This article reports on a study of how scientific knowledge about genetically modified (GM) food flows to the American public, focusing on language and message genres in the scientific literature, newspapers, and popular magazines. A comprehensive search of these literatures from 1992 to 2002 revealed a publishing pattern of scientific communication that contrasted with that found in the lay press. Examination of this difference led researchers to a scientific study on the effect of GM corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly. The case study of the discourse surrounding this event demonstrates how press releases affect what is published in the popular press. The role of this event in generating subtle repercussions in the perceptions of U.S. consumers, similar to the ripple effects found in Kasperson’s social amplification of risk theory, is analyzed and reported.
Althaus, S. L., J. A. Edy, and P. F. Phalen. 2001. Using substitutes for full-text news stories in content analysis: Which text is best?American Journal of Political Science45 (3): 707-725. http://weblinks1.epnet.com/citation.asp?.
2.
Alvarez, L.2003. Consumers in Europe resist gene-altered foods. New York Times, February 11. http://www.nytimes.com.
3.
Anderson, L.2000. Genetic engineering, food, and our environment. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
4.
Becker, E.2003a. E.U. ban on genetically modified food criticized. New York Times, January 9. http://www.nytimes.com.
5.
Becker, E.2003b. U.S. delays suing Europe over ban on modified food. New York Times, February 5. http://www.nytimes.com.
6.
Becker, E., and D. Barboza. 2003. Battle over biotechnology intensifies trade war. New York Times, May 29. http://www.nytimes.com.
7.
Beringer, J. E.1999. Cautionary tale on safety of GM crops. Nature399 (June): 405-405.
8.
Berkowitz. D.1992. Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In Public opinion, the press and public policy, edited by J. D. Kennamer, 81-112. Westport, CT: Praeger.
9.
Billig, M.1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Biotechnology Industry Organization. 1990. Biospace: A timeline of biotechnology. http://www.biospace.com/articles/timeline_1990.cfm (accessed February 15, 2003).
11.
Biotechnology Industry Organization. 1999. BIO responds to nature report on threat to Monarch butterfly. May 20. http://www.bio.org/foodag/background/bt0519.asp (accessed May 31, 2004).
12.
Cornell University News Service. 1999. Engineered corn can kill Monarch butterflies. Press release, May 19. Eurek Alert!http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-05/CUNSECCK-190599.php (accessed February 15, 2004).
13.
Council for Biotechnology Information. 2003. Plant biotechnology timeline. http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=2157 (accessed May 10, 2003).
14.
Cummins, R., and B. Lilliston. 2000. Genetically engineered food: A self-defense guide for consumers. New York: Marlow and Company.
15.
De Semir, V., C. Ribas, and G. Revuelta. 1998. Articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. Journal of the American Medical Association280 (3): 294-295.
16.
Downs, A.1972. Upand downwith ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest28: 38-50.
17.
Duke University. 2003. Genetically modified foods timeline. http://www.duke.edu/web/mms190/team4/timeline.html (accessed May 10, 2003).
18.
Eldridge, J., and J. Reilly. 2003. Risk and relativity: BSE and the British media. In The social amplification of risk, edited by N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 138-156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Entwistle, V.1995. Reporting research in medial journals and newspapers. British Medical Journal1995 (310): 920-923.
20.
Fahnestock, J.1998. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication15 (3): 330-350.
21.
Formanek Jr., R.2001. Proposed new rules issued for bioengineered foods. FDA Consumer35 (2). http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/201_food.html.
22.
Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology94: 1-37.
23.
Gardner, H., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and W. Damon. 2001. Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.
24.
Gaskell, G., and M. W. Bauer, eds. 2001. Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
25.
Gaskell, G., N. Allum, W. Wagner, T. H. Nielsen, E. Jelsoe, and M. W. Bauer. 2001a. In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 53-79. London: Science Museum.
26.
Gaskell, G., E. Einsiedel, S. Priest, T. Ten Eyck, N. Allum, and H. Torgersen. 2001b. Troubled waters: The Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy. In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 96-115. London: Science Museum.
27.
Greenpeace. 1999. Monsanto and Novartis genetically engineered maize harms butterflies: Greenpeace calls for a ban. May 20. http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/ (accessed May 31, 2004).
28.
Gross, A. G.1994. Is a rhetoric of science policy possible?Social Epistemology8: 273-280.
29.
Groth, E., III. 2001. The debate over biotechnology: Is a societal consensus achievable? Presented at the Symposium on Biotechnology: Fortune or Fiasco? American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 19, San Francisco.
30.
Gutteling, J. M., A. Olofsson, B. Fjaestad, M. Kohring, A. Goerke, M. W. Bauer, and T. Rusanen. 2002. Media coverage 1973-1996: Trends and dynamics. In Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy, edited by M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, 95-128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Hallman, W. K., A. O. Adelaja, B. J. Schilling, and J. T. Lang. 2002. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: Americans know not what they eat. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
32.
