IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v39y2022i2d10.1007_s10460-021-10274-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Siebert

    (University of Kassel)

  • Christian Herzig

    (University of Kassel)

  • Marc Birringer

    (Fulda University of Applied Sciences)

Abstract

New techniques in genome editing have led to a controversial debate about the opportunities and uncertainties they present for agricultural food production and consumption. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union defined genome editing as a new process of mutagenesis, which implies that the resulting organisms count as genetically modified and are subject, in principle, to the obligations of EU Directive 2001/18/EG. This paper examines how key protagonists from academia, politics, and the economy strategically framed the debate around genome editing in agriculture in Germany prior to its legal classification by the Court of Justice. It is based on an analysis of 96 official statements, including position papers, press releases, and information brochures. Our study reveals eight strategic frames used in the discourse on genome editing and uncovers the strategies used to disconnect from or connect with the previous discourse on green genetic engineering in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Building on competitive framing theory, the study provides explanations for the use and emergence of counter-framing strategies and their success or failure in the debate around genome editing.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Siebert & Christian Herzig & Marc Birringer, 2022. "Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 617-632, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10274-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10274-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10274-2
    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/s10460-021-10274-2?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. Otto Hospes, 2014. "Food sovereignty: the debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(1), pages 119-130, March.
    2. Art Dewulf, 2013. "Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 321-330, July.
    3. Carmen Bain & Sonja Lindberg & Theresa Selfa, 2020. "Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: implications for governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 265-279, June.
    4. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Madeleine Fairbairn, 2012. "Framing transformation: the counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(2), pages 217-230, June.
    6. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    7. Streeck, Wolfgang, 2005. "Nach dem Korporatismus: Neue Eliten, neue Konflikte," MPIfG Working Paper 05/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    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. Douglas H. Constance, 2023. "The doctors of agrifood studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 31-43, March.
    2. Rebecka Daye, 2020. "Competing food sovereignties: GMO-free activism, democracy and state preemptive laws in Southern Oregon," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1013-1025, December.
    3. Hirt, Léon F. & Sahakian, Marlyne & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "What subnational imaginaries for solar PV? The case of the Swiss energy transition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. Sara A. L. Smaal & Joost Dessein & Barend J. Wind & Elke Rogge, 2021. "Social justice-oriented narratives in European urban food strategies: Bringing forward redistribution, recognition and representation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 709-727, September.
    5. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2019. "Economic Drivers of Legume Production: Approached via Opportunity Costs and Transaction Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Mark Christopher Navin & J. M. Dieterle, 2018. "Cooptation or solidarity: food sovereignty in the developed world," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 319-329, June.
    7. Garrett M. Broad, 2023. "Improving the agri-food biotechnology conversation: bridging science communication with science and technology studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 929-938, September.
    8. Eichhorst, Werner & Weishaupt, J. Timo, 2013. "Mit Neo-Korporatismus durch die Krise? Die Rolle des Sozialen Dialogs in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz," IZA Discussion Papers 7498, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Lyn Kathlene & Debashish Munshi & Priya Kurian & Sandra L. Morrison, 2022. "Cultures in the laboratory: mapping similarities and differences between Māori and non-Māori in engaging with gene-editing technologies in Aotearoa, New Zealand," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Efe Can Gürcan, 2018. "Theorizing Food Sovereignty from a Class-Analytical Lens: The Case of Agrarian Mobilization in Argentina," Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, Centre for Agrarian Research and Education for South, vol. 7(3), pages 320-350, December.
    11. Kinderman, Daniel, 2014. "Challenging varieties of capitalism's account of business interests: The new social market initiative and German employers' quest for liberalization, 2000-2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/16, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Integrative governance: The relationships between governance instruments taking center stage," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1341-1354, December.
    13. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    14. Cinthia Soto Golcher & Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, 2018. "Framing and integration in the global forest, agriculture and climate change nexus," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1415-1436, December.
    15. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.
    16. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Puspa Sharma & Carsten Daugbjerg, 2020. "The troubled path to food sovereignty in Nepal: ambiguities in agricultural policy reform," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 311-323, June.
    18. Rebecca J. Romsdahl, 2020. "Deliberative framing: opening up discussions for local-level public engagement on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 145-163, September.
    19. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    20. Julia M. L. Laforge & Colin R. Anderson & Stéphane M. McLachlan, 2017. "Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 663-681, September.

    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:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10274-2. 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.