Abstract
When someone brings up the term “genetic modification,” it brings a negative feeling in most of us. It brings some sort of nasty connotation with it. Even though most of the Americans have no clue about the technology, they are generally distrustful of the biotechnology that has fostered ‘genetically modified foods.’ Why does the public distrust this new technology? Is it because the public does not trust the industry? Is it because the public does not have confidence in the governmental regulatory agencies entrusted with the task of protecting the public? Or is it due to sensationalized and often conflicting coverage of the potential, but unproven risks of the emerging technology in the mainstream news media?
The controversy about the genetically modified (GM) foods was generated by a brief report published in 1999 in Nature stating that a popular variety of transgenic corn produces pollen that was toxic to Monarch butterfly larvae. The article noted that the Monarch larvae “grew more slowly and suffered higher mortality than larvae exposed to pollen from conventional corn.” The report was immediately given prominent play in mainstream media, and became a rallying point for opponents of biotechnology. However, six follow-up studies published in October 2001 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that varieties of Bt corn most commonly planted in the United States were not a threat to the Monarch butterflies and that the only variety that appeared to pose a threat was not popular with the farmers. That strain was later taken off the market. These findings never made the front pages of mainstream media.
Why were the stories about subsequent research showing that the “Monarch butterflies were not threatened after all” not on front page of the same newspapers? The Deans of leading newspapers offer a shrugged shoulder but no satisfactory answers. Situations in which the media gives prominent coverage of a single research finding, but then fails to note later convincing studies that refute these findings are, unfortunately, a common occurrence. Is the economic incentive to create a fast selling sensational news much stronger than the ethical and professional obligations to protect the public from the spate of misleading controversies?
Expecting absolutes, the public may perceive scientists as knowing more about food and nutrition than they actually do. People get very frustrated when scientific research fails to provide a clear picture or is even proven to be wrong. An excellent example of why the public is confused: A series of stories appeared in 2001 after Nature published and then subsequently retracted a scientist’s report asserting the GM corn had spread to Mexico, where it was supposed to have been banned, threatening corn biodiversity. The retraction never got the same mainstream play, appearing only in the back pages. The public’s perception is that stories appearing in the front pages are more authentic and reliable and those appearing in the back pages are not authentic. If they were equally reliable, surely, the newspapers would have found a place in the front pages just as the original story questioning the safety of biotechnology.
This contentious debate about the potential risks and benefits of genetically modified food has played out in a number of stories covered by the mainstream media that originated in scientific studies. When one examines these issues, what emerges is a portrait of a complicated, evolving, and often dysfunctional relationship between reporter, subject, and science. Ultimately, many challenges arise when a controversial commercial technology rooted in the shifting sands of cutting edge of Science becomes the subject of widespread media interest.
Admittedly, real time coverage of large body of cutting-edge science that constantly changes like shifting sands is a challenge to reporters. However, such challenges are not unique to reporting. Even the scientists face the same problem as they try to absorb the many continually evolving facets and implications of their findings. Therefore, restraint on reporting and acceptance of a higher threshold for what constitutes “news” and what constitutes “noise” is incumbent on the journalist.
Does press coverage influence public attitudes about food biotechnology? General perception is that it does and moreover, it also helps shape the policies that regulate the industry. Experts involved in studies designed to assess this issue say that there is not evidence for such a relationship between media coverage, public attitudes, and polices that regulate the industry. In biotechnology, there seems to be no relationship between adult scientific literacy, and resultant attitudes about biotechnology. Scientific literacy aside, a lack of balance in mainstream media coverage does influence public’s perception to one side from the other. Does press coverage influence government policy? As in most areas of science, policies that affect biotechnology are almost entirely shaped by lobbyists and by people interested in the resultant policy outcome. What is critical is whether the public trusts the gatekeepers and how the regulations work in the biotechnology industry.