Hallman, W. K., W. C. Hebden, H. L. Aquino, C. L. Cuite, and J. T. Lang. 2003. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: National study of American knowledge and opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
33.
Hart, K.2002. Eating in the dark: America’s experiment with genetically modified food. New York: Pantheon.
34.
Hornig, S.1990. Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis. Journalism Quarterly67 (4): 767-776.
35.
Kasperson, R. E., N. Jhaveri, and J. X. Kasperson. 2001. Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. In Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, edited by J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, 9-27. London: Earthscan Publications.
36.
Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, and S. Ratlick. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis8 (2): 177-187.
37.
Kilman, S.1999. Modified corn seed hurt butterfly in test. Wall Street Journal, May 20, B2-B2.
38.
Lambrecht, B.2001. Outgoing secretary says agency’s top issue is genetically modified food. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 25. Accessed through Dialog, File 494: St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
39.
Lievrouw, L. A.1990. Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7: 1-10.
40.
Locke, S.2002. The public understanding of science: A rhetorical invention. Science, Technology and Human Values27 (1): 87-111.
41.
Losey, J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature399 (May 20): 214-214.
42.
Lurquin, P. F.2002. High tech harvest: Understanding genetically modified food plants. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
43.
Martineau, B.2001. Food fight: The short, unhappy life of the Flavr Savr tomato. The Sciences41 (2): 24-29.
44.
Miller, M. M., and B. P. Riechert. 2001. The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In Framing public life, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, and A. E. Grant, 107-122. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
National Science Foundation. 2002. Science and engineering indicators 2002. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm (accessed May 15, 2003).
46.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.
47.
Nelkin, D.1998. Scientific journals and public disputes. Lancet352 (October 3): SII 25-28.
48.
Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23 (4): 359-391.
49.
Peacock, J. W., D. F. Schweitzer, J. L. Carter, and N. R. Dubois. 1998. Laboratory assessment of the effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on native Lepidoptera. Environmental Entomology27 (2): 450-457.
50.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2002. Three years later: Genetically engineered controversy. http://www.pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/monarch.pdf.
51.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2003. Awareness of genetically modified food remains low. Public sentiment about genetically modified food. http://pewagbiotech.org/research/2003update/ (accessed February 28, 2003).
52.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., and E. Schioler. 2000. Seeds of contention: World hunger and the global controversy over GM crops. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
Pollack, A.2001. Biotechnology venture hits unexpected snags. New York Times, November 23. http://www.nytimes.com.
54.
Priest, S. H.1994. Structuring public debate on biotechnology. Science Communication16 (2): 166-179.
55.
Priest, S. H.1995. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication45 (1): 39-54.
56.
Priest, S. H.2001. A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
57.
Pringle, P.2003. Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto—the promises and perils of the biotech harvest. New York: Simon & Schuster.
58.
Reeves, C.2002. An orthodox heresy: Scientific rhetoric and the science of prions. Science Communication24 (1): 98-122.
59.
Retzinger, J. P. 2001. Setting the agenda—and setting the table—for genetically modified foods in the press. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Communication and Environment, July, Cincinnati, Ohio.
60.
Schwartz, L. M., S. Woloshin, and L. Baczek. 2002. Media coverage of scientific meetings: Too much, too soon?Journal of the American Medical Association287 (21): 2859-2863.
61.
Scriber, J. M.2001. Bt or not Bt: Is that the question?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98 (22): 12328-12330.
62.
Severson, K.2004. Lessons of mad cowscare: Consumers looking more at safety of food supply. San Francisco Chronicle, January 4. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe.
63.
Ten Eyck, T. A., P. B. Thompson, and S. H. Priest. 2001. Biotechnology in the United States: Mad or moral science? In Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy, edited by G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer, 307-318. London: Science Museum.
64.
Tuchman, G.1978. Making news: Astudy in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
65.
Turner, R. S.2001. On telling regulatory tales: r BST comes to Canada. Social Studies of Science31 (4): 475-506.
66.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 1999. Toxic pollen threatens monarchs: Gene-altered corn may harm beloved butterfly. May 20. http://www.pestlaw.com/x/press/1999/UCS-19990520A.html (accessed May 31, 2004).
67.
University of Calgary. 2003. Biotechnology through the ages. http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/april03/gmfoods-timeline.html (accessed May 10, 2003).
68.
Winston, M. L.2002. Travels in the genetically modified zone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
Woloshin, S., and L. M. Schwartz. 2002. Press releases: Translating research into news. Journal of the American Medical Association. 287 (21): 2856-2858.
70.
Yoon, C. K.1999. Altered corn may imperil butterfly, researchers say. New York Times, May 20, A1-A1.
