To Eat or Not to Eat: Framing of GMOs in American Media and Its Effects on Attitudes and Behaviors

Abstract

This study examined the framing of genetically modified organisms in two American newspapers, The New York Times and the Washington Post (2000-2016) and tested the impact of risk and opportunity framing on attitudes and behaviors regarding genetically modified organisms. The content analysis (N = 165) showed that the two newspapers did not have a dominant frame type in their coverage. A randomized three-condition experiment (N = 182) showed that the type of framing significantly affected individuals’ attitudes and was able to change them. The type of framing affected individuals’ behavioral intentions through postexposure attitudes but was not able to significantly affect actual behavior.

Keywords

GMO news framing risk framing opportunity framing attitudes behaviors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

(2003, July 3). Europe acts to require labeling of genetically altered food. The New York Times, A3.

Anker

H. T.

Grossman

M.R.

(2009). Authorization of genetically modified organisms: Precaution in US and EC law. European Food and Feed Law Review, 4(1), 3-20.

Azadi

(2010). Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances, 28(1), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.11.003

Bardin

Perrissol

Facca

Smeding

(2017). From risk perception to information selection. . .And not the other way round: Selective exposure mechanisms in the field of genetically modified organisms. Food Quality and Preference, 58, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015

Bauer

M. W.

Kohring

Gutteling

Allansdottir

(2001). The dramatisation of biotechnology in the elite mass media. In Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 35-52). Science Museum.

Beck

(1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.

Block

L. G.

Keller

P. A.

(1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200206

Bonny

(2008). How have opinions about GMOs changed over time? The situation in the European Union and the USA. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20083093

Boyle

M. P.

Schmierbach

Armstrong

C. L.

Cho

McCluskey

McLeod

D. M.

Shah

D. V.

(2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 271-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00019.x

10.

Brookes

Barfoot

(2014). Economic impact of GM crops: The global income and production effects 1996-2012. GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology and the Food Chain, 5(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098

11.

Brossard

Shanahan

McComas

(2004). Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication & Society, 7(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0703_6

12.

Burros

(2002, September 18). Chefs join campaign against altered fish. The New York Times, F1.

13.

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

14.

Coleman

C. L.

Ritchie

L. D.

(2011). Examining metaphors in biopolitical discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 7(1), 29-59. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0003-8

15.

Cook

Robbins

P. T.

Pieri

(2006). “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 5(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506058756

16.

Costa-Font

Gil

J. M.

Traill

W. B.

(2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food policy, 33(2), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002

17.

Crawley

C. E.

(2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 28(3), 314-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006298253

18.

DePalma

Romero

(2000, May 16). Crop genetics on the line in Brazil; A rule on seeds may have global impact. The New York Times, C1.

19.

de Vreese

Boomgaarden

(2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the EU: Linking content analysis and experimental data. Communications, 3(4), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.024

20.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

21.

Fazio

R. H.

(1990). Multiple responses by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4

22.

Fishbein

Cappella

J. N.

(2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Journal of Communication, 56(suppl_1), S1-S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00280.x

23.

Frewer

L. J.

Miles

Marsh

(2002). The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 22(4), 701-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00062

24.

Galata

E. A.

(2017). The cultivation of opinions. How did the press cover the last 16 years of experience with GMOs in Canada? Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1297212

25.

Gamson

W. A.

Modigliani

(1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137-177.

26.

Gaskell

Allansdottir

Allum

Corchero

Fischler

Hampel

Jackson

Kronberger

Mejlgaard

Revuelta

Schreiner

Stares

Torgersen

Wagner

(2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends (Eurobarometer 64.3). http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf

27.

Gaskell

Allum

Bauer

Durant

Allansdottir

Bonfadelli

Boy

de Cheveigné

Fjaestad

Gutteling

J. M.

Hampel

Jelsøe

Correia Jesuino

Kohring

Kronberger

Midden

Hviid Nielsen

Przestalski

Rusanen

. . . Wagner

(2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 935-938. https://doi.org/10.1038/79403

28.

Gillis

Blustein

(2006, February 8). WTO ruling backs biotech crops; European ban, challenged by U.S and allies, violates trade regulations, panel says. The Washington Post, D01.

29.

Goyal

Gurtoo

(2011). Factors influencing public perception: Genetically modified organisms. GMO Biosafety Research, 2(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5376/gmo.2011.02.0001

30.

Gunter

Wober

(1983). Television viewing and public perceptions of hazards to life. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(4), 325-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80035-8

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2005). Statistical methods for communication science. Routledge.

32.

Heiman

Zilberman

(2011). The effects of framing on consumers’ choice of GM foods. AgBioForum, 14(3), 171-179.

33.

Hellmueller

Mellado

(2015). Professional roles and news construction: A media sociology conceptualization of journalists’ role conception and performance. Communication & Society, 28(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.28.3.1-11

34.

Hoban

T. J.

(1998). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum, 1(1), 3-7.

35.

Hofstede

(1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1-2), 46-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358

36.

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. (2016). Annual report. http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/annualreport/2016/pdf/ISAAA-Aannual_Report-2016.pdf

37.

Jackson

S. E.

Dutton

J. E.

(1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392714

38.

Jenkins

(2017). Food fight: GMOs and the future of the American diet. Penguin Random House.

39.

Kalaitzandonakes

Marks

L. A.

Vickner

S. S.

(2004). Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1238-1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00671.x

40.

Khush

G. S.

(2012). Genetically modified crops: the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture. Agriculture & Food Security, 1, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-1-14

41.

Kuiper

H. A.

Kleter

G. A.

Noteborn

H. P. J. M.

Kok

E. J.

(2001). Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant Journal, 27, 503-528. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x

42.

Levin

Johnson

Deldin

Carstens

Cressey

Davis

(1986). Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90025-7

43.

Lynch

Vogel

(2001). The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A case study of contemporary European regulatory politics. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/report/regulation-gmos-europe-and-united-states

44.

Marks

L. A.

Kalaitzandonakes

(2001). Mass media communications about agrobiotechnology. AgBioForum, 4(3&4), 199-208.

45.

Marks

L. A.

Kalaitzandonakes

Allison

Zakharova

(2002). Time series analysis of risk frames in media communication of agrobiotechnology. In Sananiello

Zilberman

(Eds.), Market developments and genetically modified foods (pp. 217-225). CAB International.

46.

McCluskey

J. J.

Swinnen

J. F. M.

(2004). Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1230-1237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00670.x

47.

McComas

Shanahan

(1999). Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026001003

48.

Mellado

(2015). Professional roles in news content. Journalism Studies, 16(4), 596-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.922276

49.

Mellado

Lagos

(2014). Professional roles in news content: Analyzing journalistic performance in the Chilean national press. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2090-2112.

50.

Murnaghan

(2018). Fact sheet|: Pros vs cons. Genetically Modified Foods. http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/fact-sheet-pros-vs-cons.html

51.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops: Experiences and prospects. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395

52.

Nelson

Clawson

Oxley

(1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952075

53.

Nicolia

Manzo

Veronesi

Rosellini

(2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

54.

Nisbet

M. C.

Huge

(2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics, 11(2), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701

55.

Nisbet

M. C.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401

56.

Petty

R. E.

Brinol

Priester

J. R.

(2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 125-164). Routledge.

57.

Pollack

M. A.

Shaffer

G. C.

(2009). When cooperation fails: The international law and politics of genetically modified foods (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

58.

Pollock

J. C.

(2010). Newspaper coverage of genetically modified foods in the United States. A community structure approach. Ecos de La Comunicación, 3(3), 51-75.

59.

Pollock

J. C.

Peitz

Watson

Esposito1

Nichilo

Etheridge

Hart-McGonigle

(2017). Comparing cross-national coverage of genetically modified organisms: A community structure approach. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(2), 571-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017696880

60.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1475-1486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00543.x

61.

Price

Tewksbury

Powers

(1997). Switching trains of thoughts: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005002

62.

Priest

H. S.

(2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public and biotechnology. Rowan & Littlefield.

63.

Rogers

E. M.

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). Free Press.

64.

Robinson

Antoniou

Fagan

(2014). GMO myths and truths. Earth Open Source.

65.

Runge

C. F.

Bagnara

G. L.

Jackson

L. A.

(2001). Differing U.S. and European perspectives on GMOs: Political, economic and cultural issues. Estey Center Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 2(2), 221-234.

66.

Rutte

C. G.

Wilke

H. A. M.

Messick

D. M.

(1987). The effects of framing social dilemmas as give-some or take-some games. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00770.x

67.

Schuck

de Vreese

(2006). Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323106060987

68.

Simon

A. F.

Jerit

(2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00342.x-271

69.

Stevens

(1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

70.

Ten Eyck

T. A.

Thompson

P. B.

Priest

S. H.

(2001). Biotechnology in the United States of America: Mad or moral science. In Gaskell

Bauer

M. W.

(Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 307-18). Science Museum. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700406

71.

Tewksbury

Jones

Peske

M. W.

Raymond

Vig

(2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 804-829. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700406

72.

Tewksbury

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). News framing theory and research. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17-33). Routledge.

73.

Trussler

Soroka

(2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214524832

74.

United Nations. (1992). United Nations conference on environment & development: Sustainable development report. Rio de Janerio. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

75.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Agricultural biotechnology. https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/agricultural-biotechnology

76.

Valentino

N. A.

Beckmann

M. N.

Buhr

T. A.

(2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18(4), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600152647083

77.

Viella-Vila

Costa-Font

(2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified food. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 2095-2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006

78.

Wise

(2015, July 13). Bill targets GMO labeling mandates. The Washington Post, A13.

79.

Zechendorf

(1998). Agricultural biotechnology: Why do Europeans have difficulty accepting it? AgBioForum, 1(1), 8-13.