The impact of ‘framing’ in the adoption of GM crops

References

• Golden Rice Project. 2020. The Golden Rice Project. http://www.goldenrice.org/
   Google Scholar
• WHO. 2023. Vitamin A Deficiency. Nutrition Landscape Information Systems. https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/vitamin-a-deficiency#:~:text=VitaminAdeficiencyisaHowisitdefined%3F
   Google Scholar
• Ye X, Al-Babili S, Kloti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. Engineering the provitamin a (β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Sci. 2000;287(5451):303–05. doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IRRI. Golden rice FAQs. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI); 2018. https://www.irri.org/golden-rice-faqs.
   Google Scholar
• Potrykus I. Lessons from the “humanitarian Golden rice” project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. N Biotechnol. 2010;27(5):466–72. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2010.07.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stop Golden Rice Network. Why we oppose Golden rice. GRAIN; 2020. https://grain.org/en/article/6516-why-we-oppose-golden-rice.
   Google Scholar
• Chandrasekhara Rao N, Mahendra Dev S. Biotechnology and pro-poor agricultural development. Econ Polit Weekly. 2009;44(52):56–64. doi:10.2307/25663940.
   Google Scholar
• Edmisten K. What is the difference between genetically modified organisms and genetically engineered organisms? | NC state extension. NC State Extension, NC State University; 2016. https://agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/.
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA. Q and a about genetically modified crops | isaaa.Org. ISAAA; 2020. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/1/.
   Google Scholar
• Tenaillon MI, Charcosset A. A European perspective on maize history. C R Biol. 2011;334(3):221–28. Elsevier Masson SAS.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellmich R, Hellmich K. Use and impact of Bt Maize. Nat Educ Knowl. 2012;3:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Acquaah G. Conventional plant breeding principles and techniques. In: Advances in plant breeding strategies: breeding, biotechnology and molecular tools. Vol. 1. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 115–58. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22521-0_5.
   Google Scholar
• Fehr WR. Principles of cultivar development: theory and Technique. W. R. Fehr, ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Gepts P. A comparison between crop domestication, classical plant breeding, and genetic engineering. Crop Sci. 2002;42(6):1780–90. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.1780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skendžić S, Zovko M, Živković IP, Lešić V, Lemić1 D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects. 2021;12(5):440. doi:10.3390/insects12050440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikora P, Chawade A, Larsson M, Olsson J, Olsson O. Mutagenesis as a tool in plant genetics, functional genomics, and breeding. Int J Plant Genomics. 2011:314829. doi:10.1155/2011/314829.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chahal GS, Gosal SS. 2002. Principles And Procedures Of Plant Breeding: Biotechnological And Conventional Approaches. Nature. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SmEdA8bYEB0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Chahal+GS,+Gosal+SS+(2002)+Principles+and+procedures+of+plant+breeding.+Alpha+Science+International&ots=hCU6R_Di2A&sig=-2FpbG2-CuET_lL2IjdPVAneoC8#v=onepage&q=conventional&f=false
   Google Scholar
• Ammann K. Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. N Biotechnol. 2014;31(1):1–17. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow DA. Framing and social movements. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia Of Social And Political Movements. 2013;392–410. doi:10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm434.
   Google Scholar
• Druckman JN. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav. 2001;23(3):225–56. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Pas D. Making hay while the sun shines: do parties only respond to media attention when the framing is right? Int J Press Polit. 2014;19(1):42–65. doi:10.1177/1940161213508207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press; 1974.
   Google Scholar
• Velardi S, Selfa T. Framing local: an analysis of framing strategies for genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives in the northeastern U.S. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2021;45(3):366–89. doi:10.1080/21683565.2020.1818159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levidow L, Boschert K. Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum. 2008;39(1):174–90. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell AW. GMOs and their contexts: a comparison of potential and actual performance of GM crops in a local agricultural setting. Geoforum. 2008;39(1):213–22. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorobe J, Quicoy C, Yorobe JM, Quicoy CB, Yorobe JM, Quicoy CB. Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. Philipp Agric Sci. 2006;89(3). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279560297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clancy KA, Clancy B. Growing monstrous organisms: the construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media. Crit Stud Media Comm. 2016;33(3):279–92. doi:10.1080/15295036.2016.1193670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evanega S, Conrow J, Adams J, Lynas M. The state of the ‘GMO’ debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech? GM Crops & Food. 2022;13(1):38–49. doi:10.1080/21645698.2022.2051243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynas M, Adams S, Stockert K. Gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability in social and traditional media than GMOs. GM Crops & Food. 2023;1–8. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2226889.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mcinerney C, Bird N, Nucci M. The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food *. Sci Commun. 2004;26(1):44–74. http://scx.sagepub.com/.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae [5]. Nature. 1999;399(6733):214. Macmillan Magazines Ltd. doi:.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon CK. Altered corn may imperil butterfly, researchers say - The New York Times. 1999, May 20. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/20/us/altered-corn-may-imperil-butterfly-researchers-say.html
   Google Scholar
• Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(21):11937–42. doi:10.1073/pnas.211329998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N, Allison K, Zakharova L. Media coverage of agrobiotechnology: did the butterfly have an effect? J Agribus. 2003;21(1):1–20. doi:10.22004/AG.ECON.14674.
