Browsing by Author "Mäki, Jasmin"

Genetically modified (GM) crops are subject to fierce debates. The scientific controversy and novelty of the technology raise concerns over possible adverse effects. On the other side, promoters of the technology argue for the safety and economic benefits. These debates take place within the public sphere, where meanings about GM crops are socially constructed. This research describes the national debates over GM crops in the newspapers of the United States and Spain. Six newspapers were searched giving a final sample of 244 articles, of which 152 were further analysed. The articles were coded following the method of political claim-making to find out who discusses GM crops and how. The theoretical framework combines framing theory with the theory of discursive opportunity structure (DOS). The results are six opposing frames about agrobiotechnoloy: economic benefits and costs, biosafety and risk, and progress and critique. Though issues and contexts vary greatly in the two countries, the arguments are influenced by the transnational discursive opportunity structure, meaning the international treaties that govern GM agriculture. Those establish scientific risk assessments over human health and environment as the base for decisions about GM agriculture. The second part of the analysis examines the influence of the transnational DOS on how social movements frame GM crops as risks. The way mass media interprets DOS influences on how it restricts or enables strategic arguing by social movements. The analysis reveals that movements apply environmental and health risk frames and use scientific arguments to influence in GM politics. However, the success of the movements depends on various national components of the DOS and the support from other actors. In Spain, movements state unknown risks, relying on the precautionary principle applied in the European Union. In the U.S., many risks have already materialized and movements centre on demanding corrective measures, since it is difficult to challenge the dominant agricultural model. National policy discourses and political cultures explain the differences between the countries. In the U.S., movements manage to make labeling a big issue, turning the discussion to a matter of individual choice and consumer rights.