Kelly A Clancy THE POLITICS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe Kelly A. Clancy The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe Kelly A. Clancy Nebraska Wesleyan Unviersity Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ISBN 978-3-319-33983-2 ISBN 978-3-319-33984-9 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9 (eBook) Library of Congress Control Number: 2016956891 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made Cover image © Caiaimage/Martin Barraud Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland For Cyrus, who will live in exciting times ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is based on the research I did for my dissertation project in the Political Science Department at Rutgers University I am grateful to all my friends and colleagues from Rutgers, particularly Dilya Dorgabekova, Diah Kusumaningrum, Wendy Wright, and Brian Humphreys I’d especially like to thank Professor Jan Kubik, my mentor, dissertation advisor, and friend I owe a great personal and intellectual debt to Jan for his guidance during my time at Rutgers My work on this project benefited tremendously from conversations in Professor Kubik’s multiyear Post-Communism Seminar, and I’d like to thank all my colleagues from the seminar My experience at Rutgers was enhanced by the support of the faculty I’d particularly like to thank Professors Jan Kubik, Stephen Bronner, R. Daniel Kelemen, and Gabriela Kutting for their work as members of my dissertation committee Professor Bronner offered advice and encouragement as I transformed the dissertation into the book I learned an enormous amount from Eric Davis, Rick Lau, and Bob Kaufman in their seminars Beth Leech and Dennis Bathory were sources of wisdom and professional advice for me Dominik Tueber also helped with research assistance on the Germany part of the project During the spring and summer of 2010, I was awarded a BadenWürttemberg stipendium to study at the University of Konstanz in Konstanz, Germany This experience was one of the most transformative of my life, both in terms of the way it changed my thinking about European politics and because of the friends I made while I was there In particular, I’d like to acknowledge Sebastian Feitkau, my longtime friend and future co-author I am also grateful to Rutgers for the Special Opportunity vii viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Award and to the University of Pittsburgh for a Foreign Language and Area Scholarship Award, which together enabled me to spend the summer of 2009 studying Polish in Pittsburgh and at the Prolog Institute in Krakow, Poland I fell in love with Krakow that summer, and am thankful for the opportunity I’d also like to thank the editorial team and anonymous reviewer from Palgrave Macmillan for their help and thoughtful comments Finally, I’d like to acknowledge my colleagues on the faculty and in the administration at Nebraska Wesleyan University, for creating a first-rate environment for conducting research and educating students I’m lucky to have found an academic home here None of my professional successes would have been possible without the support of my husband, Jim, who has read countless drafts, done more than his fair share of household chores, and taken our son Cyrus on adventures so I could write He’s the best partner I could ask for My family has also been an immense help on this journey, emotionally and materially For their constant love and support, I’d like to thank my parents, Ann and Paul, my brothers Tommy and Ben and their partners, and my in-laws, Lorraine and Jim My brother Tommy has read numerous drafts of this at every stage in the project, providing thorough and careful critiques My brother Ben, who reminds me every day why I went into academia, is also my newest co-author, and I look forward to collaborating with him in the future Finally, a thanks to Andrew Bird, who creates music for the part of my brain that loves to write CONTENTS Introduction The Story of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe 21 The Ideology of Sound Science and Its Defense 67 Strategies of Resistance: Visual Depictions of Genetically Modified Organisms 97 Conclusions and Implications 135 Bibliography 163 Index 169 ix LIST Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 OF TABLES Public