Genetically Modified Crops and Framing - Research Paper Example

Genetically Modified Crops and Framing As the suggests, genetically modified foods are obtained by manipulating genes. The DNA is the structure that contains the genes. One of the biggest breakthroughs in science was the discovery of the DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick. The scientific research paper that they presented in the journal Nature, they pushed the boundaries of possibility farther, and what was considered to be fiction was now being viewed in a completely different light. A DNA is a double helix and is made up of sequences of nucleotides. Specific arrangements of these nucleotides give rise to different genes. Having knowledge of the structure of the DNA gave biologists insight into the processes of DNA translation and transcription. Scientists were able to understand how genes interacted with the environment and how they could be isolated from the DNA strand. This allowed scientists to manipulate genes and change the characteristics of organisms. Recent breakthroughs in science and the process of how genes code for proteins have enabled scientists to even create organisms. Genetically modified crops are a creation of genetic engineering and the processes of gene manipulation. Crops were selected that had the desired features and their genes were manipulated and isolated to make crops with the desired qualities. These crops were called genetically modified, transgenic or genetically engineered crops; hence the phase genetically modified (GM) refers to that breed of crops that has been altered through genetic engineering (Forman 8). Genetically modified crops are aimed to provide commercial and social advantages (Silberglitt 22). The golden rice contains high levels of beta-carotene that is not present in rice and so allows animals to make vitamin A. In countries like Bangladesh, rice is the staple diet, and so many people and children face severe deficiency of vitamin A, suffering from blindness and high mortality. Genetic engineers predict that the growth and consumption of golden rice in Asian countries can counter the stark conditions of malnutrition, mortality and blindness that is common in these areas. Although the traits of crops are changed to make them more resistant, concerns over the safety of the crops have risen dramatically over time and has fueled heated debates in the Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the US. In a nutshell, the basis for such debates is that transgenic organisms are a new breed, and can be likened to tampering with nature. They can impact both the environment and humans negatively and may cause allergies and hypersensitivity reactions in people. Moreover, concerns are raised that cross-pollination can cause harm to other plants or lead to the transfer of resistant genes (Hoeger and Hoeger 95). The media has played a pivotal role in covering the debates surrounding GM foods. It has often been alleged for sensationalism and prejudice in its reporting of agrobiotechnology. Marks and Kalaitzandonakes conducted a research on media reporting in the US and UK; the findings provided evidence to the view that the media has shown bias in its coverage by stressing upon different frames at different times depending on the unfolding events. These frames included biosafety and food safety. The media is an essential component of the public sphere and serves as a forum where people can come together and express their opinions about different subjects. As a result, it brings together people of opposing points of view, and projects these views to the public. However, the problem arises that reporters do not observe an idealistic method of reporting, and their stories are often framed to support a certain point of view. There are many elements that help to frame a story and to bring about the desired impact. The tone of the reporters, the choice of words and the importance given to the presentation of data and facts as compared to opinions are some of the factors that influence how a story is framed. The news stories project public meanings and interpretations of social reality. The process of reporting is such that journalists turn a happening into a newsworthy incident and then to a story that is then presented to the people. Journalists and reporters mould frames according to their own comprehension, perceptions, style of writing and deadlines. Therefore, in expressing their views on GM technology, the scientific facts, as well as the implications of the technology, like environmental and health concerns, have been framed by political figures and media reporters. They have highlighted certain aspects of the debate, while other aspects have remained untouched. Also many people believe that the news media also shapes the schema of public concern or might impact the way public thinks. In the US, studies have shown that GM crops related stories are penned by journalists who consider themselves more learned scientifically than assessments show; therefore, journalists lacking adequate knowledge portray media as biased and may play an important part in agenda-setting (Fritz et al.). The controversy regarding GM foods is a struggle between various elements in politics, economics, social policy and science (Gordon 81). In the debate about the use of GM crops, the media has highlighted the implications