Hill\l‘WilWlNliWWI

!

          

\

Wl‘HlNl‘l‘HlNN

   

_\
03-h
CON

      

H

I—iw
_U)

 

 

ix)
9 ——
O

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

MAD COWS AND POISONED APPLES: AN ANALYSIS OF
NEWSPAPER PORTRAYAL OF FOOD SCARES IN THE US

presented by

Walaka Appuhamilage Dilshani Eranga Sarathchandra

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in SociologL

 

 

 

“(iii-c8,

 

Major Professor’s Signature
0 i I 07 [ Z 0 l 0

Date

 

MSU is an Afflnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pros/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

MAD COWS AND POISONED APPLES: AN ANALYSIS OF NEWSPAPER
PORTRAYAL OF FOOD SCARES IN THE US

By

Walaka Appuhamilage Dilshani Eranga Sarathchandra

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Sociology

2010

ABSTRACT

MAD COWS AND POISONED APPLES: AN ANALYSIS OF NEWSPAPER
PORTRAYAL OF FOOD SCARES IN THE US

By

Walaka Appuhamilage Dilshani Eranga Sarathchandra
This study focuses on US newspaper coverage of Alar, Genetically Modified Food
(GMF), and Mad Cow Disease (BSE) during the period 1985 to 2007. Using a combined
conceptualization of framing by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) and Goffman (1974), the
study analyses how US-based newspapers have framed and presented the debate on Alar,
GMF, and BSE. Furthermore, the study analyzes specific portrayals that have been used
to frame the US public in connection with these issues. Given the importance of food in
terms of both domestic and international economic and policy impacts, it is argued that
by analyzing media coverage of food scares, we can gain a better understanding of how
media discourse may affect public perception around issues related to food purchasing
and consumption. The study concludes that there are persistent patterns of media
reporting that follow food scares similar to other environmental and health hazards that
have been reported. The study employs frame analysis as a useful tool through which

these patterns can be studied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my deepest gratitude to my advisor Professor Toby Teneyck for his guidance and
encouragement throughout the process of completing this thesis. I am also indebted to my
guidance committee, Professors Thomas Dietz, Aaron McCright and Karim Maredia. I
am grateful to the faculty, staff and second year paper writing group of the Department of
Sociology of Michigan State University for their numerous supports. Finally I would like

to thank my family and friends for standing by me and supporting me at all times.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 3
Alar, GMF, and Mad Cow Disease ..................................................... 9
DATA AND METHODS ....................................................................... 12
RESULTS ......................................................................................... 15
Patterns of Media Reporting during Food Scares ................................... 15
Frame Analysis: Primary Frames ...................................................... 22
Framing the Public ...................................................................... 26
Textual Analysis ......................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ......................................................... 30
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 34

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics(Frequency) ................................................... 16
Table 2: Number of quoted sources per article ............................................... 21

Table 3: Most Quoted Sources in Articles by Food Scare (Some articles had more

than one source) .................................................................................. 21

Table 4: Percentage of articles by Frame ...................................................... 26
Table 5: Portrayals of the Public (up to three codes per article) ........................... 27
Table 6: Portrayals of the Public (up to three codes per article) by Food scare .......... 27
Table 7: Examples of Framing Devices Used in Media Narratives ........................ 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Frequency of Articles on Alar between 1985 and 1995 ......................... 18
Figure 2: Frequency of Articles on GMF between 1996 and 2007 ........................ 19
Figure 3: Frequency of Articles on BSE between 2001 and 2007 ......................... 19

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BSE - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

FDA — Food and Drug Administration

GMF - Genetically Modified Food

NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council

UPI - United Press International

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

vCJ D - Creutzfeldt—Jakob Disease

vii

INTRODUCTION

Media discourse on food has continued to grow over the past few decades, leading
some to argue that these discussions are influencing public perceptions of risk, trust, and
uncertainty about the food industry (Frewer 2000; Priest 1994; Teneyck and Williment
2003). In 1989, a major environmental and personal health risk issue -- the spraying of
Alar on apples -- created a flurry of media activity, as well as concerns about apples
among domestic and foreign buyers of American apples. This was followed by the
introduction of Genetically Modified Food (GMF) to the US market in 1996, which led to
another wave of public and media attention to issues related to food safety. In 2003, the
US public was once again put on alert by the discovery of Mad Cow Disease (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy- BSE) in a cattle herd in the state of Washington. Among
other food scares reported in the media during the past two decades such as E-coli
outbreaks, concerns about food irradiation and presence of Salmonella in food, --Alar,
GMF and BSE-- have gained extensive media attention and continue to be debated in
various public arenas.

This study focuses on US newspaper coverage of Alar, GMF, and BSE during the
period 1985 to 2007 to gain a sense of how these issues were covered. Using a combined
conceptualization of definitions by Gamson and Modigliani (1989) and Goffman (1974),
this paper defines a ‘media frame’ as a central organizing idea or a story line to a
controversy that provides meaning to an unfolding series of events, suggesting what the
controversy is about and the essence of an issue. Within this framework, the study
analyses how US-based newspapers have framed and presented the debate on Alar, GMF,

and BSE. Furthermore, the study analyzes specific portrayals that have been used to

frame the US public in connection with these issues. The way media portray the public
can help us understand both the agendas of news organizations and their sources (such as
the government and food manufacturers), and how these groups think about the
intersections between the general public and the food supply. Given the importance of
food in terms of both domestic and international economic and policy impacts, I argue
that by analyzing media coverage of food scares, we can gain a better understanding of
how media discourse may affect public perception around issues related to food

purchasing and consumption.

LITERATURE REVIEW

It seems that most days we can find reports about food scares somewhere in the
US or around the world. In the past few years there have been concerns with everything
from spinach to peanut butter to beef, and from eating too much (obesity) to not eating
enough (anorexia). Although experts say the US food supply is the safest in the world, a
skeptical American public reading these media reports tends to rank food safety high on
its’ list of concerns (Friedman 1991). In recent years, public attention has focused on
issues such as trace amounts of chemical pesticides and herbicides that can be found on
food, genetic alterations of food products, and bacterial contamination of food among
other things. According to a Food Marketing Institute survey conducted in 2001, 85% of
people polled said that pesticide residues are a serious health hazard (httpzl/www.fmi.org;
accessed October 17, 2009). In contrast, experts on food safety and public health
maintain that chemical residues do not pose a great danger to consumers.