opinion toward GMOs across Europe Labeling ballot initiatives in the United States Image categories Test 1: Image count and category Test 2: Image count by country Contrasting the global and the local Change in orientation toward GMOs over time 22 50 100 103 109 138 142 xi CHAPTER Introduction In November 1999, a Greenpeace protestor stormed the Kellogg headquarters, proclaiming himself to be FrankenTony, a hybrid of Tony the Tiger and Frankenstein The protest targeted the cereal manufacturer’s use of genetically modified (GM) grains, and played on the “Frankenfood” theme popularized by British tabloids FrankenTony was one of the first high-profile protests of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the United States, and foreshadowed the debates that were to follow on both sides of the Atlantic.1 Indeed, 20 years since GMOs became ubiquitous in American grocery stores and 10 years since the European Union (EU) lifted its moratorium, GMOs continue to engender resistance on both sides of the Atlantic An increasingly robust body of scientific literature declares GMOs to be safe for humans, animals, and the environment, and there have been no GMO-linked food safety scandals This record would support the prediction that public attitudes toward GMOs would moderate over time and that regulation would become increasingly permissive Indeed, some countries like the United Kingdom follow this pattern However, GMOs remain objects of contention on both sides of the Atlantic, and resistance to the technology remains high In the mid-1990s, 85 % of Europeans supported tougher regulations on GM food; the 2005 Eurobarometer found that 27 % of Europeans regarded GM food positively, but the number fell to 23 % by 2010 What explains the high levels of resistance? To answer this question, this book explains the current status of GMOs in American and European © Author(s) and Editor(s) 2017 K.A Clancy, The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9_1 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 157 has increasingly gathered momentum in social conflicts over new technologies and their possible consequences” (Böschen et al 2010, 784) These unknowns are ubiquitous in the debate over GMOs: while the pro-GMO official discourse emphasizes the soundness of existing science, and rhetorically shuts the door, the anti-GMO voices are adamant that what we don’t know can, literally, kill us Additionally, the process of genetic engineering, rather than just the product itself, becomes part of the narrative of GMOs The process, like the product, becomes infused with doubt One of the major disjunctures in the debate over GMOs is that there are different standards of scientific and social rationality; what is considered an acceptable risk scientifically may not match what society perceives to be an appropriate level of risk (Herrick 2005).1 As Charles (2001) writes: But for every danger that scientists dismissed, for every fear that they considered unfounded, an anxious public had one more question: What about the dangers that you haven’t even imagined yet? What about the unforeseen risks? What about mad cow disease, which the experts didn’t think could possibly infect humans? And to these questions the defenders of genetically engineered crops had no real response except to sputter than no one could possibly make any decisions based on the possibility of something not yet known The whole debate, in fact, turned on the possibility of unknown dangers When scientists said, as they often did, that they saw “no evidence” that genetically engineered food posed special dangers, their critics were fond of quoting an old saying: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (22).2 These doubts are at the essence of the unstable nature of risk analysis Estimating risk is a fundamentally probabilistic, future-oriented endeavor: “the essence of risk is not that it is happening, but that it might be happening” (Adam et al 2000, 2) As Herrick notes, the challenges to sound science are so devastating to proponents of GMOs—and so hotly contested—because they break the scientific monopoly on truth: Labelling is directly related to conceptions or risk in that demands (or lack thereof) for labels on food effectively act as a statement about the standards that we, as citizens, expect and the