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

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.

    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Philip H. Howard, 2009. "Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(4), pages 1-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.