Beardsworth and Keil (1997:163) attempt to distinguish the principle features of a
food scare, which they define as “an acute outbreak of collective nutritional anxiety
which can seize hold of public awareness and give rise to significant short- and long-term
consequences.” In their View, ‘a typical food scare’ exhibits a consistent pattern with the
following sequence of steps:

1. An initial ‘equilibrium’ state exists in which the public is largely unaware of, or

unconcerned about, a potential food risk factor.

2. The public is initially sensitized to a novel potential food risk factor.

3. Public concern builds up as the risk factor becomes a focus of interest and

concern within the various arenas of public debate.

4. Public response to the novel risk factor begins, often consisting of the avoidance

of the suspected food item.

5. Public concern gradually fades as attention switches away from the issue in
question and a new ‘equilibrium’ state establishes itself. However, chronic low-

level anxiety may persist, and can give rise to a resurgence of the issue at a later
(Beecilrzhtzworth and Keil 1997:163)

In the Beardsworth and Keil frame, media discourse is one of the main
mechanisms by which the public is sensitized to the potential of novel food risk factors.
Due to extensive media attention given to Alar, GMF, and BSE during the past two
decades these three food scares are used as the focus of this study. These food scares will
be discussed below.

Analyzing the mass media coverage of scientific issues is particularly important
because, as noted by Priest and Teneyck (2003:29), the media are the sole providers of
information about science and technology to a very large segment of the population.
While most of us rely on information sources as diverse as friends, family, coworkers,
and religious leaders for information about political, economic, and social issues, most
people do not have first hand access to scientific journals, researchers, and data to help
construct and define personal perceptions of scientific issues (Reis 2008). In this sense, I
argue that the newspapers and wire services play a major role in making news (including
issues related to food scares) accessible to the general public in a way that they can
comprehend.

In my attempt to understand media portrayal of food scares, the concept of
framing provides a useful tool for analyzing journalistic messages. Many scholars who
use the concept of framing begin with Goffman’s (1974) perspective on framing.
Goffman (1974) argued that to study any social event a researcher (as well as others)
must put boundaries around what is taking place. To take into consideration everything

that might be impacting the interaction would be impractical, pointless, meaningless and

paralyzing. In his analysis, Goffman (1974) identified two types of primary frames,
natural frames and social frames. Natural frames are purely physical and naturally
determined whereas social frames are “guided doings” of human beings. Social frames
involve motive and intent, and “their imputation helps select which of the various social
frameworks of understanding is to be applied” (Goffman 1974:22). The individual can
be “wrong” in his interpretation of a frame. “However, in many cases an individual in our
society is effective in his use of particular frames. The elements and processes he
assumes in his reading of the activity often are ones that the activity itself manifests”
(Goffman 1974:26). Goffman (1974) argued that at any one moment of activity, an
individual is likely to apply several frameworks. “To proceed however, an operating
fiction might be accepted, at least temporarily, namely, that acts of daily living are
understandable because of some primary framework (or frameworks) that informs them
and that getting at this schema will not be a trivial task” (Goffman 1074:26). To take into
consideration activities outside these identified frames, Goffman discussed “out-of-
frame” activities. In this way, researchers could think about activities happening outside
a specific action frame that were known to affect what was happening within the situation
under investigation.

Reporters must also frame stories in the same way. The limited carrying capacity
of newspapers and broadcasts related to length, time, and accessibility to information
sources makes it impossible to discuss every facet of every story or report. In addition,
scholars argue that reporters and editors make story frames in the sense that most, if not
all, stories have some underlying, though often unconscious, thematic or ideological slant

that fits with the editorial demands of the larger media outlet (Teneyck 2000).

According to Nisbet and Huge (2007), frames are ‘thought organizers,’ devices
for packaging complex issues in persuasive ways by focusing on certain interpretations
over others, suggesting what is relevant about an issue and what should be ignored.
Framing occurs at the policy level, the media level and/or at the public level. At the
media level, frames may best be thought of as abstract principles, tools, or schemata of
interpretation that work through media texts to structure social meaning. By giving more
weight to some dimensions of a controversy than others, “the frames in news coverage
help guide policy and citizen evaluations about the causes and consequences of an issue,
and what should be done” (N isbet and Huge 20072197).

In their study of the framing of nuclear power, Gamson and Modigliani (1989)
show how media discourse provides interpretations and meanings for relevant events.
They argue that we encounter this discourse not as individual items, but as interpretive
packages that consist of elements such as metaphors, catchphrases, visual images, moral
appeals, and other symbolic devices that characterize these reports. According to Gamson
and Modigliani (1989), at the core of an interpretive package is a central organizing idea,
or frame, for making sense of relevant events, suggesting what is at issue. Media frames
therefore, organize the world both for the journalists who report it and for us who rely on
their reports to make sense of the world around us. These frames typically imply a range
of positions, rather than any single one, allowing for a degree of controversy among those
who share a common frame. Finally, a framing package offers a number of different
condensing symbols that suggest the core frame and positions in shorthand, making it
possible to display the package as a whole with a deft metaphor, catchphrase, or other

symbolic devices (Gamson and Modigliani 1989:3). In analyzing the media discourse of

nuclear power, Gamson and Modigliani show that stories were anchored in frames,
ranging from anti-corporate concerns (public accountability package) to economic
concerns (not cost effective package) to worries over technologies that we would not be
able to control (runaway package). To illustrate their point, Gamson and Modigliani
(1989) discuss how the progress frame has been positioned in a positive manner by the
mass media to present nuclear power as a safe and worthwhile technology. By attributing
resistance to nuclear power to certain groups such as those who might have been opposed
to electricity in the past, for example, a certain media article makes use of framing
elements that can be identified and categorized by attentive media analysts (Reis 2008).

Gamson and Modigliani (1989) state that media discourse and frames evolve over
time. For example, a well-publicized news report on the dangers of nuclear power may
lead to more funding for nuclear programs from legislative bodies which feel that nuclear
energy is something to pursue. In short, negative publicity can have positive effects, just
as positive coverage can cause harm, such as when a tropical island is overrun and
damaged by tourists after the area is promoted on a travel show. In such situations,
depending on the initial frames used the later frames may evolve and change.

Frames as general organizing devices should not be confused with specific policy
positions. Individuals can disagree on an issue but share the same interpretative frame.
Each frame as an organizing device for arguments and interpretations is ‘valence neutral,’
meaning that it can take pro-, anti,- or neutral positions, though one position might be
more commonly used than others (Gamson and Modigliani 1989). Consider the
ethical/religious frame on which we elaborate later in this study. This interpretation could

be applied to packaging Genetically Modified Food as ‘playing God’ and violating the

natural order of things, therefore leading to negative attributions about the issue. But the
ethical/ religious frame could also be used to portray GMF in a positive light,
emphasizing the moral duty to pursue a ‘gene revolution’ that could ‘end world hunger’
or bring an end to diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s.