for the safety of the food, and the impact GM technology has on the environment. Initially, since GM foods were introduced in the market in the early 1990s, media coverage about the crops was favorable and a positive tone was adopted both in the US and the UK. However, since 1995, a year after the BSE crisis, the UK media had drafted an agenda for biotechnology, relating it directly to the food crisis. During that time, media coverage underplayed the potential and scope of GM crops by reiterating the repercussions of the BSE crisis and the mad-cow disease. The media coverage was both in the print form, as well as over the web, and telecast media such as the television, and the radio. Over the years, the articles that were published in the Daily Telegraph and London Times soared, especially during the years 1997 to 2000. Less emphasis was placed on the advantages of biotechnology and as a result, the framing has been partially responsible for the EU citizens to have a greater dislike for GM foods compared to the US. In contrast to that, media coverage of the GM crops in the US had a milder tone since the 1990s. The media projected the benefits of the biotechnology more than the associated risks. However, since the Starlink event in the US, the US media increasingly reported the risks of consuming GM technology and changed the tone the media used in addressing GM crops. Thus, it can be concluded that media reporting of GM crops has been “both cyclical in tone and event driven” (Marks and Kalaitzandonakes). There is a trend in the media coverage demonstrating that there is an ideological bias regarding the GM foods debate, where left-wing newspapers are seen to have reported more extensively on it than other publications (Hofmann 95). It has been seen that the media plays a role in limiting the debate that arises about GM technology in the US. Media continues to underestimate the risks of GM crops in the US up till now, whereas the Europe is embroiled in heated debates over the consumption of GM foods. In the US, there are some channels of communication that fail to report many of the happenings of the world of GM plants, whereas others present their own alternative perceptions of the debate. In the US, the press did not challenge the view of the proponents of GM technology that the risks are very small. In fact, the Washington Post regarded GM technology as a matter of public opinion. Proponents of GM crops, including scientific institutes and food safety regulatory bodies, project the view that the crops are safe to consume and do not pose health threats. However, proactive political elements in the UK oppose the use of GM crops, and the food-safety scandals in the 1990s about dioxin-laced chickens, beef that is deleterious to neurological functions and other disasters have instigated the public to adopt a more opposing stance to the consumption of GM foods. Compared to the US press, the response by the European press framed news in terms of public accountability. The quotes “This dispute is a desperate attempt by the U.S. and biotech industry to force GM foods onto an unwilling European market. But consumers will not be bullied into eating GM foods” and “Protecting wildlife, farmers and consumers is far more important than free trade rules” by the Friends of the Earth UK and The Guardian respectively demonstrate how the news is framed. The opponents of GM technology portray themselves as agencies working for the good of the public and frame advocates of the GM foods as agencies that do are not working for public prosperity. The Friends of the Earth USA issued a statement, “The WTO is unfit to decide what we eat or what farmers grow. It is an undemocratic and secretive institution that has no particular competence in environmental or health and safety matters” (Nisbet). In China as well, the media has been shown to frame stories in favor of supporting the consumption of GM crops, which in turn has played a part in the consumers having a positive attitude towards it (Li, Curtis, McCluskey, and Wahl). Extensive media coverage by newspapers can influence the attitudes and opinions of the people (Kirk and McIntosh). Along with being biased, the media is responsible for distorting the facts (Dickson). The journalist is not completely objective about the event, and can report inaccurately. Both the proponents and the opponents of the GM foods debate assert things that are not true. The supporters of GM crops include scientists, agricultural ministries, and the private companies trying to sell the new technology, whereas the opponents include NGOs representing and voicing the poor, as well as environmental ministries (Paarlberg). For instance, the advocates of GM foods contend that GM foods pose no health threats at all, and do not harm the environment; they also assert that GM foods are the solution for the problems of poverty, malnutrition and food shortages. The Food Standards Agency is responsible for assessing the safety of GM crops under the EU laws (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Select Committee on Economic Affairs and House of Lords Parliament Select Committee on Economic Affairs Great Britain 166). The Food Standards Agency has abandoned all efforts to balance their opinions; they have not only acted as cheerleaders, but have also attempted to influence the public opinion in favor of the consumption