This paper considers how consumers make sense of food labeling, drawing on a
qualitative, empirical study in England. I look in detail at two examples of
labeling: 1) food certified as produced by organic methods and 2) functional
food claimed to be beneficial for human health, especially probiotic and
cholesterol-lowering products. I use the concept of “boundary
objects” to demonstrate how such labels are intended to work between
the worlds of food producers and food consumers and to show how information is
not merely transferred as a “knowledge fix” to consumer
ignorance. Rather, consumers drew on a binary of “raw”
and “processed” food and familiarity with marketing in
today’s consumer culture to make sense of such labeling.
DoddsR. E.TseëlonE.WeitkampE. L. C. (2008) “Making Sense of
Scientific Claims in Advertising: A Study of Scientifically Aware
Consumers,” Public Understanding of Science17(2):
211–30.
5.
DuffyR.FearneA.HealingV. (2005) “Reconnection in
the UK Food Chain: Bridging the Communication Gap between Food Producers and
Consumers,” British Food Journal107(1):
17–33.
6.
EinsiedelE. (2002) “GM Food
Labeling: The Interplay of Information, Social Values, and Institutional
Trust,” Science Communication24(2):
209–21.
FrewerL. J.ScholdererJ.BredahlL. (2003) “Communicating
about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating
Role of Trust,” Risk Analysis23(6):
1117–33.
12.
FujimuraJ. H. (1992) “Crafting
Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and
‘Translation’,” in
PickeringA. (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, pp.
168–211.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
13.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998) Science in Public.
New York and London: Plenum
Trade.
14.
HayesD. J.FoxJ. A.ShogrenJ. F. (2002) “Experts and
Activists: How Information Affects the Demand for Food
Irradiation,” Food Policy27(2):
185–93.
15.
Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.RoweG.PidgeonN.PoortingaW.MurdockG.O’RiordanT. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and
Public Engagement. London:
Routledge.
16.
HudsonI.HudsonM. (2003) “Removing the
Veil? Commodity Fetishism, Fair Trade, and the
Environment,” Organization and Environment16(4):
413–30.
IrwinA. (2001) “Constructing the
Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the
Biosciences,” Public Understanding of
Science10: 1–18.
19.
IrwinA.MichaelM. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public
Knowledge. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
20.
JacksonP. (2002) “Commercial
Cultures: Transcending the Cultural and the
Economic,” Progress in Human Geography26(1):
3–18.
21.
KwaC. (2005) “Local Ecologies
and Global Science: Discourses and Strategies of the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme,” Social
Studies of Science35(6):
923–50.
22.
LangT. (1999) “The Complexities
of Globalization: The UK as a Case Study of Tensions within the Food System
and the Challenge to Food Policy,”
Agriculture and Human Values16:
169–85.
23.
LatourB. (1987) Science in Action.
Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
24.
LatourB. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An
Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
25.
LawrenceF. (2004) Not on the Label.
London:
Penguin.
26.
MichaelM. (1998) “Between Citizen
and Consumer: Multiplying the Meanings of the ‘Public
Understanding of Science’,”
Public Understanding of Science7: 313–27.
27.
MilesS.UelandØ.FrewerL. J. (2005) “Public Attitudes
towards Genetically-modified Food,”
British Food Journal1074/5):
246–62.
28.
Mintel (2007) Organics.
London:
Mintel.
29.
Mintel (2008) Functional Foods.
London:
Mintel.
30.
National Consumer Council (2001) The
Future of Food and Farming: Submission to the Farming and Food Policy
Commission. London:
National Consumer Council.
31.
Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food
(2002) Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future.
London:
HMSO.
32.
PoortingaW.PidgeonN. F. (2004) “Trust, the
Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior
Beliefs,” Risk Analysis24(6):
1475–86.
33.
PrincenT. (1997) “The Shading and
Distancing of Commerce: When Internalization is not
Enough,” Ecological Economics20:
235–53.
34.
Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 1997 Concerning Novel Foods and Novel Food
Ingredients (1997) Official Journal of the
European Union14May: 1–6.
35.
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on
Foods (2006) Official Journal of the
European Union30December:
9–25.
36.
RoeB.LevyA. S.DerbyB. M. (1999) “The Impact of
Health Claims on Consumer Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Results
from FDA Experimental Data,” Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing18(1):
89–105.
37.
SchlosserE. (2002) Fast Food Nation.
London:
Penguin.
38.
ScholdererJ.FrewerL. J. (2003) “The
Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for
a New Strategy,” Journal of Consumer
Policy26:
125–57.
39.
ShackleyS.WynneB. (1996) “Representing
Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-ordering
Devices and Authority,” Science,
Technology, and Human Values21(3):
275–302.
40.
ShawA. (2002) “‘It
Just Goes against the Grain’: Public Understandings of
Genetically Modified (GM) Food in the UK,”
Public Understanding of Science11:
273–91.
41.
Soil Association (2006) Organic Market
Report 2006. Bristol:
Soil Association.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989) “Institutional
Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects:
Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, 1907–39,” Social
Studies of Science19:
387–420.
44.
Strategy Unit (2008) Food: An Analysis of
the Issues. London:
Cabinet Office.
WynneB. (1995) “Public
Understanding of Science,” in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies, pp. 361–88.
London:
Sage.
50.
WynneB. (2008) “Elephants in the
Rooms Where Publics Encounter ‘Science’? A Response
to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the
Autonomy of the Lay Public’,”
Public Understanding of Science17: 21–33.