Several studies have applied the concept of media framing to analyze issues
related to news coverage of health and scientific research. Priest and Teneyck (2003), for
example, studied media coverage of biotechnology and analyzed how the media framed
various debates surrounding the use of biotechnology in food production that legitimated
certain points of view while marginalizing others. Likewise, Raul Reis (2008) used
framing to determine the differences between North American and Brazilian media
coverage of stem cell research. Reis (2008) argued that while in Brazil the issue has been
presented from a scientific (and mostly positive) point of view, in the US the debate has
been dominated by its political and ethical dimensions. These and other studies reinforce
the idea that, by studying how the mass media frame an issue, it is possible to understand
how the topic is disseminated. In addition, one can look at how a story is perceived and
understood by audiences, and consequently how it plays out in the public arena in both
political and social terms (Reis 2008).

This idea of frames as organizing principles within media coverage has led to
developing the following questions.

Q1: What are the patterns of reporting on food scares in US news reports?

Q2: What are the main frames used in US news stories regarding Alar, GMF and Mad
Cow Disease?

Q3: How do news stories on food scares portray the US public?

In order to answer these questions I combine content analysis and preliminary textual
analysis to identify and describe framing elements as suggested by Gamson and
Modigliani (1989), and Goffman (1974) in their definitions of media frames. Before
analyzing the media reports, I will provide a brief background on the three food scares of
concern.
Alar, GMF, and Mad Cow Disease

Alar was first marketed in 1968 as a chemical that apple growers could spray on
trees to make their apples ripen longer before falling to the ground. This chemical
became problematic in the winter of 1989 when it was argued to be a carcinogen in a
report issued by the environmental organization Natural Resources Defense Council
(N RDC). The amount of concern this report generated continued to grow and affect
public perceptions of the dangers of pesticide residues on food (Friedman 1991). The
NRDC report linked Alar to increased rates of cancer, particularly in children. Cancer is a
powerful specter that hangs over the American public, and it was a central focus for the
Alar coverage because of the chemical’s carcinogenic potential (Friedman 1991). The
NRDC charges, which were disseminated by a well planned and effective public relations
campaign, brought counter charges from the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which accused the NRDC of basing its study on incomplete and questionable
data, among other things (Friedman 1991). The controversy eventually died down, but it
positioned the US public to be aware that their food might not be safe, and that
companies and science may lead to as many problems as solutions.

By the end of the Alar controversy, the US was becoming one of the foremost

countries in commercializing genetically modified crops and making them part of the

human food supply. By 2008, 25 countries were growing genetically modified crops at a
commercial scale, and the US is currently cultivating 62.5 million hectares of GM crops
that include soybean, corn, cotton, squash, papaya, alfalfa and sugarbeet (www.isaaa.org;
accessed September 17, 2009). Introduction of GM crops to the US market has not been
without some controversies, as the safety of genetically modified foods has been called
into question by media coverage of various discoveries, inventions, and protests,
including street demonstrations against GM foods in the European Union (Stewart and
McLean 2005). There is little reason to believe this controversy will be settled in the
foreseeable future.

The height of the GMO coverage to this point was 2000, and just three years later
the US was jolted by another food scare. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or
Mad Cow Disease, was discovered in the US in December 2003, a disease that has been a
concern for farmers and scientists in UK since the mid 19903. The first infected animal in
US came from a farm in Mabton, WA, which is about 40 miles southeast of Yakima in
Central Washington. It was a so-called "downer" animal, meaning it was unable to walk
when it reached the slaughterhouse, which under USDA rules triggers automatic testing.

Although a link has not been scientifically proven, there is strong epidemiological
and laboratory data that a rare, degenerative, fatal brain disorder in humans called
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJ D) is tied to the consumption of BSE-contaminated
products (USDA Food Safety Information Service; accessed August 1, 2009). Since the
discovery of the first sick animal in 2003, Mad Cow disease has become a topic of

interest among US public and the media.

10

There are several similarities and differences between these three food scares.
Similarities include the fact that each gained extensive media attention during the past
two decades. There is also the concern with essential food items in the US diet such as
fruits, beef, corn and soybean. All three food scares generated political and ethical
concerns in the US that led to FDA regulations of varying degrees. Concerns about
chemical residues in food, genetically altered ingredients and Mad Cow Disease have
also crossed national boundaries and become global issues in the world food system.
There are also a number of differences between these food scares. For example, Alar and
GMF issues generate a sense of human intervention and control through our choice to
adopt these technologies, whereas Mad Cow Disease seems to be an outcome of natural
processes, therefore superseding human control. From the outset, ideas of prevention and
precaution seem to work better with GMF and Alar whereas curative measures seem to

be needed to avoid mad cow disease.

11

DATA AND METHODS

This study looked at articles published in US newspapers and wire services on
Alar from 1985 to 1995, Genetically Modified Foods from 1996 to 2000, and Mad Cow
Disease from 2001 to 2007. The decision to select these particular periods of coverage
for the study relate to three watershed events that gained media attention during these
three time periods: the release of NRDC report of 1989 in the case of Alar, the
introduction of GMF to the US market in 1996, and the discovery of the first sick animal
in a US farm in 2003 in the case of Mad Cow Disease. Each topic gained national
attention and made it to the front page of major national newspapers at least once during
the periods under review.

Using the Lexis-Nexis online database, I selected 100 newspaper and/or wire
service articles for each food scare within each time period for a total of 300 articles. The
sample consisted of newspaper articles from national, regional, and local newspapers as
well as wire services. Articles were chosen using a random digit generator, with
replacements for articles that did not fit the criteria of this study (such as an article that
discussed the public face of BSE but said nothing about the public and BSE). I searched
on the topics mentioned, with the word “public” for each time period and topic (Alar with
public, Genetically Modified Food with public, Mad Cow Disease with public). The
selection of the number of articles to code for each year was based on the total number of
articles that appeared during that year on a particular food scare (e. g., if 100 articles on
genetic engineering appeared in 1996 and 200 appeared in 1997, then twice as many

articles would be analyzed from 1997 than 1996).

12

Two individuals coded the articles. In order to generate inter-coder reliability, the
coders began by coding the same articles and used regular discussions and comparisons
of notes until the set of variables matched 85% of the time across the coding scheme.
After that, the coders worked independently unless questions arose during the coding
process. The coding instrument consisted of 12 variables ranging from newspaper type
(national, regional, local, wire service), year, length (small <500 words, medium 500-
1000 words, long >1000 words), front page (front page, not front page), author (in-house,
wire service, other), headline (positive, negative, neutral), section (national news, state/
local, editorial, living/health, business, other, unknown), quoted sources, portrayal of the
public and primary frames. The quoted sources included government officials, scientists,
popular personnel (celebrities and athletes), general public (quotes from parents, students,
community members, etc), other media sources (TV, intemet), industry,
environmentalists and other groups (economists, bankers, consumer groups,
communication experts).

In coding for media frames and frames used for portrayal of the public, one can
begin by developing pre-established frames, and then searching stories to see if they are
present or not, or by developing framing categories as one reads through the articles. I
used the later method in identification of main frames and the frames used for portrayal
of the public, which are discussed below.

This study presents the coverage in US newspapers and wire services related to
the three food scares mentioned above. It should be noted that Lexis-Nexis, while one of
the most widely used archives for research on media content, has some limitations.

According to Weaver and Bimber (2008), Lexis-Nexis typically ignores wire services

13

when searching for articles from specific newspapers — which is why we included wire
service reports — leading to concerns with reliability of article counts from newspapers.
The articles coded and subjected to the content analyses describe to a certain extent what
was available to the US public in newspapers for the past twenty-two years and shed

some light on how the public was portrayed in these reports.

14

RESULTS

Patterns of Media Reporting during Food Scares

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the three food scares being studied. All
issues made front page news at some point during the times under investigation, with
20% of the GMF stories being published on the front page, 17% of Alar, and 13% of Mad
Cow Disease. Front page news increases the salience of an issue and creates a sense of
urgency within the public by making such news the center-pieces that require more
public attention. The large number of unknowns in the Alar category stems from the wire
service articles which may have appeared in any section of a newspaper. It appears that
wire services played an important role in the coverage of all three food scares. Wire
service articles ranged from 41% for Alar, 33% for GMF to 20% for Mad Cow Disease.
Although wire service news does not generally reach the public in the same format, they
are frequently used by journalists especially in developing reports for regional and local
newspapers. In this sense, wire services affect the general newspaper coverage. It is
important to note that while many of these articles appeared in general news sections, a
considerably large number also appeared in business sections, indicating the economic
importance of these issues to both specific groups (e.g., Alar for apple farmers) and areas
(e. g., Mad Cow scare in Washington State). In fact, it was much more likely to find food
scare issues in the business section of newspapers than in health and living sections.
Most articles -- 84 % -- were short or medium in length and only 16% were considered to
be long (over 1000 words). Friedman (1991) argues that short articles tend to be
overwhelmingly event oriented and lack background information and in-depth analysis

that would provide context and better understanding for readers.

15

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics (Frequency)

 

Alar

GMF

Mad Cow (BSE)

 

Years — Total #
of articles

1986 —4 (1%)
1987 — 4 (1%)
1988 — 9 (2.2%)
1989 — 180 (45%)
1990 — 37 (9.2%)
1991 — 32 (8%)
1992 — 15 (3.7%)
1993 - 13 (3.2%)
1994— 15 (3.7%)
1995 — 2 (5%)
1996 — 21 (5.2%)
1997 — 14 (3.5%)
1998 — 15 (3.7%)
1999 — 17 (4.2%)
2000 — 4 (1%)
2001 — 4 (1%)
2002 — 3 (7%)
2003 — 2 (5%)
2004 — 4 (1%)
2005 —4 (1%)
2006 — 1 (25%)
2007 — o (0%)

1986 — 0 (0%)
1987— 1 (11%)
1988 — 0 (0%)

1989 — 0 (0%)

1990 — 0 (0%)
1991—1 (11%)
1992 — 12 (1.3%)
1993 — 7 (7%)
1994- 4 (4%)

1995 — 3 (3%)
1996 — 5 (5%)
1997— 17 (1.9%)
1998 — 15 (1.7%)
1999 — 167 (18.9%)
2000 — 213 (24.1%)
2001 — 128 (14.5%)
2002 — 78 (8.8%)
2003 — 78 (8.8%)
2004 — 50 (5.6%)
2005 — 40 (4.5%)
2006 — 34 (3.8%)
2007 — 32 (3.6%)

1986 — 0 (0%)
1987 — o (0%)

1988 — 0 (0%)

1989 — 0 (0%)

1990 — 2 (1%)
1991 — o (0%)

1992 — 0 (0%)

1993 —0 (0%)

1994 — 2 (1%)
1995 — 2 (1%)
1996 — 123 (9.2%)
1997 — 59 (4.4%)
1998 — 48 (3.6%)
1999 — 34 (2.6%)
2000 — 85 (6.4%)
2001 — 176 (13.3%)
2002 — 70 (5.3%)
2003 — 141 (10.6%)
2004 — 375 (28.3%)
2005 — 138 (10.4%)
2006 — 56 (4.2%)
2007 — 13 (98%)

 

Years - # of
articles coded

1986— 1 (1%)
1987— 1 (1%)
1988—3 (3%)
1989—58 (58%)
1990—12(12%)
1991 — 1o (10%)
1992—55 (55%)
1993—4(4%)
1994—5 (5%)
1995-10%)

1996 — 1 (1%)
1997 — 4 (4%)
1998 — 4 (4%)
1999 — 39 (39%)
2000 — 52 (52%)

2001 — 18 (18%)
2002 — 7 (7%)
2003 — 15 (15%)
2004 — 39 (39%)
2005 — 12 (12%)
2006 - 7 (7%)
2007 — 2 (2%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Front page 17 (17%) 20 (20%) 13 (13%)

Length Small 33 (33%) Small 36 (36%) Small 44 (44%)
Medium 48 (48%) Medium 45 (45%) Medium 46 (46%)
Long 19 (19%) Long 19 (19%) Long 10 (10%)

Wire service 41 (41%) 33 (33%) 20 (20%)

articles

Section National News 14 National News 7 National News 3
(14%) (7%) (3%)
State/Local 7 (7%) State/Local 24 (24%) State/Local 3 (22%)
Editorial 15 (15%) Editorial 4 (4%) Editorial 12 (12%)

 

 

Table 1 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alar GMF Mad Cow (BSE)
Section Living/Health 11 (11%) Living/Health 7 (7%) Living/Health 2 (2%)
Business 18 (18%) Business 16 (16%) Business 14 ( 14%)
Other 2 (2%) Other 25 (25%) Other 32 (32%)
Unknown 33 (33%) Unknown 17 (17%) Unknown 15 (15%)

 

Figure 1,2 and 3 below presents the total number of articles published for Alar,
GMF and Mad cow disease during the time period under consideration for this study.
Both Alar and Mad Cow coverage seem to follow a typical media cycle where these
issues had few articles prior to a major event, then a clump of articles around a specific
event (Ex: NRDC report of 1989 in the case of Alar, discovery of the first sick cow in
Washington state in 2003 in the case of BSE), and just a few after those events (e.g., Ten
Eyck 2000). The Mad Cow news cycle also shows several peaks in coverage prior to the
2003 occurrence of the disease in US. These peaks parallel the discovery and attention
given to this disease in UK between 1994 and 2003 (Washer 2006).

These media cycles can be explained by the issue-attention cycle theorized by
Downs (1972). Downs argued that public attention to issues characteristically passes
through five stages: (a) a pre-problem stage leads to a (b) period of alarmed discovery
associated with specific problems or hazards. This period is accompanied by euphoric
enthusiasm mustered to solve the problem in a relatively short period of time. Then (c)
the public realizes the cost of making significant progress, and this stage is followed by
(d) a gradual decline of intense public interest. This decline leads to (e) the post-problem
phase in which attention toward the issue settles down (McComas and Shanahan
1999231). In accordance with the issue-attention cycle, both Alar and Mad Cow coverage
seem to have followed a cyclical pattern. However, we noticed that although GMF

coverage seems to follow the typical media cycle to a certain extent, the coverage

17

 

continues at a higher steady rate. The large number of articles that appeared in 1999/2000
may be a result of the high amount of political debate surrounding the release of an
international trade agreement for labeling of GMF in January 2000. More than 130
countries, including the US, signed this agreement (vwvwcsacom; accessed October 17,
2009).

Another important pattern of media coverage was found by analyzing the number
of quoted sources in each story. I coded up to three quoted sources per article (for a total
of 484 quoted sources). Reflecting the short length of most stories, only one source was
quoted in 35.3 % of the coverage. Two sources were quoted in 15.6% of the articles and
20.3% used three quoted sources. Nearly 25% of the articles used more than three quoted
sources (Table 2). The reader is cautioned not to confuse the most quoted source with the
most covered source, since coverage includes more factors than just being quoted
(Friedman 1991). Having made this distinction, Table 2 and 3 should be depicted only as

a summary of the most quoted sources.

100 150 200
l I

Number of articles

50
l

 

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Figure 1: Frequency of Articles on Alar between 1985 and 1995

100 150 200
l l 1

number of articles

50
l

 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 2: Frequency of Articles on GMF between 1996 and 2007

83
V

200 300
1 I

Number of articles

100
l

 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3: Frequency of Articles on BSE between 2001 and 2007

19

Table 3 suggests that the most quoted source for all three food scares was
government officials. This category included policy makers, regulators and public service
officials in various US health and agriculture agencies such as the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the EPA.
The second most quoted source for Alar and GMF were scientists. Priest and Teneyck
(2003) state that recent surveys have shown that the US public tends to rate scientists as
highly trustworthy. In addition, Priest and Teneyck (2003) argue that many people in the
US only hear from scientists when they are quoted in the news, once again highlighting
the importance of taking into consideration the sources used by news stories when
analyzing media content. I noticed a high number of popular individuals (celebrities,
athletes, etc) being quoted during the Alar scare perhaps indicating the massive
publication campaigns launched by the NRDC, such as the enlistment of actress Meryl
Streep and other celebrities to publicize the formation of ‘Mothers and Others for
Pesticide Limits’ (Friedman 1991). The second highest quoted source for both Alar and
GMF were the scientists. This is understandable due to the ongoing debates of scientific
controversies and risk measures related to the use of Alar on apples and safety of GM
food for human consumption. Note that as far as Mad Cow Disease was concerned, the
second highest quoted source was the beef industry. This should come as no surprise due
to how the food scare affected the US beef market both domestically and internationally.
The idea that most newspaper stories quote government officials and scientists may relate
to the fact that few if any of the other groups (general public, environmentalists, industry,
bankers, economists) share the same amount of media spotlight as government officials

and scientists (Priest and Teneyck 2003).

20

A study of the sources quoted by media is also helpful in understanding media

norms and practices in the United States- particularly the balance norm which favors

bringing to the fore certain rivals to official messages and frames. In news stories,

interpretation is generally provided through quotations, and balance is provided by

quoting some spokesperson with a competing viewpoints (Gamson and Modigliani

1989). The fact that I observed a high number of articles (25%) having more than 3

quoted sources may relate to this media norm where a sense of balance in reporting is

created through bringing in different points of view from different sources.

Table 2: Number of quoted sources per article

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of quoted sources per article Frequency
No quoted sources 11 (3.6%)

1 106 (35.3 %)

2 47 (15.6%)

3 61 (20.3%)

>3 75 (25%)
Table 3: Most Quoted Sources in Articles by Food Scare (Some articles had more than
one source)
N= Number of Times uoted (%)

Source Quoted Alar GMF Mad Cow (BSE)
Government officials 52 (31.7%) 38 (22.9%) 54 (35.1%)
Scientists 30 (18.3%) 30 (18.1%) 16 (10.4%)
Popular personnel 24 (14.6%) 20 (12.05%) 16 (10.4%)
General public 8 (4.9%) 20 (12.05%) 26 (16.9%)
Other media sources 20 (12.2%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (1.3%)
Industry 18 (10.9%) 30 (18.7%) 36 (23.4%)
Environmental 6 (3.6%) 16 (9.6%) 0 (0%)
groups
Other 4 (2.44%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (1.3%)
No sources quotes 2 (1.2%) 6 (3.6%) 2 (1.3%)
Total quotes 164 166 l 54

 

 

 

 

The discussion to this point has highlighted the fact that newspaper coverage of

the three selected food scares followed typical patterns of media coverage as explained

 

by the issue-attention cycles, coverage in front page news, the length of the stories
published, and the sources quoted. It is also interesting to note how these food scares
appeared at a higher frequency in the business section of newspapers indicating their
economic implications for various social actors and organizations.
Frame Analysis: Primary Frames

An analysis of the media framing of the food scares based on the conceptualizations
of Goffman (1974), and Gamson and Modigliani (1989) moves me toward answering the
second research question of this study: identification of the main frames used in
newspaper coverage of the three food scares. This part of the analysis resulted in
identification of four major frames within the articles.

1. Public accountability frame — Indicated that some entity needed to be
responsible to the public, either in terms of protecting them from tainted food or
providing reassurances to them.

2. Economic frame — Indicated that food scares cause considerable economic
impacts and affect the industries negatively.

3. Medical/ Scientific frame — Indicated resolutions based on science and
technology, advances made in detection technologies and public health issues.

4. Ethical/ Religious frame - Indicated how novel food technologies go against the
rules of nature, affect moral and religious beliefs, put poor minority groups and
people of developing countries at a disadvantage due to the lack of new
technologies, and other moral and ethical concerns.

To further illustrate my reading of the news stories to determine their predominant

frames, let me now turn to some examples for each major frame.

In an article appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) on November 28,
2000, the following was said about GMF and food biotechnology.

Saying his company had been "blinded by enthusiasm," Monsanto

president and chief executive Hendrik Verfaillie on Monday promised a
new era of open dealings and dialogue with skeptics of biotechnology.

"We missed the fact that this technology raises major issues for people --
issues of ethics, of choice, of trust, even of democracy and globalization,"
Verfaillie said, speaking at a Farm Journal conference in Washington.

22

Verfaillie said his company was committed to developing global standards

for biotech foods. For now, he said, Monsanto intends to bring new,

modified crops to the market in the United States only after they have

received approval in the United States and Japan...

The public accountability frame is found in the indication that Monsanto needed to be
responsible to the public in terms of protecting them from tainted food or providing
reassurances to them that such food items will not be introduced to the market without
rigorous testing and approval both in the US and Japan. This kind of accountability is
supposed to reassure the public that big business is on their side.

Another article that appeared in an UPI (United Press International) release on
December 24, 2003 argued that Mad Cow scare will negatively affect the beef industry
and cost billions of dollars in losses.

Cattlemen are nervous about how the public will react to the suspected

case of mad cow disease, but spokesmen for beef producers said

Wednesday it is still too early to really gauge what impact it might have
on the $175 billion beef industry.

The "presumptive" report of the disease in a Washington state dairy cow
has already caused at least 12 nations to temporarily halt imports of US.
beef. Exports total about $3.2 billion a year, but they are only about 10
percent of the nation's total production.

Most US. beef is consumed in this country, and industry leaders say what
further impact the report of mad cow has will depend on the findings of

the US. Department of Agriculture, which only uncovered the diseased
cow on F riday.. ..

This article was coded as having an economic frame due to its overall organization
around the idea of how Mad Cow Disease may affect the beef industry. The concern was
not with the welfare of the public, but the feasibility of the cattle industry to withstand an

attack around a potentially devastating foodbome illness.

23

On July 21, 1992, the Chicago Sun-Times used the opinion of a researcher to
point out that the Alar scare was overblown and was not based on accurate scientific
evidence or risk estimates. This article was coded as having a scientific/medical frame,
as the main point is that science is needed to understand the real risks associated with
food concerns.

Prof. Thomas J ukes, an award-winning researcher on cancer
chemotherapy who serves as a consultant to the California State Advisory
Committee on Cancer, calls the Alar scare "one of the most outrageous
abuses of the public trust I have ever seen," noting that only 5 percent to
10 percent of all apples were produced with Alar and that of those tested,
the highest concentration found was 1/401h the EPA safe limit.

"The irony of this," Dr. Jukes says, "is that apples raised without
pesticides generally show up to 45 parts per million of patulin," a natural
carcinogen. . ..

An article published on December 6, 1999 in the San-Diego Union Tribune was
coded as having an ethical/religious frame due to its overall construction of the issue of
GMF around the idea of changing the natural order of things and meddling with the
‘universe of new traits’ though it is important to notice the juxtaposition with science.

[T]he biotechnology industry argues that no special testing or labeling is
required because genetic engineering is no different from traditional plant
breeding, which dates back centuries. The FDA hearings, however,
produced deep disagreement on the point.

A spokesperson of the Environmental Defense Fund, described the
difference as follows: "There is an unlimited universe of genes that can be
introduced into genetically engineered plants that make it different from
conventional plant breeding." Traditional breeding, she said, means you
can "breed a potato with a different kind of potato, say a wild potato.
Genetic engineering means you can breed a potato with a fish, or a
chicken, a moth, bacterium or virus. This universe of new traits changes
the food, and that merits regulation in a way traditional methods do not."
The biotechnology industry is wrong to argue that its work doesn't
represent something radically new and different and doesn't require special
testing and labeling.

24

Using this approach to understanding and analyzing frames, Table 4 provides the
percentages of the articles published on the three food scares based on their major frames.
The predominant frame for all three issues was the public accountability frame, as many
of the articles presented the idea that some entity needs to be responsible to the public,
either in terms of protecting them from tainted food or providing reassurances to them.
The fact that most media reports on these food safety issues used public accountability as
a major frame may be a key in showing that the public was not thought to be in control of
the situation. Although consumers have the ability to change their behaviors (stop buying
the product being discussed), reporters were quick to frame the public as needing
protection, followed by concerns with economic ramifications as shown by the high
percentages of articles that used an economic frame.

Notice that for Alar and GMF ethical concerns were more frequent than medical
ones, while this was reversed for Mad Cow Disease. This may be a key to understanding
that journalists saw the appearance of Alar and GMF as stemming from voluntary,
conscious decisions on the part of farmers and scientists (for GMF), while everyone was
trying to avoid Mad Cow Disease — a disease that would spread among cattle without
people knowing it. Slovic (1989) argued that people are more willing to accept voluntary
risks than involuntarily imposed risks which would be the difference between Alar (“the
farmers could stop using Alar”) and GMF (“farmers could just keep growing traditional
crops”) and Mad Cow Disease (“it is a disease that appears unknown to us”). This is not
to say that these attitudes are correct, but possibly to indicate why these stories were

covered and framed in different ways.

25

Table 4; Percentage of articles by Frame

 

 

 

 

 

Frame Alar GMF Mad Cow (BSE)
Public accountability 66% 52% 51%

Economic/ Business 22% 25% 28%

Ethical/ Religious 1 1% 19% 6%

Medical/ Scientific 1% 4% 15%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Framing the Public

Tables 5 and 6 contain the portrayals of the public during the three food scares.
As mentioned previously, how the public is portrayed during food scares could tell us
something about the perceived role of consumers among those making decisions about
the food supply. In this section of the analysis, I coded up to three portrayals per article
(for a total of 603 portrayals), with the top two portrayals being that the public was
concerned (21.9%) and in need of protection (1 8.6%). This was followed by being
scared (15.4%), outraged (13.8%), and misled (7.4%). In the Alar situation (16]
portrayals coded) the foremost concern with the public was that public needed to be
protected (27.3%). This was the fourth most used portrayal with genetically modified
foods (11.7%), and the second with Mad Cow (19.0%). The major concern with GMF
(222 portrayals coded) and Mad Cow (220 portrayals) was‘ that the public was concerned
(22.9% and 24.5%, respectively). Public concern for Alar ranked third (16.7%), behind
needing protection and being scared. In all three cases, the public is rarely considered

knowledgeable or optimistic.

26

Table 5: Portrayals of the Public (up to three codes per article)

 

Portrayals

N (% of total portrayals)

 

The public is concerned

132 (21.9%)

 

The public needsyrotection

112(18.6%)

 

The public is scared

93 (15.4%)

 

The public is outraged

83 (13.8%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The public has been misled 45 (7.4%)
The public is idealistic 38 (6.3%)
The public is ignorant 36 (6.0%)
The public is vulnerable 26 (4.3%)
The public is knowledgeable 20 (3.3%)
The public is optimistic 18 (3.0%)

 

Table 6: Portrayals of the Public (up to three codes per article) by Food scare

 

N (% of total portrayals)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alar GMF Mad Cow (BSE)
The public is concerned 27 (16.7%) 51 (22.9%) 54 (24.5%)
The public needs protection 44 (27.3%) 26 (11.7%) 42 (19.0%)
The public is scared 28 (17.4%) 28 (12.6%) 37 (16.8%)
The public is outraged 23 (14.3%) 39 (17.6%) 21 (9.5%)
The public has been misled 26 (16.1%) 13 (5.8%) 7 (3.2%)
The public is idealistic l (0.6%) 19 (8.5%) 17 (7.7%)
The public is ignorant 6 (0.6%) 18 (8.1%) 12 (5.4%)
The public is vulnerable 3 (1.8%) 10 (4.5%) 13 (5.9%)
The public is knowledgeable 3 (1.8%) 11 (4.9%) 6 (2.7%)
The public is optimistic 0 (0%) 7 (3.1%) 11 (5%)
Total 161 222 220

 

 

 

Since this study analyzed three food scares over the time period of 1985 to 2007,

the analysis also helps in explaining the general trend over time on how the public was

being portrayed during food scares. Between 1985 and 1995 during the Alar scare, the

highest number of articles portrayed the public as a group that needed to be protected

(27.3% of the total portrayals). However from 1996 to 2000 and 2000 to 2007, during the

GMF and BSE scares, the predominant public portrayal changed from ‘need to be

protected’ to a ‘public that is concerned’ as reflected by the public portrayal percentages

22.9% and 24.5% for GMF and BSE respectively. Therefore, the trend over time seems

27

 

 

to be a movement from protecting the public to a public that is concerned (though
protection remains an important component of the reporting). This could possibly be
understood as a change in journalistic practices, or at least focus. With more and more
food scares being covered and reported, it is no longer necessary to say the public is at
risk; they know that. Instead, reporters are discussing what it is about each specific food.
scare that the public should be concerned about.
Textual Analysis

To explain media framing further, I turn to an analysis of the framing devices
used in media narratives. Gamson and Modigliani (1989) established a media analysis
matrix structured around five framing devices (metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases,
depictions, and visual icons) and three reasoning devices (causal analysis, consequences
or effects, and appeal to principles such as moral or ethical claims). Based on this matrix
I conducted a preliminary textual analysis of ten randomly selected news stories each per
food scare for a total of 30 stories. The news stories were carefully read for identification
of framing devices. Table 7 summarizes the framing devices identified for the three food
scares based on the textual analysis.

In stories with the scientific/medical frame, I found that the coverage emphasized

93 “

the positive, with words such as “technological revolution, gene revolution,” and
“promising technology” often being used to describe scientific and medical research.
However, the news stories with ethical/religious frames consisted of framing devices that

9, 6‘

had overwhelmingly negative connotations such as “controversy, greatest risk,” and
“high-flying panic.” Therefore, the results of the study indicate that the prevailing tone in

the coverage of US newspapers was somewhat optimistic and slanted towards

28

highlighting the positive aspects in stories of scientific discovery, medical achievements,

and technology. However, there were other stories such as those with ethical/religious

frames that utilized framing elements that had negative connotations. Therefore, in

accordance with Gamson et al.’s (1992) contention that the media are multivalent, we can

argue that the larger stories of food scares take into account a number of different views.

Table 7: Examples of Framing Devices Used in Media Narratives

 

 

 

Metaphors Catchphrases Depictions
Alar Poisoned apples Pesticide We are healthiest
Alar scare = controversy we have been in
Witchcraft scare Cancer causing human history
GMF Frankenstein food Playing God, Increased farm
Gene-spliced food Technological productivity,
revolution, Gene Ground breaking
revolution, technology, end
Storm of outrage, world hunger
Thrusting products
down people’s
throats

 

Mad Cow Disease
(BSE)

 

 

Mad cows
Downers

 

Animals will be
buried on farm
High-flying panic
Cross species
outbreak

 

The greatest risk of
new and emerging
diseases we face
today

 

29

 

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Any perceived threat to public health is likely to be regarded as potentially
newsworthy by journalists. In this context, food scares make for good headlines and
copy, with the hope that a well-written article that scares people about their food will
increase sales of the newspaper (or the audience of radio and television stations). The
mere hint of controversy is likely to attract the attention of a wide array of pertinent
stakeholders, each with their own media agendas to pursue (Allan 2002). As such, the
media may contribute substantially to societal debates and discussions about managing
food scares. In this paper we focused on persistent patterns of media reports, main
framing elements used by media during food scares, as well as how the media presented
the public in three different food scares.

From the content analysis I learned that many articles appeared in the business
section of the newspapers perhaps due to the framing used by the media to highlight the
economic importance of the issues being discussed. Most articles were short or medium
in length, and only about a quarter of the stories were long. All three coverages —Alar,
GMF, BSE- seemed to follow a typical media issue-attention cycle. We also observed a
consistent pattern in the number of sources quoted in each story. Reflecting their short
length, most stories quoted only one source. The predominantly quoted source for all
three food scares was government officials. This may be linked to news organizations’
accessibility to government officials through regular news conferences that are held by
government institutions such as the FDA and USDA to educate and inform the public

through creating media awareness.

30

As stated by Friedman (1991), heavy coverage of government and establishment
officials, extensive use of wire services, and primarily short articles with little depth has
now become a typical pattern of media reporting of risk issues, despite a great deal of
criticism about it from media scholars. The present study has discovered similar patterns
of media coverage in the context of food scares discourse in US.

