Genetically modified food in France: symbolic transformation and the policy paradigm shift (original) (raw)
Related papers
In the European Union GMOs are hardly utilized in food and agriculture but constitute a public problem, whereas in the USA, they are widely utilized and yet do not exist on the public policy agenda. This paradoxical situation was particularly apparent between 1997 and 1999, and was commonly explained by referring to cultural differences. Thus, commentators frequently stated that Americans are technophile whereas Europeans are technophobic; that Americans trust their regulators whereas Europeans, especially following the BSE crisis, do not; and that Americans are less attached to the cultural identity of their foods than Europeans. We suggest that these hypothesized explanations have not been substantiated, and that the idea that American consumers have accepted GMOs is unconvincing. Furthermore, we argue that focusing exclusively on public perceptions is in any case not sufficient to explain how an issue becomes a public problem. It is also necessary to analyze the mechanics of agenda-setting, by following the actors involved and identifying the different frames of reference utilized, with more or less success, in different arenas ( scientific, regulatory, legal, political, media...). We analyze these processes in France and the USA during the period 1996-2000 and identify three key themes which crystallize the debate on both sides of the Atlantic: (i) the issue of labeling of GM-food products; (ii) questions of agricultural policy focalized around "Terminator" technology (farmer dependence on biotechnology corporations and monopolistic "food power" in the hands of a few firms); (iii) controversies about framing issues in risk assessment, emphasized by the Monarch butterfly affair.
Revisiting the Transatlantic Divergence over GMOs: Toward a Cultural-Political Analysis
2012
This article applies a constructivist perspective to the persistent transatlantic divergence over the regulation of GM foods and crops. Political economy and institutionalism have so far dominated the literature. Notwithstanding their crucial insights, this article argues that to achieve a better understanding of the nature and depth of transatlantic regulatory divergence, one should also study prevalent cultural values and identity-related public concerns regarding food and agriculture. These factors can be identified in public opinion trends and have fuelled Europeans' resistance, while contributing to relative regulatory stability in the US. By conceptualizing cultural contexts as catalytic structures, the article also differs from more explicitly discursive accounts of political mobilization. The cultural politics of agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) relies both on pre-existing values and identities, on the one hand, and on the strategies (and material or other power resources) of political agents.
This article analyzes how a new social movement against genetic engineering in agriculture managed to turn a major industry upside down. While the social movements literature has long recognized the importance of external context for the success of social movements, it has paid little attention to the institutional logic and features of targets other than the state. Here I argue that an undertheorized aspect of external context, namely, industry structures, is a primary factor explaining why the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe was so effective. As conceptualized here, industry structures are composed of economic, organizational, and cultural features, and function to enhance or constrain social movements' efforts to change industry behavior. Bringing these structures into our purview and recognizing their significance for activist struggles can significantly advance our understanding of social movement efficacy in this age of globalization and increased corporate power.
The GM food debate in the Netherlands, 19992002
STAGE (Science, Technology and …, 2004
The Dutch public debate 'Eten en Genen' (Food and Genes) organized in 2001 has been a failure according to most commentators. From the very beginning there was disagreement about the design of the debate. Somewhere half way critical NGOs withdrew their support after battles about an information video to be used and the organization of focus group discussions. The debate and its design as well as the subsequent controversy were inspired by the currently fashionable support among policy makers for a larger role to public participation in decision making about new technologies. As such it is an interesting case to be considered in the STAGE project. 1 The STAGE-project seeks to develop a comparative framework for the analysis of public involvement in scientific and technological innovation. What happened in the Dutch GM food debate? Which issues were at stake to be taken into account in the development and analysis of participatory forms of decision-making about science and technology?
Recasting "Substantial Equivalence":Transatlantic Governance of GM Food
Science Technology & Human Values, 2007
When an intense public controversy erupted around agricultural biotechnology in the late 1990s, critics found more opportunities to challenge risk-assessment criteria and test methods for GM products. In relation to GM food, they criticised the concept of "substantial equivalence", which EU and US regulators had adopted as the basis for a harmonised "science-based" approach to risk assessment. Scientific uncertainty was framed in different ways by competing policy agendas. "Substantial equivalence" was contested and was eventually recast to accommodate some criticisms. To explain how the concept changed, this paper links two analytical perspectives. "Regulatory science" perspectives illuminate how the "scientification of politics" and "politicisation of science" led to shifts in the boundary between science and policy. "Governance" perspectives illuminate how the "collective problem" for policy was redefined to provide a new common ground for some stakeholders. Overall "substantial equivalence" was recast to govern the social conflict and address legitimacy problems of regulatory procedures.
Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms
Review of Policy Research, 2017
The objective of this study is to investigate the extent to which supporters and opponents at the European Union (EU) level strive to mobilize the public with regard the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To this end, it addresses two research questions: First, to which concepts do GMO opponents and supporters refer when seeking to mobilize the public? Second, do GMO opponents and supporters differ in the coherence of the concepts they use to attain public mobilization? The empirical findings show that the pro-GMO coalition is composed of biotechnology companies as well as representatives of Argentina, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the World Trade Organization. The anti-GMO coalition consists of environmental nongovernmental organizations and representatives from most of the EU member states. Altogether, the anti-GMO coalition has been more coherent in the concepts they invoke in the last few years.
Refeudalizing the Public Sphere:" Manipulated Publicity" In the Canadian Debate on GM Foods
The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 2006
This article develops Habermas' concept of refeudalization in a critical assessment of the public debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) food in Canada. A recent initiative by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, a federal consultative body, is evaluated according to the normative criteria of Habermas' ideal-typical public sphere. In turn, the case study uses Habermas' account of the structural transformation of the public sphere to examine ways in which political-economic conditions under globalization impinge upon the prospects for rational-critical public debate. I argue that external economic pressure associated with the drive for international competitiveness in an increasingly globalized economy has spurred the Canadian state to embrace contradictory roles vis à vis GM food. Given the state's role in regulating and actively promoting the technology, government-sponsored public consultations have taken on the aura of public relations and have risked foreclosing meaningful opportunities for debate.