risks we are prepared to tolerate As such, labels also problematize the certainty of science If the science of transgenic crops was certain, labels would be rendered either essential or obsolete, but not a matter of contention (2005, 287) 158 K.A CLANCY Thus the challenge to the discourse of “sound science” refutes the notion of scientific certainty Insisting on the possibility of risk is a democratic act, wherein the public can assert their autonomy Herrick thus frames risk assessment as a fundamental right: risk is a statement about how we want to live, our relations to nature and the standard we are prepared to tolerate as rights-bearing citizens In the case of GM, the concept of ‘risk’ has bearing on food choice and retailing practices, normative notions of environmental standards, landscape and land use as well as complex ethical judgments on the role of biotechnology (2005, 287) The active involvement of the public in risk analysis and assessment also means that risk can be strategically activated by cultural entrepreneurs.3 Every phenomenon or technology contains latent risk The question is how characteristics or potentialities of the technology become culturally activated in order to become or be considered “risky.”4 This notion of risk assessment as a collective, democratic right is far removed from the narrow, scientific risk assessment advocated by technocrats and scientists Empowering the Public Is the Best Way to Persuade Them In order for the public to be persuaded by the sound science narrative, they would have to accept the two premises: that GMO food is the same as conventional food and that it is safe Additionally, this argument would have to be advanced through a logic of association: the association would have to exist between conventional food and GMOs and GMOs and safe processes Although the proponents of GMOs advocate education as a solution, the evidence indicates that increased knowledge about GMOs does not necessarily increase support The reason that there is an inverse relationship between knowledge and support could be because “improved knowledge leads to greater diffusion of knowledge, criticism of and skepticism toward science and its practitioners” (Allum et al 2002) In other words, the strategy of the GMO proponents could backfire, leading to increased opposition as a result of greater knowledge and education There is not a direct correlation, in other words, between the facts of the matter and attitude toward the technology The proponents of GMOs argue that rejection of the technology comes from a place of fear and ignorance They thus offer a specific program of CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 159 education and correct information in order to combat the fear and ignorance If the public continues to oppose GMOs, they warn of disastrous consequences This process of controlling the public is part of a larger phenomenon of excluding the public from scientific or technocratic debates.5 In response to this depiction of the public, one of the most effective social movements in recent memory emerged in Europe, forcing first the moratorium on the product and then, in its place, a stringent Farm-toFork regulatory model The US public seems to be increasingly mobilized against the technology; although ballot initiatives requiring labeling have failed in each of the four states where they appeared on the ballot, the Vermont legislature recently passed a bill requiring labels Additionally, there is significant evidence that major producers and manufacturers are voluntarily switching to GMO-free ingredients Finally, the imagery chapter shows that the public can harness its power to change the tenor of the conversation through the use of viral, memetic images By defining and controlling the visual terrain surrounding the GMO debate, they have asserted their power to change the conversation over the technology Thus, the debate over whether public is “correct” misses the larger point about their power The public has largely bracketed the question of sound science while asserting their right to be full participants in a dialogue over the technology Labeling Creates the Opportunity for Companies to Rebrand Genetically Modified Organisms A mandatory labeling policy will compel companies to own the term GMO and rebrand it The label of GMOs can