Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-7
Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture: A comparative content analysis of mass media in the United States,New Zealand,Japan,the Netherlands,and Canada
Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture reflect and shape culturally particular understandings of what role technology should play in an ideal agrifood future. This study employs a comparative media content analysis to identify sociotechnical imaginaries of agricultural gene editing and the actors who perform them in five countries with contrasting regulatory and cultural contexts: Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. We find that news media in these countries reinforce a predominantly positive portrayal of the technology’s future, although variations in which imaginaries are most mobilized exist based on the regulatory status of gene editing and unique histories of civil society engagement around biotechnology in each country. We argue that by granting legitimacy to some narratives over others, the media supports gene editing as a desirable and necessary component of future agrifood systems, thereby limiting consideration of broader issues related to the technology’s development and application.
AshwellD (2011) Restricted voices in the New Zealand GM debate: An analysis of New Zealand metropolitan newspaper coverage (1998 to February 2002). East Asian Science, Technology and Society5(4): 505–528.
2.
BainCLindbergSSelfaT (2020) Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries for gene edited crops for foods in the United States: Implications for governance. Agriculture and Human Values37(2): 265–279.
3.
BarberD (2019) Save our food from the seed barons. The New York Times, 9June.
4.
BearthAKaptanGKesslerSH (2022) Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: An experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland. Agriculture and Human Values39(3): Article3.
5.
BhattiSJBillinsonPPCornellLADasAGammonCKellyLO, et al. (2022) A country comparative analysis of international print media’s framing of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Communication16: 1282–1308.
6.
BinderkrantzASHalpinDRPedersenHH (2020) From policy interest to media appearance: Interest group activity and media bias. The International Journal of Press/politics25(4): 712–731.
7.
BlassnigSErnstNBüchelFEngesserSEsserF (2019) Populism in online election coverage: Analyzing populist statements by politicians, journalists, and readers in three countries. Journalism Studies20(8): 1110–1129.
8.
BraunRRandellR (2020) Futuramas of the present: The “driver problem” in the autonomous vehicle sociotechnical imaginary. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications7: 163.
9.
BrüggemannMEngesserS (2017) Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change. Global Environmental Change42: 58–67.
10.
BungeJ (2017) Seed giants fresh start in gene editing: Executives strategizing on how to introduce it to consumers and potentially reset debate over genetically engineered seeds. The Wall Street Journal, 10October.
11.
BungeJMarcusAD (2018) Is this tomato engineered? Inside the coming battle over gene-edited food; the agriculture industry, which hopes Crispr technology will transform the business, faces opponents who call it ‘GMO 2.0’. The Wall Street Journal, 15April.
12.
BuschGRyanEvon KeyserlingkMAGWearyDM (2022) Citizen views on genome editing: Effects of species and purpose. Agriculture and Human Values39(1): 151–164.
CummingsCPetersDJ (2022) Who trusts in gene-edited foods? Analysis of a representative survey study predicting willingness to eat- purposeful avoidance of gene edited foods in the United States. Frontiers in Food Science Technology2: 858277.
16.
DahlstromMFWangZLindbergSOpferKCummingsCL (2022) The media’s taste for gene-edited food: Comparing media portrayals within US and European regulatory environments. Science, Technology and Human Values48: 1393–1420.
17.
DebucquetGBaronRCardinalM (2020) Lay and scientific categorizations of new breeding techniques: Implications for food policy and genetically modified organism legislation. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 524–543.
18.
de GrootA (2018) Sta genetische modificatie in de landbouw toe; Kwestie in kaart [Allow genetic modification in agriculture; Mapping the issue]. NRC, 3November, 12.
19.
DownsA (1972) Up and down with ecology—The “issue-attention cycle”Public Interest28: 38.
20.
ElyAFriedrichBGloverDFischerKStoneGDKingiriA, et al. (2022) Governing agricultural biotechnologies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany: A Trans-decadal study of regulatory cultures. Science, Technology, & Human Values48: 1292–1328.
21.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
FritscheSPoovaiahCMacRaeEThorlbyG (2018) A New Zealand perspective on the application and regulation of gene editing. Frontiers in Plant Science9: 01323.
