News Reporting about Genetically Modified Organisms in the Context of Different Journalistic Ideologies

The aim of this article is to research how Slovenian journalists carry out the professional ideology of objectivity, which is prevalently founded on the Anglo-American model of journalism and demands that journalists devote the same amount of space or time to all actors involved in an event. The study was performed on a case of news reporting about one of the most controversial biotechnological topics, i.e., the introduction of the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). All previous studies about news reporting on this topic in European media showed that journalists were mostly constructing the anti-GMOs discourse, based on sources which put the risks of GMOs at the forefront. Because these studies used only quantitative methods and analysed only the elite press, our study combines methods and includes diverse media in the sample. Both quantitative analysis (content analysis) and qualitative analysis (critical discourse analysis) of news items about GMOs, published in the Slovenian press, television programs and the press agency in 2009 and 2010 revealed that journalists predominantly cited sources which opposed the introduction of the cultivation of GMOs, and they explicitly expressed their own opinions, which were against GMOs. Journalists of tabloids were particularly negative in their views; they tried to mobilize the audience to boycott GMO-products. The research indicated that journalists did not follow the American tradition of equally citing different opinions about the topic and not express*ing journalists’ own opinions. Instead, their reporting was closer to that of the European tradition. The research also proved that in this case the journalistic practice did not correspond to the ideological concept of journalism formally adopted by the Slovenian journalistic community. Therefore, each analysis of journalistic professionalism should include research of everyday journalistic practice in addition to analysis of journalists’ ideology

Farm Broadcaster Knowledge and Beliefs of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms

Farm broadcasting members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters (NAFB) were studied to determine their knowledge and beliefs about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. This study used bimodal data collection techniques. Farm broadcasters in this study were described as typically male, over 35 years of age, married, and with at least some college education. Most farm broadcasters had an audience size of more than 50,000 listeners with typically a local distribution. In addition, most deliver a story about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms at least once a week. The majority of farm broadcasters believed that it was important to have a knowledge base of the subject they were reporting on, yet they did not demonstrate a high level of knowledge about food biotechnology, as measured by eight multiple choice questions. The average farm broadcaster only answered five of the eight questions correctly. Farm broadcasters believe that the U.S. food supply is safe and do not feel that GMOs are a risk for future generations. However, farm broadcasters believe that their audiences have a higher perception of GMOs as a potential risk to future generations. Recommendations for future research and evaluation of university agricultural communication curriculum are included

News Reporting about Genetically Modified Organisms in the Context of Different Journalistic Ideologies

The aim of this article is to research how Slovenian journalists carry out the professional ideology of objectivity, which is prevalently founded on the Anglo-American model of journalism and demands that journalists devote the same amount of space or time to all actors involved in an event. The study was performed on a case of news reporting about one of the most controversial biotechnological topics, i.e., the introduction of the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). All previous studies about news reporting on this topic in European media showed that journalists were mostly constructing the anti-GMOs discourse, based on sources which put the risks of GMOs at the forefront. Because these studies used only quantitative methods and analysed only the elite press, our study combines methods and includes diverse media in the sample. Both quantitative analysis (content analysis) and qualitative analysis (critical discourse analysis) of news items about GMOs, published in the Slovenian press, television programs and the press agency in 2009 and 2010 revealed that journalists predominantly cited sources which opposed the introduction of the cultivation of GMOs, and they explicitly expressed their own opinions, which were against GMOs. Journalists of tabloids were particularly negative in their views; they tried to mobilize the audience to boycott GMO-products. The research indicated that journalists did not follow the American tradition of equally citing different opinions about the topic and not express*ing journalists’ own opinions. Instead, their reporting was closer to that of the European tradition. The research also proved that in this case the journalistic practice did not correspond to the ideological concept of journalism formally adopted by the Slovenian journalistic community. Therefore, each analysis of journalistic professionalism should include research of everyday journalistic practice in addition to analysis of journalists’ ideology

Trust in Biotechnology Risk Managers: Insights from the United Kingdom, 1996-2002

During the late 1990s a series of negative events occurred in the United Kingdom (UK) related to biotechnology. These events signaled potential risks associated with biotech foods and crops and were highly reported. According to the trust asymmetry hypothesis, such events ought to cause public trust in risk managers of biotechnology to decline rapidly and rebound more slowly. We find, based on data taken from the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 1996, 1999 and 2002, that public trust in risk managers did decline from 1996 to 1999. However, the level of trust rebounded sharply between 1999 and 2002. Canonical discriminant analysis of public trust is used to reveal possible explanatory factors in this response. We find that whether people trust or distrust risk managers depends significantly on the amount of objective knowledge they have. We argue that knowledge of science might moderate the trust asymmetry effect.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, Risk and Uncertainty,

Biotechnology, environmental forcing, and unintended trophic cascades

A long ongoing discussion between scientists and policy decision-makers seems to have entered recently into a new phase. The consequences of release of transgenic crops into the environment are being discussed not only by scientists but also by farmers, environmental groups and politicians, while an increasing amount of data is becoming available at all biological scales, including the field level. However, data still rely on experiments designed to capture direct consumer¿resource interactions. Here we argue that we should attempt to concentrate on the ecosystem functioning of soil biota under genetically-modified (GM) plants, because functional and mechanistic analysis of the multitrophic effects of GM plants on soil biota is still lacking. It is our opinion that we should avoid addressing taxa and soil communities separately, but link them at their functional level. We shall explain why, using examples from ecosystem services, allometric scaling, and soil food webs. The energy flow of any food web under stress incorporates several factors and pooled information on ecosystem services and on the different responses of soil invertebrates to induced perturbations in other trophic levels. Therefore, we will systematically focus on the complementarities of these approache