be rehabilitated if companies embrace the label and use it to articulate the benefits of the product This strategy will counter the visual campaigns of pro-GMO by associating examples of GMOs with positive qualities—the strategy that Zeneca foods initially tried and then abandoned This policy represents a third way that actually will create room for more positive uses of GM technology—more strategic applications Already, there is a sense that GM could benefit the public, but there hasn’t been a profit motive One way to create the profit motive is through creating a need for the product, but it’s awfully hard to advertise a product that is being kept from public view The government requires ingredients, nutritional content, and origin labels to be placed on products None of these on their face have been disqualifiers or persuaded the public not to buy them 160 K.A CLANCY In conclusion, GMOs are likely to become an increasingly large proportion of our food supply And they should—science can offer creative and innovative solutions to some of the more daunting problems we will face in the coming years, and has the potential to allow more people to eat better, with less of an impact on the environment To make this a reality, we must lower the regulatory barriers that prevent GMOs from being brought to market However, as long as the public is kept in the dark in terms of the nature of GMOs—what they are, why they are modified, and what the implications are, GMOs will not achieve their maximum potential For this to happen, the public must be actively involved in the process of risk assessment and willingly choose to participate in the process of moving toward a future with a GM food supply NOTES The fact that scientific uncertainty is a moving target is underscored by studies such as Morris and Adley (2001) survey of Irish scientists; a majority of Irish scientists are willing to eat bread made from transgenic wheat, but only 40 % were willing to buy baby food containing GMOs See also Virilio’s (2003) discussion of how technology contains unknown ways of failing See, for example, “culture jamming” of the Yes Men or the activities of Anonymous discussed earlier in this chapter Jeffrey Alexander’s work on the constructivist approach to trauma presents it in a similar way to this conception of risk An event may be traumatogenic, but trauma is a process that proceeds from the event Two countries did stage public debates over GMOs, Germany and the United Kingdom. See Chaps and for more discussion of these debates REFERENCES SECONDARY SOURCES Adam, Barbara, Ulrich Beck, and Joost Van Loon eds 2000 The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory London: Sage Allum, Nick, Daniel Boy, and Martin W. Bauer 2002 European Regions and the Knowledge Deficit Model In Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, eds Martin W. Bauer and George Gaskell, 224–243 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Böschen, Stefan Karen Kastenhofer, Ina Rust, Jens Soentgen, and Peter Wehling 2010 Scientific Nonknowledge and Its Political Dynamics: The Cases of CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 161 Agri-Biotechnology and Mobile Phoning Science, Technology and Human Values 35(6): 783–811 Ekiert, Grzegorz, and Jan Kubik 1998 Contentious Politics in New Democracies: East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, 1989–93 World Politics 50(4): 547–581 Hall, Peter A 2003 Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 374 New York: Cambridge University Press Herrick, Clare B 2005 ‘Cultures of GM’: Discourses of Risk and Labelling of GMOs in the United Kingdom and European Union Area 37(3): 286–294 Jarvis, Darryl 2007 Risk, Globalisation and the State: A Critical Appraisal of Ulrich Beck and the World Risk Society Thesis Global Society 21(1): 23–46 Morris, Shane H., and Catherine C. Adley 2001 Irish Public Perceptions and Attitudes to Modern Biotechnology: An Overview with a Focus on GM Foods Trends in Biotechnology 19(2): 43–48 Tarrow, Sidney 2005 The New Transnational Activism New York: Cambridge University Press Virilio, Paul 2003 Unknown Quantity New York: Thames & Hudson BIBLIOGRAPHY SECONDARY SOURCES Benford, Robert, and David A. Snow 2000 Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639 Berg, Bruce Lawrence 2004 Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences 5th ed Boston: Pearson Blumer, Herbert 1986 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Bonneuil, Christophe, and Les Levidow 2012 How Does the World Trade Organization Know? The Mobilization and Staging of Scientific Expertise in the GMO Trade Dispute Social Studies of Science 42(1): 75–100 Bourdieu, Pierre 1983 The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed Poetics 12(4): 311–356 ——— 1993 The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature New York: Columbia University Press Brown, Wendy 2009 Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Bryman, Alan 2012 Social Research Methods 4th ed New York: Oxford University Press Burgess, Adam 2013 Missing the Wood for the Trees? European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 287–291 Chandler, Daniel 2007 Semiotics: The Basics New York: Routledge © Author(s) and Editor(s) 2017 K.A Clancy, The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9 163 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY Charmaz, Kathy 2011 Grounded Theory Methods in Social Justice Research The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 4: 359–380 Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky 1983 Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers Berkeley: University of California Press Drezner, Daniel W 2008 All Politics Is Global Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Dymarczyk, Waldemar 2014 The War on the Wall Polish and Soviet War Posters Analysis Qualitative Sociological Review 10(4): 6–31 Ekiert, Grzegorz, and Daniel Ziblatt 2013 Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe One Hundred Years On East European Politics and Societies 27(1): 90–107 Feagan, Robert 2007 The Place of Food: Mapping Out the ‘Local’ in Local Food Systems Progress in Human Geography 31(1): 23–42 Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink 2001 Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics Annual Review of Political Science 4(1): 391–416 Fisher, Walter R 1994 Narrative Rationality and the Logic of Scientific Discourse Argumentation 8(1): 21–32 Frewer, Lynn J., Chaya Howard, and Richard Shepherd 1998 Understanding Public Attitudes to Technology Journal of Risk Research 1(3): 221–235 Gabel, Matthew, and Kenneth Scheve 2007 Estimating the Effect of Elite Communications on Public Opinion Using Instrumental Variables American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 1013–1028 Garon, Francis, and Eric Montpetit 2007 Different Paths to the Same Result: Explaining Permissive Policies in United States. In The Politics of Biotechnology in North America and Europe: Policy Networks, Institutions, and Internationalization, eds Éric Montpetit, Christine Rothmayr and Frédéric Varone, 61 Lanham, MD: Lexington Books Gaskell, George, Sally Stares, Agnes Allansdottir, Nick Allum, Cristina Corchero, and Jonathan Jackson 2006 Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends: Final Report on Eurobarometer 64.3 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss 1967 The Discovery Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Guidry, John A., Michael D. Kennedy, and Mayer N. Zald eds 2000 Globalizations and Social Movements: Culture, Power, and the Transnational Public Sphere Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Hammit, James, Michael Rogers, Peter Sand, and Jonathan B. Wiener 2013 The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe Washington, DC: RFF Press BIBLIOGRAPHY 165 Herrera, Yoshiko M., and Bear F. Braumoeller 2004 Symposium: Discourse and Content Analysis Qualitative Methods 2(1): 15–19 Hirschman, Albert O 1991 The Rhetoric of Reaction Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Hoffman, Andrew J 2011 Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate Organization and Environment 24(1): 3–33 Hossain, Ferdaus, and Benjamin Onyango 2004 Product Attributes and Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Foods International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(3): 255–267 Huey, Tina Andersen 2005 Thinking Globally, Eating Locally: Website Linking and the Performance of Solidarity in Global and Local Food Movements Social Movement Studies 4(2): 123–137 Kinchy, Abby J., and Daniel Lee Kleinman 2005 Democratizing Science, Debating Values: New