   Google Scholar
• The Non-GMO Project. Mission – the non-GMO Project. The Non-GMO Project; 2016. https://www.nongmoproject.org/about/mission/.
   Google Scholar
• Séralini GE., Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. RETRACTED: long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(11):4221–31. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler D. Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny. Nature. 2012;490(7419):188. doi:10.1038/490158a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arjó G, Portero M, Piñol C, Viñas J, Matias-Guiu X, Capell T, Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Christou P. Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that roundup™ ready corn or the herbicide roundup™ cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res. 2013;22(2):255–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt AG. Peru bans genetically modified plants. Junge Welt Daily Newspaper, 6 2012, Nov 22. [accessed Nov 22 2012]. https://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/artikel/192568.peru-verbietet-genmanipulierte-pflanzen.html
   Google Scholar
• Huet F. Port Of Lorient: Anti-GMO Operation. France TV. 2012. https://www.translatetheweb.com/?from=fr&to=en&dl=en&rr=UC&a=https%3A%2F%2Ffrance3-regions.francetvinfo.fr%2Fbretagne%2F2012%2F11%2F23%2Florient-des-militants-anti-ogm-detruisent-du-soja-importe-149823.html
   Google Scholar
• Owino O. Scientists torn over Kenya’s recent GM food ban. Nature. 2012. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11929.
   Google Scholar
• Kuntz M. The seralini affair. The dead-end of an activist science - Fondapol. Fondation Pour L’innovation Politique. 2019. https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/the-seralini-affair-the-dead-end-of-an-activist-science/.
   Google Scholar
• Erokhin D, Komendantova N. GMO discussion on twitter. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–13. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2241160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bickell EG. The framing effect of the media in the regulation of GMOs: a case study of Russia. Russ J Commun. 2019;11(3):240–52. doi:10.1080/19409419.2019.1678348.
   Google Scholar
• Carzoli AK, Aboobucker SI, Sandall LL, Lübberstedt TT, Suza WP. Risks and opportunities of GM crops: bt maize example. Glob Food Sec. 2018;19(August):84–91. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.004.
   Google Scholar
• Taguchi C, Shibata N, Soga K, Yoshiba S, Narushima J, Sugino M, Kondo K. Providing appropriate information to consumers boosts the acceptability of genome-edited foods in Japan. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–14. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2239539.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Best J. ‘Road warriors’ on ‘hair-trigger highways’: cultural resources and the media’s construction of the 1987. Sociol Inq. 1991;61(3):327–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014;34(1):77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeling PJ., Palmer JD. Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(8):605–18. doi:10.1038/nrg2386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority. Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 2011;9(5):2150. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2150.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzi A, Raddadi N, Sorlini C, Nordgrd L, Nielsen KM, Daffonchio D. The stability and degradation of dietary DNA in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals: implications for horizontal gene transfer and the biosafety of GMOs. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(2):142–61. doi:10.1080/10408398.2010.499480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Den Eede G, Aarts H, Buhk HJ, Corthier G, Flint HJ, Hammes W, Jacobsen B, Midtvedt T, Van Der Vossen J, Von Wright A, et al. The relevance of gene transfer to the safety of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42(7):1127–56. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer SB, Bannon GA. Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods: perception and reality. Allergy. 2005;60(5):559–64. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00704.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 2017;15(6):e04862. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology. 2001. Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology.
   Google Scholar
• Herman EM, Helm RM, Jung R, Kinney AJ Genetic modification removes an immunodominant allergen from soybean. Plant Physiol. 2003;132(1):36–43. doi:10.1104/pp.103.021865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. GM Food Safety Assessment Tools For Trainers. 2008. https://www.fao.org/3/i0110e/i0110e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ISAAA. 2023. Pocket K no. 56: substantial Equivalence of GM and non-GM Crops. International service for the acquisition of Agri-biotech applications. https://Www.Isaaa.org/Resources/Publications/Pocketk/56/Default.Asp#: ~: Text=56%3A SubstantialEquivalenceOfGMAndNon-GMCrops&text=in Other words%2C Substantial Equivalence,orRemovedThroughGeneticEngineering.
   Google Scholar
• Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR, MacDonald J, Holden LR, Fuchs RL. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996;126(3):702–16. doi:10.1093/jn/126.3.702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann MC, Liu K, Trujillo WA, Dobert RC. Glyphosate-tolerant soybeans remain compositionally equivalent to conventional soybeans (glycine max L.) during three years of field testing. J Agr Food Chem. 2005;53(13):5331–35. doi:10.1021/jf0504317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The World Bank. Agriculture and food overview. The World Bank; 2023. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/overview.