GordonDRJaffeGDoaneMGlaserAGremillionTMHoMD (2021) Responsible governance of gene editing in agriculture and the environment. Nature Biotechnology39(9): Article9.
26.
GugganigMBurchKAGuthmanJBronsonK (2023) Contested agri-food futures: Introduction to the Special Issue. Agriculture and Human Values40(3): 787–798.
27.
HarcupTO’NeillD (2017) What is news? News values revisited (again). Journalism Studies18(12): 1470–1488.
28.
HelliwellRSHartleyWPeaceLO’Neill (2017) Why are NGOs sceptical of genome editing?EMBO Reports18: 2090–2093.
29.
HibinoANagataM (2006) Biotechnology in the Japanese media: Comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering in Japan and Europe. Asian Journal of Social Psychology9(1): 12–23.
30.
HopmannDNEsserFde VreeseC (2017) How we did it: Approach and methods. In: de VreeseCEsserFHopmannDN (eds) Comparing Political Journalism. London: Routledge, p. 218.
31.
HughesD (2019) We need to talk about genes. The Dominion Post, 3September.
32.
HumprechtEKesslerSH (2024) Unveiling misinformation on YouTube: Examining the content of COVID-19 vaccination misinformation videos in Switzerland. Frontiers in Communication9: 1250024.
JasanoffS (1995) Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In: BauerM (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–332.
37.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
38.
JasanoffS (2015a) Future imperfect: Science, technology and the imaginations of modernity. In: JasanoffSKimSH (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33.
39.
JasanoffS (2015b) Imagined and invented worlds. In: JasanoffSKimSH (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 322–42.
40.
JasanoffSKimSH (2013) Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture22(2): 189–196.
41.
JasanoffSKimS-H (2009) Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva47(2): 119–146.
42.
KalaitzandonakesNMarksLAVicknerSS (2004) Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics86(5): 1238–1246.
43.
Kato-NittaNTMaedaYInagakiMTachikawaM (2019) Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: Attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge. Palgrave Communications5: 137.
44.
KershenDL (2015) Sustainability council of New Zealand trust v. The environmental protection authority: Gene editing technologies and the law. GM Crops & Food6(4): 216–222.
45.
KimSH (2015) Social movements and contested sociotechnical imaginaries in South Korea. In: JasanoffSKimSH (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 152–173.
46.
KinchyA (2012) Seeds, Science, and Struggle: The Global Politics of Transgenic Crops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
KjeldaasSDasslerTAntonsenTWikmarkOGMyhrAI (2023) With great power comes great responsibility: Why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies. Agriculture Human Values40(2): 533–545.
48.
KleutJMilojevicA (2021) Framing protest in online news and readers’ Comments: The case of Serbian protest “Against Dictatorship.”International Journal of Communication15: 21.
49.
KohringMGörkeA (2000) Genetic engineering in the international media: An analysis of opinion-leading magazines. New Genetics and Society19: 345–363.
50.
KrippendorffK (2018) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. New York: Sage.
LewisonG (2007) The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004. Scientometrics72(3): 439–458.
53.
LonghurstNChilversJ (2019) Mapping diverse visions of energy transitions: Co-producing sociotechnical imaginaries. Sustainability Science14(4): 973–990.
54.
McCluskeyJJKalaitzandonakesNSwinnenJ (2016) Media coverage, public perceptions, and consumer behavior: Insights from new food technologies. Annual Review of Resource Economics8: 467–486.
55.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–291.
56.
MarksLAKalaitzandonakesNGAllisonKZakharovaL (Eds) (2003) Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: Did the butterfly have an Effect?Journal of Agribusiness.
57.
MeghaniZ (2017) Genetically engineered animals, drugs, and neoliberalism: The need for a new biotechnology regulatory policy framework. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics30: 715–743.
58.
MeghaniZKuzmaJ (2011) The “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and industry: A problem that requires reconceptualizing objectively. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics24: 575–599.
59.
