Newspaper Coverage of the UK Genetically Modified Crops Debate: Implications for China

1. Newspaper Coverage of the UK Genetically Modified Crops Debate: Implications for China Dr Peter Robbins Development Policy & Practice Open University

2. Introduction • Surveys have been completed of public attitudes to biotechnology, yet the language and social construction of the debate have received comparatively little attention. • This study examined the language and social frames used in British press coverage of the GM food debate and public reactions to them. • Published in Public Understanding of Science (2006) 15:5-29.

3. UK Biotech Activities in 2003 • Meetings and consultations aimed at ‘the general public’ • The government sponsored GM Nation? Debate and subsequent report • Results from GM crop trials • Reports from the government economic strategy unit • GM science review panel

4. Newspaper Analysis • Daily Mail (tabloid, anti-biotech) • Guardian (‘quality’, anti-biotech) • Sun (tabloid, pro-biotech) • The Times (‘quality’, pro-biotech)

5. Data • 446 reports, articles and letters • 210 from The Guardian • 82 from The Daily Mail • 142 from The Times • 12 from The Sun • Corpus was 259,000 words

6. Pro- and Anti-GM Coverage (January to July 2003)

7. Pro-GM arguments Balanced Benefits Thoughtful Calm Choice Truth Anti-GM arguments Polarised Highly selective Fear Emotional Feverish Religious Language Used in Pro-GM Texts

8. Anti-GM arguments Cautious Democracy Fairness Testing Precaution Participative democracy Pro-GM arguments George Bush Commercial interests Imprecise Artificial Poorly understood Biased Language Used by Anti-GM News

9. Issues always covered positively • ‘The threat of peanut allergies could soon be wiped out by genetic engineering, scientists have revealed. In laboratory tests, they have succeeded in altering the makeup of the peanut so it no longer triggers a life-threatening reaction…In Britain, the number of children developing potentially fatal allergies to nuts has trebled in the last decade.’ Daily Mail, 17 February 2003

10. Cited authorities frame arguments • ‘About 55,000 farmers across seven states, roughly 2 per cent of India’s cotton growers, sowed the genetically engineered Bollgard cotton seed, which Monsanto describes as resistant to…the bollworm. But anxiety about the long term effects of using modified seed-the fear of “Frankencrops”…have slowed India’s march toward biotech farming.’ The Guardian 8 May 2003

11. Findings from Focus Groups • People are influenced more by the attributed source of a text than the content. • Many people locate GM food within a broader socio-political context. • If they do not trust the safety of GM food, it is because also they do not trust those seen as responsible for introducing it: the government, corporations, even scientists.

12. Implications for Public Understanding of Science • Members of the public trust sources of information, which they believe to be unbiased. • They do not see GM food technology in isolation. • People do not necessarily find statements from the government, corporations, or scientists, to be convincing. • They want to know that the benefits for them outweigh the short and long term risks.

13. Relevance to China • China is one of the world’s largest producers and consumers of GM food. • However, relatively little is known about consumer awareness, understanding and acceptance. • China, while initially promoting robust biotechnology strategies, now adopts a more cautious approach. • Chinese civil society groups are generally weak and the state is not keen for GM to be widely debated (so as to protect the nascent local biotech industry).

14. New York Times, 7 October 2000. • ‘Enthusiasm for the new science abounds. There is no public debate to stir up the opposition that has brought the development of genetically modified crops to a near standstill in India’ and ‘with no independent news coverage…consumers are unaware that they are eating modified food.’

15. GM Labelling • (2002) The Ministry of Health issued health regulations on GMOs requiring labelling of potentially allergenic food (soybeans, corn, rapeseed, tomatoes and cottonseed). • (2003) Regulations are implemented for soybeans • (2004) China Daily reports that labelling rules are not being implemented, stating consumers have ‘the right to know’ under the Cartagena Protocol.

16. Implementation of Labelling • In July 2003, Beijing municipal authorities fine manufacturers of 14 brands of soybean oil for not labelling GM ingredients. • Local TV and newspapers publicised the labelling requirement for soybean oil. • Later in that month, supermarkets received faxes from the Agricultural Bureau ordering them to stop selling non-labelled GM soybean oils.

17. Initial Findings – Surveys of Urban Public Attitudes to GM • Chinese public’s awareness of GMOs is not exceptionally low, in comparison with other countries, however their understanding is limited (Li et al 2002; Zhong et al 2002). • While few actively oppose eating GM, most are actually neutral. • Ho, Vermeer and Zhao (2006) found that neutrally worded information about GM food had a significant negative impact on people’s willingness to buy GM food.

18. Attitudes to Food Safety • China, similar to the UK, has had its share of food scares. • (2003) SARS • (2004) carcinogenic substances found in Lee Kum Kee’s oyster sauce • (2004) bad quality baby milk powder kills hundreds of infants in Anhui

19. Survey conclusions • Most of those surveyed expressed neutrality on the issue of GM food risks. • However, when provided with both positive and negative information on the scientific discussions of GM food risks, willingness to purchase GM food products dropped by a quarter. • This suggests that given wider debate, there may be more widespread resistance to GM food.

20. Policy Implications • Chinese governance of GMOs is characterised by a high degree of state support for funding innovation and research & development • Alongside this, risk-assessment and regulation happen with limited transparency. • While GM labelling has been difficult to implement, many commentators see the risk and safety system as robust and balanced. • Given the public’s lack of knowledge of GM it will be important to think through different forms that engagement might take, and their effects on biotechnology innovation.

21. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. The work presented forms part of the programme of the ESRC Genomics Network at Innogen.