   Google Scholar
• USDA Economic Research Service. USDA ERS - Ag and food sectors and the economy. USDA; 2023. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer K, Ekener-Petersen E, Rydhmer L, Edvardsson Björnberg K. Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2015;7(7):8598–620. doi:10.3390/su7078598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crop Life International. 2022. Time and cost to develop a New GM trait. https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AgbioInvestor-Trait-RD-Branded-Report-Final-20220512.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Miller HI, Conko G. Bootleggers and Biotechs. Regulation. 2003:12–14. SSRN. Summer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=505585
   Google Scholar
• Dubock A. Golden Rice: to combat Vitamin a deficiency for public health. In: Vitamin a. IntechOpen; 2019. doi:10.5772/intechopen.84445.
   Google Scholar
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2004. THE STATE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2003-2004: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting The Needs Of The Poor? http://www.fao.org/3/Y5160E/Y5160E00.htm
   Google Scholar
• Rao NC. Plant biotechnology and the emerging scenario. Review Of Development And Change. 2004;9(1):69–92. doi:10.1177/0972266120040103.
   Google Scholar
• Voosen P. Crop savior blazes biotech trail, but few scientists or companies are willing to follow. The New York Times. 2011 Sep 21. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/09/21/21greenwire-crop-savior-blazes-biotech-trail-but-few-scien-88379.html?pagewanted=1
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Academic Impact. Sustainable development goals. United Nations; 1987. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability.
   Google Scholar
• Scott D. The magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2005;18(3):259–67. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-0632-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience. 2012;62(1):75–84. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heap I. Herbicide resistant weeds. InIntegrated pest management: pesticide problems, Vol.3. Springer Netherlands; 2014pp. 281–301. 10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_12.
   Google Scholar
• Wright TR, Shan G, Walsha TA, Lira JM, Cui C, Song P, Zhuang M, ArnoldN NL, Lin G, Yau K, et al. Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(47):20240–45. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013154107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heap I. Weed populations resistant to multiple sites of action. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database; 2023. http://www.weedscience.org/Pages/Graphs/MultipleResistance.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Davis VM, Gibson KD, Bauman TT, Weller SC, Johnson WG. Influence of weed management practices and crop rotation on glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) population dynamics and crop yield-years III and IV. Weed Sci. 2009;57(4):417–26. doi:10.1614/WS-09-006.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebman MZ, Gibson LR, Sundberg DN, Heggenstaller AH, Westerman PR, Chase CA, Hartzler RG, Menalled FD, Davis AS, Dixon PM Statistics publications agronomic and Economic performance characteristics of conventional and low-external-input cropping systems in the central corn belt. Agron J. 2008;100(3):600–10. doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderlich S, Gatto KA. Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(6):842–51. doi:10.3945/an.115.008870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue G. The necessary “GMO” denialism and scientific consensus. J Sci Commun. 2016;15(4):Y01. http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/04/JCOM_1504_2016_Y01.
   Google Scholar
• Hu H, Dai M, Yao J, Xiao B, Li X, Zhang Q, Xiong L. Overexpressing a NAM, ATAF, and CUC (NAC) transcription factor enhances drought resistance and salt tolerance in rice. PNAS. 2006;29(35):12987–92.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang H, Nam SJ. The influence of consumers’ knowledge on their responses to genetically modified foods. GM Crops & Food. 2021;12(1):146–57. doi:10.1080/21645698.2020.1840911.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sohi M, Pitesky M, Gendreau J. Analyzing public sentiment toward GMOs via social media between 2019-2021. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–9. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2190294.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ding Q, Qiao F, Huang J. Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on consumers’ perceptions of genetically modified food. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–13. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2204051.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonsalves D. CONTROL of PAPAYA RINGSPOT VIRUS in PAPAYA: a case study. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1998;36(1):415–37. doi:.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• USDA & Department of Agriculture State of Hawaii. 2012. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE in cooperation with Hawaii farm facts. USDA. www.nass.usda.gov/hi
   Google Scholar
• Palca J. The viral TikTok that explains vaccine science - and makes you laugh. National Public Radio (NPR). 2021, Apr. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/04/01/983397422/the-viral-tiktok-video-that-explains-vaccine-science-and-makes-you-laugh
   Google Scholar
• Suza WP, Kena AW, Akromah R, Mugwanya N, Zeller MF. Fear holds back gene-edited crops — educate the public. Nature. 2018;563(626). doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07547-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Qaim M. Assessing the impact of banana biotechnology in Kenya. In: ISAAA briefs. Vol. 10. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA; 1999. https://www.isaaa.org/purchasepublications/itemdescription.asp?ItemType=BRIEFS&Control=IB010-1999
   Google Scholar
• Ongu I, Olayide P, Alexandersson E, Zawedde BM, Eriksson D. Biosafety regulatory frameworks in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Sweden and their potential impact on international R&D collaborations. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–17. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2194221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar