Sprink, Thorben & Wilhelm, Ralf, 2024. "Anwendungen der Grünen Gentechnik in der Landwirtschaft: Potenziale und Risiken," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2024, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    16. Alasdair R. Young, 2001. "Trading Up or Trading Blows? US Politics and Transatlantic Trade in Genetically Modified Food," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 30, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    17. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    18. 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.
    19. H. Hu & M. Xie & Y. Yu & Q. Zhang, 2013. "Transgenic Bt cotton tissues have no apparent impact on soil microorganisms," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(8), pages 366-371.
    20. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Justin M. Holley, 2001. "An Environmental-Economic Assessment of Genetic Modification of Agricultural Crops," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-025/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    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:ags:inrace:202762. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inratfr.html .

    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.