of Gm foods (Blythman). Concurrently, opponents exaggerate the risks of consuming GM foods and the dangers they pose to human health and the environment. Opposition to GM foods in often framed on the basis of moral, ethical and political reasons (Scoones 314). Supporters of the technology, like Thomas Hoban and other industry groups, claim that the media has often been involved in framing stories and show high levels of prejudice (Fitzgerald, Campbell, and Sivak). Scientists do not agree on the risks that are being projected by the media (Weirich 32). Differences in the reporting of events by media along with attitude towards journalism link with the attitudes and the opinions of people about risks that GM food incur (Vilella-Vila and Costa-Font). Media coverage has primarily been dependent on the nature of sources used. Over the time it has become more politicized, as represented by the proactive stance of politicians like Caroline Spelman. Thus, debate issued from the clash of opposing elements such as pressure groups, industries and supermarkets (Shepherd and Raats 221). Even politicians have taken up the cause of promoting GM foods. One such politician is Caroline Spelman. She has argued her case by focusing on the benefits of GM foods to the environment and the health of the community. There was focus on her reforms that she is likely to pursue to protect the environment and to satisfy the public. By framing the event towards a pro-GM opinion, the politicians and media have often tried to project information by marginalizing certain facts. In an article published by The Guardian, there was less focus on the facts but more focus on the reforms and the pro-GM government that Caroline Spelman was planning to introduce (Jowit and Vidal). In another survey, the findings proved the marginalization of events that takes place. The survey proved that in five developing countries, media lacked critical analysis of the GM crops and hardly projected the views of the farmers (Ngandwe). Works Cited Blythman, Joanna. GM food and a sinister bid to twist public opinion. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 3 June 2010. Web. 28 June 2010. Dickson, David. Inaccuracy — not bias — is the scourge of the media. SciDev.Net, 9 May 2005. Web. 28 June 2010. Fitzgerald, Ruth, Hugh Campbell, and Leda Sivak. Content analysis of bias in international print media coverage of genetically modified food. Rural Society 11.3 (December 2001): 181-196. Web. 28 June 2010. Forman, Lillian E. Genetically Modified Foods. Minnesota: ABDO Group, 2009. Print. Fritz, Susan, et al. “Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnology Issues Among Youth, Undergraduates, and Adults.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 6.4 (2003): 178-184. Web. 28 June 2010. Gordon, Susan. Critical Perspectives on Genetically Modified Crops and Food. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2006. Print. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Select Committee on Economic Affairs, and House of Lords Parliament Select Committee on Economic Affairs Great Britain. Government Policy on the Management of Risk: 5th Report of Session 2005-06. The Stationery Office, 2006. Print. Hoeger,Wener W.K., and Sharon A. Hoeger. Lifetime Physical Fitness and Wellness: A Personalized Program. 10th ed. California: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Hofmann, Klaus P. Psychology of decision making in economics, business and finance. New York: Nova Publishers, 2007. Print. Jowit, Juliette, and John Vidal. Environment secretary Caroline Spelman backs GM crops. Guardian News and Media Limited 4 June 2010. Web. 28 June 2010. Kirk, Dwayne D., and Kim McIntosh. “Social Acceptance of Plant-Made Vaccines: Indications from a Public Survey.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 8.4 (2005): 228-234. Web. 28 June 2010. Li, Quan, Kynda R. Curtis, Jill J. McCluskey, and Thomas I. Wahl. “Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Foods in Beijing, China.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 5.4 (2002): 145-152. Web. 28 June 2010. Marks, Leonie A., and Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes. “Mass Media Communications About Agrobiotechnology.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 4.3&4 (2001): n. pag. Web. 28 June 2010. Ngandwe, Talent. Developing world media lacks critical analysis of GM’. SciDev.Net, 25 May 2005. Web. 28 June 2010. Paarlberg, Robert. “Political Actors on the Landscape.” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics 10.3 (2007): 144-153. Web. 28 June 2010. Scoones, Ian. Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: the case of biotechnology in India. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2006. Print. Shepherd, Richard, and Monique Raats. The psychology of food choice, Volume 3. Oxfordshire: CABI, 2006. Silberglitt, Richard S. The global technology revolution 2020, in-depth analyses: bio-nano-materials-information trends, drivers, barriers, and social implications. California: Rand Corporation, 2006. Print. Vilella-Vila, Marta and Joan Costa-Font. “Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food.” Journal of Socio-Economics 37.5 (2008): 2095-2106. Web. 28 June 2010. Weirich, Paul. Labeling genetically modified food: the philosophical and legal debate. New York: Oxford University Press US, 2007. Print. Read More