Approaches to ‘Politicized’ Science under the Bush Administration Dissent 52(3): 54–62 Klintman, Mikael, and Magnus Boström 2004 Framings of Science and Ideology: Organic Food Labelling in the US and Sweden Environmental Politics 13(3): 612–634 Konecki, Krzysztof T 2012 Wizualna teoria ugruntowana Podstawowe zasady i procedury Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 8(1): 12–45 Kubik, Jan 2010 Power of Symbols Against the Symbols of Power: The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland University Park, PA: Penn State Press ———, Jan 2013 From Transitology to Contextual Holism: A Theoretical Trajectory of Postcommunist Studies In Postcommunism from Within: Social Justice, Mobilization, and Hegemony, eds Jan Kubik and Amy Linch, 27–95 New York: New York University Press Kurzer, Paulette, and Alice Cooper 2007a Consumer Activism, EU Institutions and Global Markets: The Struggle over Biotech Foods Journal of Public Policy 27(2): 103–128 ——— 2007b What’s for Dinner? European Farming and Food Traditions Confront American Biotechnology Comparative Political Studies 40(9): 1035–1058 Kütting, Gabriela 2007 Environment, Development, and the Global Perspective: From Critical Security to Critical Globalization Nature and Culture 2(1): 49–66 Kwieciński, Jakub 2009 Genetically Modified Abominations? EMBO Reports 10(11): 1187–1190 Litfin, Karen 1994 Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation New York: Columbia University Press 166 BIBLIOGRAPHY Lynch, Diahanna, and David Vogel 2001 The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics Council on Foreign Relations McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly 1996 To Map Contentious Politics Mobilization: An International Quarterly 1(1): 17–34 ——— 2003 Dynamics of Contention Social Movement Studies 2(1): 99–102 Moscovici, Serge, and Charlan Nemeth 1974 Social Influence II: Minority Influence In Social Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Integrations, ed Charlan Nemeth Chicago: Rand McNally Müller, Marion G 2007a What Is Visual Communication? Past and Future of an Emerging Field of Communication Research Studies in Communication Sciences 7(2): 7–34 Mutz, Diana Carole, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody eds 1996 Political Persuasion and Attitude Change Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Norberg-Hodge, Helena 2002 Global Monoculture: The Worldwide Destruction of Diversity In Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, ed Andrew Kimbrell, 13–20 Washington: Foundation for Deep Agriculture Perry, Steven 1983 Rhetorical Functions of the Infestation Metaphor in Hitler’s Rhetoric Communication Studies 34(4): 229–235 Popper, Karl 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery New York: Basic Books Purdue, Derrick A 2000 Anti-GenetiX: The Emergence of the Anti-GM Movement Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Roush, Wade 2002 Lords of the Harvest (Review) Technology and Culture 43(2): 450–451 Ruggie, John Gerard 1998 What Makes the World Hang Together? Neoutilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge International Organization 52(4): 855–885 Ryan, Charlotte 1991 Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing Boston: South End Press Scheufele, Dietram A 1999 Framing as a Theory of Media Effects Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122 Schmidt, Vivien A 2008 “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326 Schon, Donald A., and Martin Rein 1995 Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies New York: Basic Books Shaffer, Gregory 2013 Comparative Institutional Analysis and a New Legal Realism Wisconsin Law Review 2: 607–628 Siegrist, Michael, Carmen Keller, and Henk A.L. Kiers 2006 Lay People’s Perception of Food Hazards: Comparing Aggregated Data and Individual Data Appetite 47(3): 324–332 BIBLIOGRAPHY 167 Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein 2010 Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms Across Research Traditions Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 411–431 Slovic, Paul 2010 The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception New York: Routledge Snow, Charles Percy 2012 The Two Cultures New York: Cambridge University Press Tilly, Charles 1984 Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons New York: Russell Sage Foundation Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow 2006 Contentious Politics Boulder: Paradigm Publishers Van Leeuwen, Theo 2001 Semiotics and Iconography In Handbook of Visual Analysis, eds Theo Van Leeuwen and Carey Jewitt, 92–118 London: Sage Veltri, Giuseppe A., and Ahmet K. Suerdem 2013 Worldviews and Discursive Construction of GMO-Related Risk Perceptions in Turkey Public Understanding of Science 22(2): 137–154 West, Darrell M 2007 Biotechnology Policy Across National Boundaries: The Science-Industrial Complex New York: Palgrave Macmillan Young, Alasdair R 2011 Of Executive Preferences and Societal Constraints: The Domestic Politics of the Transatlantic GMO Dispute Review of International Political Economy 18(4): 506–529 Zaller, John 1992 The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York: Cambridge University Press PRIMARY SOURCES ‘Fish Oil’ GM Plant Trial Application Submitted BBC News, January 24, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25873931 Geary, James 2003 Risky Business Time, July 28 Hencke, David 1999 MP Links Genetic Food to 37 Deaths The Guardian, February Lusk, Jayson 2015 Food Demand Survey January 16 http://agecon.okstate edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf Meyer, Bob 2013 GMO Bans on in Poland, Off in Russia Brownfield Ag News, January Penders, Bart, and Joanna Govern 2013 A Service, Rather Than a Threat, to the Credibility of Science EMBO Reports 14(2): 112 Vinter, Robin 2013 Livestock 2013: Survey Shows Consumer Resistance to GMs Farmers Weekly, July INDEX A advertising, 12, 27, 86 alfalfa, Amflora potato, 13 Amiegos de la Tierra, 104, 105 Angela Merkel, 30, 33, 52, 144 B ballot initiative(s), 50, 51, 149, 157 Basque, 42, 43 Bayer, 48 Beck, 69–71 bees/bee, 27, 49, 114 Ben and Jerry’s, 48, 49, 60n16 biodiversity, 5, biohazard (s)/toxic, 43, 83, 100, 102, 103, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 118, 120, 123, 124, 126n8, 128n42, 138, 144 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 11, 12, 14, 23, 24, 29, 30, 44, 139, 142–4 boycott(s), 26, 29, 59n2 Brussels, 47, 54 BSE See bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) Bush administration/George W. Bush, 60n18 C California, 24, 46, 50, 51, 84 Canada, 13, 33 Cargill, 49 cartoons, 102, 109, 110, 112–15, 117–20, 122, 124 Chipotle, 49 Christian Democrats, 30, 34, 52, 139, 141, 144 civil society, 21, 30, 32, 34, 35, 41, 57, 102, 104, 139, 144 cloning, 24, 70 Colorado, 50 consumers, 5, 11, 12, 14, 18n9, 24–6, 29, 30, 32–4, 46–9, 50, 51, 53–9n5, 60n15, 76, 79, 81, 86, 102, 122, 141, 142, 148, 150–3 Cordelia, 23 © Author(s) and Editor(s) 2017 K.A Clancy, The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9 169 170 INDEX Corn/maize, 4, 12, 32, 33, 36, 41–4, 48, 49, 81, 83, 84, 102–04, 107, 108, 110, 111–19, 144 Czech/ Czech Repbulic, 10, 34, 60n11 D Democrats, 30, 34, 45, 52, 90, 139, 141, 144, 154–6 Denmark, 12, 60n11 DNA/ rDNA, 4, 6, 7, 11, 17n1, 45, 75, 76, 109, 116–19, 125n7, 126n8 E EC /European Commission, 12, 13, 18n8, 36, 38 EEC See European Economic Community (EEC) environmentalists, 17n5, 36, 43, 55, 73 Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), European union (EU), 1, 9–11, 91n1 EU expansion/postcommunism/ CEEC, 34, 35 Eurobarometer, 1, 22, 26, 30, 35, 75 European Economic Community (EEC), 11 Euroskepticism, 53, 140 Eurozone, 40 experts/ scientists, 2, 4, 12, 18n8, 23, 34–6, 37, 59n5, 68–71, 73, 74, 76, 78–80, 82–5, 88, 91, 112, 114, 116, 119, 121, 126n9, 137, 138, 149, 150, 154–6, 158n1 F farmer/agriculture, 5, 8, 9, 11, 23, 28–30, 32, 33, 35–43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60n13, 60n14, 60n18, 73, 76, 80, 81, 91n3, 101–05, 108–10, 112, 118, 128n29, 129n62, 144, 145–7, 151 FDA See Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Field trashing Flavr Savr Tomato, 24 Florida, 76 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 8, 13, 73 France/French, 12, 32, 59n2, 60n8, 76, 83, 103, 119, 120 Frankenfoods/ Frankenstein/ Frankencorn, 1, 16, 24, 25, 27, 59n1, 107, 112, 114, 116, 119, 122, 123, 138, 148 Friends of the Earth, 25, 28, 42, 99–106, 118, 120, 125n8, 126n8, 130n70, 143 G Gabriela, vii, 164 Genetic Literacy Project, 87 Genkartoffel, 167 Gentechnik, 109, 129n43 Germany, 2, 12–14, 16, 18n8, 21, 22, 30–4, 39, 43, 52, 53, 57, 96, 101–02, 106, 108–12, 116, 119, 120, 123, 124, 128n35, 139–41, 143–4, 147, 158n5 Gillam, 86, 87 GMOanswers.com, 80 Greece, 12, 59n4, 92n4 Greenpeace, 1, 14, 25, 26, 28, 32, 39, 42, 99, 100–06, 111, 112, 118, INDEX 120, 125n8, 126n8, 128n32, 130n75, 143, 144 H Hawaii, 9, 51 head, 27, 29, 46, 49, 85, 115, 150 hormones Hungary, 34 hybrid(s), 1, 4, 6, 39, 47, 76, 107–09, 107–9, 115–17, 122, 126n8, 138, 148 I Image/imagery/visual (s), 2, 3, 15, 16, 23–5, 39, 57, 58, 60n12, 75, 85, 86, 91, 95–124, 124n1, 125n6, 125n8, 126n8–126n10, 127n10, 127n11–13, 128n40, 129n46, 129n60, 130n65, 130n67, 130n73, 130n75, 133–138, 143–6, 148, 152, 157 Indiana, 80 J Japan, 48 John, 23, 59n2, 84 journalists, 73, 74, 83, 86–8, 91, 95, 137, 138 L Labeling/labels/label, 2, 3, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24, 26, 42–53, 55, 58, 59n5, 67, 74–6, 81, 86, 88, 104, 109, 110–12, 117, 120, 133, 137, 141, 143, 146, 147, 149–58 legislation, 8–11, 14, 36, 49, 135, 141, 150 171 lobbying, 7, 14, 32, 35, 44, 47, 52 London, 24, 39 Luxembourg, 12 M Madrid, 42, 104 Maui, 51 McDonalds, 102, 105, 106, 120, 144 memetic/meme, 98–100, 106, 114, 120, 121, 123, 125n7, 138, 157 Mendel’s, mice, 83, 97, 104, 114 Michigan, 46 Missouri, MON810, 32, 104, 128n36 Monarch butterfly, 84 monoculture/biodiversity, 5, Monsanto's, 2, 7–10, 12, 13, 17n3, 24, 25, 27, 30, 35, 39, 44, 46, 48, 50–2, 54, 73, 79–86, 107, 111, 114, 118, 120, 122, 124, 130n65, 135, 142, 146, 149, 150 (EU) moratorium, 1, 10, 34, 42, 53 N Neal DeGrasse Tyson, 76 Netherlands, 13, 60n11 NGOs, 12, 25, 28, 32, 41, 45, 54, 56, 57, 100, 141–3, 147 O Oklahoma, 75 Oregon, 50, 76 P pesticides, 5, 6, 8, 56, 73, 152 PiS See Prawo i Sprawiedliwoœæ (PiS) 172 INDEX Poland/Polish, 2, 10, 14, 16, 21, 22, 34–40, 52–4, 57, 60n13, 77, 96, 103, 106, 112–16, 119, 120, 122, 124, 139–41, 144–5, 147 political parties, 38, 52, 57, 139, 141 potatoes, 28, 39, 60n14, 82, 101, 108, 110 Prawo i Sprawiedliwoœæ (PiS), 38 Prime Minister Tony Blair, 27, 142 Prince Charles, 27, 29, 142 Pusztai, 82–4 Q quotes, 37, 48, 49, 72, 76, 79 R rats, 82, 114 rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) Republicans, 45, 76, 150 Romania, 10, 34 Rothamsted Research, 28, 79 Roundup/Roundup ready, 5, 17n3, 24, 28, 83, 102, 105 S scandals, 1, 12, 14, 26, 30, 44, 77, 82, 84, 143 scientism/ sound science, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 55, 56, 58, 60n18, 67–91 95, 96, 100, 121, 123, 124, 134–8, 143, 150, 151, 154–7 Scotland, 9, 29, 59n6 Séralini, 82–4, 114 Slovakia, 10, 34 social movement/protestors/protest, 1, 10, 12, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 38–43, 45, 57, 78, 79, 81, 97, 100, 102–08, 113, 116, 119, 120, 123, 141, 142, 144, 157 Spain/Spanish, 2, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18n8, 21, 22, 40–3, 52–4, 57, 96, 103–06, 115, 116, 119, 120, 124, 128n32, 130n67, 139–41, 145–7, 152 supermarkets/supplier/grocery, 1, 25, 27, 44, 47, 54, 56, 75, 118, 142 Sweden T tomatoes, 24, 75, 110, 112, 115–18, 122 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 33 Turkey U UK/British/United Kingdom/ England, 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18n7, 21–30, 43, 52, 53, 57, 59n1, 59n5, 60n13, 72, 79, 83, 86, 91n2, 91n3, 92n4, 96, 101, 105–08, 119, 123, 130n76, 139–44, 147, 152, 158n5 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA ), 8, 9, 35, 152 US/American, 1, 2, 7–10, 25, 29, 33, 35, 44, 45, 48, 53–5, 57, 58, 60n10, 69, 72, 74, 81, 83, 89, 103, 106, 108, 115, 117, 118, 145, 146, 149–51, 157 USDA See United States Department of Agriculture (USDA ) V Vandana shiva, 58, 91n3 Vermont, 50, 51, 157 INDEX W Wales, 29, 59n6 World Trade Organization (WTO), 10, 17n5, 21, 35 Z Zeneca, 24, 142, 150, 157 173 .. .The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe Kelly A. Clancy The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe Kelly A. Clancy... book explains the current status of GMOs in American and European © Author(s) and Editor(s) 2017 K.A Clancy, The Politics of Genetically Modified Organisms in the United States and Europe, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33984-9_1... so, I compare the state of the debate over GMOs in the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, Spain, and the United States. These countries represent the range of cultural orientations and policies