A Survey of Literature on Genetically Modified Crops: Economics, Ethics and Society

This paper reports on a review of literature in the form of academic papers and published research on ethical and consumer issues for GM crops in North America, with particular emphasis on GM wheat. The issues raised in these papers and the findings and arguments posed by the authors are outlined. A general conclusion that can be drawn from this overview is that public attitudes toward GM foods are diverse and sometimes quite strongly held. The strong negative views of GM food held by some appear to be mainly grounded in individuals’ ethical or moral values. Ethical and risk assessment issues have not been fully explored in the existing literature. There is a general consensus in the applied economics literature that GM crops result in economic benefits, although benefits to individual consumers may not be great enough to overcome perceived risk. Carefully planned provision of credible information informing members of the public of benefits and related issues of concern or costs associated with agricultural biotechnology may have benefits for farm and industry groups, but maintenance of trust in information sources and content is vital to credibility. The discovery and use of genomic techniques that express explicit consumer benefits may lead to more favourable attitudes by many consumers.Crop Production/Industries, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies, I00, Q16, Q18,

Judicially Modified Democracy: Court and State Pre-Emption of Local GMO Regulation in Hawaii and Beyond

The federal framework for regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has long been criticized as fragmented and inadequate to protect against various health, environmental, and economic concerns. Yet, despite having the legal authority to augment the federal framework, the overwhelming majority of states have failed to enact any substantive legislation governing GMOs at the state-level. In the wake of this regulatory vacuum, a small but growing number of local governments have attempted to regulate GMOs locally. However, local GMO regulations face significant challenges by the GMO industry, which has sought to undo local regulatory authority both through the courts and through industry lobbying of state legislators to expressly pre-empt local regulation. Today, roughly 17 states have now expressly pre-empted local authority to regulate GMOs, largely due to industry influence. Hawaii is a high-stakes battleground for the genetically modified debate, and in 2013-2014, three local counties—Maui County, Hawaii County, and Kauai County—all attempted to regulate GMOs at the local level. Although the counties purportedly had broad statutory authority to regulate to protect local health, life, and property, as well as conservation obligations under the Hawaii Constitution, the local GMO ordinances were quickly challenged in court by the GMO industry and soon invalidated by the federal district court in Hawaii on novel state and federal pre-emption grounds. As the very first local GMO regulations struck down on state and federal pre-emption grounds, the Hawaii pre-emption decisions will likely have a significant adverse impact on local GMO regulation across the country if allowed to stand. This article argues that the recent pre-emption decisions were wrongly decided under traditional pre-emption principles, and further argues that in the absence of state or federal comprehensive regulatory schemes sufficient to address mounting health, environmental, and economic concerns, courts and states should refrain from denying local authority to regulate GMOs. Permitting local regulation of GMOs not only fosters and supports legitimate local democracy, but it may also be what is most needed to find innovative solutions to acknowledged GMO risks and realities

How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy

The 2010 Eurobarometer on life science and biotechnology reveals an overall suspicion of GM foods amongst the public: the 61% of Europeans agree that GM food makes them feel uneasy and a higher proportion, 70%, think that GM food is fundamentally unnatural. In the economics literature many studies investigate the factors that drive public resistance: ethical concerns, low public trust in regulatory institution, risk misperception, absence of perceived benefits and media bias. In particular, public attitudes and risk perception about agricultural biotechnology are proved to be influenced by press media communication.This paper aims at gaining insight into the visual communication to which Italian population is exposed about GMOs, in order to investigate if images could have contributed to shape their negative public perception.A set of 500 images collected through Google search for “GMO” in Italy are classified considering fearful attributes (i.e. alteration of color, shape or size of plants or animals, mention to death or war, presence of DNA double helix or syringe) and an index that accounts for the scary impact of these images is built.Then the relationship between the index and a set of variables that refer to the context in which images appear is estimated. Preliminary results reveal that the order of appearance of images negatively affect index, namely that the first (and most viewed) Google result pages contain the most frightful images. It suggests that Italian population is subject to overstated negative inputs about GMOs. In addition, it emerges that web contents that show positive or neutral GMO attitudes are barely accompanied with objective and balanced visual communication. Implications and future research are then discussed

Case Study of the “No On 37” Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme: Public Relations Strategies & Tactics, Ethically Problematic Communication, and the First Amendment

The debate surrounding one’s right to know what is in one’s food has increased in popularity since 2012 when California became the first state to vote on Proposition 37 which would have mandated the labeling of genetically modified organisms. Proposition 37 was defeated due to the public relations campaign mounted by Monsanto and other corporate sponsors of genetically engineered seeds. Utilizing both a visual and written content analysis, this study identified the ethically problematic public relations strategies within the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, while also examining the content to determine whether the strategic communication must be classified as commercial or political speech pursuant to the First Amendment. Even though the campaign was found to be ethically problematic when applying the five elements of the TARES Test, it was beneficial to expand those components for future evaluations regarding all issues when a corporate speaker is involved in advocacy