Through our frame analysis I identified four main frames that ran through the
stories on all three food scares -- a public accountability frame, ethical/religious frame,
economic frame and medical/scientific frame. In news reports, a predominant number of
articles were framed around public accountability. This was a way of portraying the
public as a segment that was in need of protection and reassurance. I also learned that the
major public portrayal differed for the three food scares. In the case of Alar, the public
was portrayed as needing protection, while for GMF and Mad Cow Disease the public
was portrayed as concerned. Another common trend that was identified throughout the
analysis of public portrayal was that newspapers used predominantly negative
connotations such as being concerned, scared or outraged to describe the public rather
than knowledgeable and/or optimistic.

I also identified that the coverage often overemphasized the positive aspects in
stories using the scientific/medical frame. However, the news stories with a
predominantly ethical/religious frame consisted of framing devices that had
overwhelmingly negative connotations. So, while the news was slanted towards positive
aspects of technology, there were stories that showed the other side of various issues.

Stemming from the findings of this study I argue that framing as defined by

Goffman (1974), and Gamson and Modigliani (1989) is a useful tool to identify core

31

organizational elements of newspaper articles and to categorize news reports based on
their framing practices. Within each story there are interpretive keys given to the readers
for understanding the ways in which the story should be read. This study also points out
the relevance of the typical media issue-attention cycle that operates within media
discourse and public perception — little attention is given to a topic before or after a major
event

Overall, this study highlights that there are persistent patterns of media reporting
that follow food scares similar to other environmental and health hazards that have been
reported by others (Friedman 1991). Furthermore, the study employs frame analysis as a
useful tool through which these patterns can be studied. However, there are some
important limitations in the study that needs to be taken into consideration.

I have only made a preliminary attempt at determining some of the framing
devices such as metaphors and catch phrases that media discourse utilized in the event of
food scares. Further analysis using a larger sample that looks at both framing devices
(metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, depictions, and visual icons) and reasoning devices
(causal analysis, consequences or effects, and appeal to principles such as moral or
ethical claims) may help to identify other patterns of framing (Gamson and Modigliani
1989). These are important considerations in determining the landscape through which
readers must be able to navigate.

In trying to identify trends I was able to get a general sense of how the public is
portrayed over time during issues of food scares. However, this study fails to explain
trends between and in comparison to each specific food scare as we looked at three

different food scares in three non-overlapping time periods.

32

Entman (1993) argues that to frame is to select some aspect of a perceived reality
and make them more salient in a communication text in a way that affects public
interpretation of what the topic is and its related issues are. Accordingly, it will be
interesting to conduct a further study that relates media framing to public perception
during the three food scares to get a sense of how media framing affects actual public
perception. This study can also benefit from exploring how media frames relate to or
affect other forms of framing such as collective action frames.

In conclusion, this study identified overall patterns of media reporting, major
frames of reporting during food scares and the frames used to portray the public when
faced with a food scare. Hence, the paper contributes to existing literature by explaining
the process of media ‘story-telling’ about food scares. By studying how the media frame
food scares and the public, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding on
how these topics have been presented to the reading audience, and how they have played

out in the public arena in both political and social terms.

33

REFERENCES

34

REFERENCES

Allan, Stuart (2002). Media, Risk and Science. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Beardsworth, A. and T. Keil. 1997. Sociology on the Menu. London: Routledge.
Brossard, D., J. Shanahan and TC. Nesbitt, editors. 2007. The Public, the Media and
Agricultural Biotechnology. UK: Biddles.

CSA Discovery Guides. Retrieved October 17, 2009
(http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php)

Entrnan, RM. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
communication 43 :5 1 —58.

Freidman, S. 1991. Alar and Apples: Newspaper Coverage of a Major Risk Issue. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in J oumalism and
Mass Communication (Boston, MA).

F rewer, Lynn 2000. Risk Perception and Risk Communication about Food Safety Issues.
British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin 25:31-33.

Food Marketing Institute. Retrieved October 17,2009
(http://www.fmi.org).

Gamson, W. A. and Andre Modigliani. 1989. Media Discourse and Public Opinion on
Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology 95:1-37.

Gamson, William A., David Croteau, William Hoynes, and Theodore Sasson. 1992.
"Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality." Annual Review of Sociology
18:373-393.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.

International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Retrieved August 20,
2009(http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/3 9/executivesummary/defaultht
ml).

McComas, K. and James Shanahan (1999). Telling Stories about Global Climate Change:
Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research 26: 30-
57.

Nisbet, MC. and M. Huge 2007. “Where do Science Debates come From?
Understanding Attention cycles and Framing.” Pp 193-230 in The Public, the Media and
Agricultural Biotechnology, edited by D. Brossard, J. Shanahan and TC. Nesbitt. UK:
Biddles.

35

Priest, SH. 1994. Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology: Media Frames and Public
Response 16:166-179.

Priest, SH. and Toby Teneyck (2003). News Coverage of Biotechnology Debates.
Society 40 (6):29-34.

Reis, R. (2008). How Brazilian and North American Newspapers Frame Stem Cell
Research. Science Communication 29:3 1 6-3 34.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perceptions of Risk. Science 236:280-285.

Stewars, RA. and William P. McLean (2005). Public Opinion toward the First, Second
and Third generation of Plant Biotechnology. In Vitro Cellular Development Biology 41:
718- 724.

Ten Eyck, Toby A. 2000. “The Marginalization of Food Safety Issues: An
interpretative approach to popular mass media coverage.” Journal of Applied
Communication 84:29-47.

Ten Eyck, Toby A. and Melissa Williment. 2003. The National Media and Things
Genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Times
(1977-2001). Science Communication 25:129-152.

Ten Eyck, Toby A. and Melissa Williment. 2004. “The More Things Change . . . : Milk
pasteurization, food irradiation, and biotechnology in the New York Times.” The Social
Science Journal 41 229-41 .

US. Food Safety and inspection Service. Retrieved August 1, 2009
(http ://www. fsis.usda. gov/Fact_Sheets/Bovine_S pongiform_Encephalopathy_Mad_Cow
_Disease/index.asp).

Washer, P. 2006. “Representations of Mad Cow Disease.” Social Science and Medicine
62: 457-466.

Weaver, David A. and Bruce Bimber. 2008. “Finding News Stories: A comparison of
searches using LexisNexis and Google News.” Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly 85(3):515-530.

Zwaneneberg, RV. and Eirk Millstone. 2005. BSE: Risk, Science and Governance. UK:
Oxford University Press.

36

 

illlllllllililll“

63 4491

   

"llllljllllijllljlljljlfl