MiddelveldSMacnaghtenP (2021) Gene editing of livestock: Sociotechnical imaginaries of scientists and breeding companies in the Netherlands. Elements: Science of the Anthropocene9(1): 00073.
60.
MiuraM (2019) “Genomu Shokuhin Bunmeishi no hitsuzen?” [Genome Foods: A Historical Necessity?]. Yomiuri Shinbun,19August.
61.
Montenegro de WitM (2022) Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values39: 733–755.
62.
MortonJ (2019) 150 young scientists urge Greens to re-think GE. The New Zealand Herald, 28October.
63.
NawazSSatterfieldT (2022) Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing. PLoS ONE17(3): e0265635.
64.
NisbetMHugeM (2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate. Harvard International Journal of Press-politics11: 3–40.
65.
NisbetMCLewensteinBV (2002) Biotechnology and the American Media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23(4): 359–391.
66.
The New Zealand Herald (2019) A robust conversation on GE. The New Zealand Herald, 31July.
67.
Asahi Shinbun (2018) “Genomu Henshuu Shokuhin, Rūru wa? Niku no Ōi Ushi Me ni Doku nai Jagaimo Kōrōshō de Giron Kaishi” [Genome edited foods, What are the rules? Beef with more meat, Potatoes with no poisonous sprouts Debates begin at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare]. Asahi Shinbun, 20September.
68.
The Dominion Post (2019) Are we luddites on GM?The Dominion Post, 23November.
69.
PainterJKristiansenSSchäferMS (2018) How “Digital-born” media cover climate change in comparison to legacy media: A case study of the COP 21 summit in Paris. Global Environmental Change48: 1–10.
70.
PollackA (2015) The gene editors. The New York Times, 2January.
SelfaTLindbergSBainC (2021) Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States: Tensions, contestations, and realignments. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene9(1): 00153.
73.
Shukla-JonesAFriedrichsSWinickoffDE (2018) Gene Editing in an International Context: Scientific, Economic and Social Issues across Sectors. OECD. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/38a54acb-en
74.
SmallmanM (2020) ‘Nothing to do with the science’: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government. Social Studies of Science50(4): 589–608.
75.
SmithE (2015) Corporate imaginaries of biotechnology and global governance: Syngenta, Golden Rice, and corporate social responsibility. In: JasanoffSKimS-H (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity. Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 254–277.
76.
SmithJMTidwellAS (2016) The everyday lives of energy transitions: Contested sociotechnical imaginaries in the American West. Social Studies of Science46(3): 327–350.
77.
SpökASprinkTAllanACYamaguchiTDayéC (2022) Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Frontiers in Genome Editing4: 899331.
78.
TimmermansSTavoryI (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory30: 167–186.
79.
van der BergJPBouwmanLMSBattagliaEKleterGA (2021) Future-proofing EU legislation for genome-edited plants: Dutch stakeholders’ views on possible ways forward. Agronomy11(7): Article7.
80.
van KasterenJ (2021) ‘Duurzaam’ en ‘biologisch’ staan elkaar in de landbouw voorlopig nog in de weg [‘Sustainable’ and ‘organic’ are still in each other’s way in agriculture for the time being]. de Volkskrant, 13October, 27.
81.
VasquezOHesselnHSmythSJ (2022) Canadian consumer preferences regarding gene-edited food products. Frontiers in Genome Editing4: 854334.
82.
VicentePNDias- TrindadeS (2021) Reframing sociotechnical imaginaries: The case of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Public Understanding of Science30(6): 708–723.
WilliamsCGleimSSmythSJ (2021) Canadian perspectives on food security and plant breeding. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience2(1): 15.
85.
WirzCDScheufeleDABrossardD (2020) Societal debates about emerging genetic technologies: Toward a science of public engagement. Environmental Communication14(7): 859–864.
86.
WonnenbergerAMeijersMHCSchuckART (2020) Shifting public engagement: How media coverage of climate change conferences affects climate change audience segments. Public Understanding of Science29(2): 176–193.
87.
YamaguchiT (2020) Performativity of expectations: The emergence of plant genome plant gene editing technologies in Japan. Elements: Science of the Anthropocene8(1): 036.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
