Framing local: an analysis of framing strategies for genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives in the northeastern U.S

Velardi, Sara; Selfa, Theresa

doi:10.1080/21683565.2020.1818159

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the USDA Organic label, approved in 2002, excludes GMOs, the label does not explicitly state it is non-GMO, and many consumers are not aware of the exclusion. In response to environmental and consumer advocacy group pressure, federal GMO labeling legislation was introduced in Congress 6 times between 1999 and 2011 but never had sufficient support to pass (Pechlaner, 2020;Velardi and Selfa, 2021). Between 2002 and 2014, citizen-led ballot initiatives for GMO labeling were advanced in several states.…”

Section: Background: State and Nonstate Governance Of Geaf In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Led by the Grocery Manufacturers' Association (GMA), food companies, such as Nestle and Kraft, together with seed, chemical, and biotech companies, spent tens of millions of dollars in a well-orchestrated campaign to defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives in several states (Bain and Dandachi, 2014). Labeling ballot measures during this period failed by relatively narrow margins until the state of Vermont successfully passed a GMO labeling bill in 2014 (Velardi and Selfa, 2021).…”

Section: Background: State and Nonstate Governance Of Geaf In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A key governance tension in many interviews centered on whether GEAF food products should be labeled, and if so, how labeling should be organized. U.S. consumers were relatively ambivalent about GMO labels on food products until labeling initiatives and social movements started gaining traction around 2010 (Velardi & Selfa, 2021). The NBFDS mandates that bioengineered food sold on the U.S. market will require a label, but the standard's narrow definition of "bioengineered" does not include most gene-edited plants currently in development.…”

Section: Art 9(1) Page 6 Of 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Selfa

Lindberg

Bain

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biotechnologies in agriculture and food are increasingly governed by both state and nonstate actors. In this article, we explore emerging tensions and contestations in the United States over how gene-editing technologies in agriculture and food should be governed and by whom. This article is framed theoretically by the literatures examining the politics of state and nonstate governance of the agrifood and biotechnology sectors. We draw on semistructured interviews with 45 key actors in the United States, including representatives of regulatory agencies, commodity groups, consumer and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), biotechnology and food industry, and scientists. In contrast to assumptions that commodity group and industry actors would share a preference for limited or self-regulation, we find growing contestations, with some calling for novel forms of regulatory oversight. Our findings reveal new tensions, fractures, and realignments between and among government, industry, and NGOs actors over gene-editing governance. These tensions and realignments reflect and respond to demands for broader engagement of publics and greater transparency in the governance of biotechnologies in agriculture and food. We argue that these emerging tensions and realignments between and among state and nonstate actors reflect efforts by these actors to incorporate lessons from the genetically modified organism labeling fight as they seek to (re)shape the governance of gene editing in a manner that reflects their interests.

show abstract

Section: Background: State and Nonstate Governance Of Geaf In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background: State and Nonstate Governance Of Geaf In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Art 9(1) Page 6 Of 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Selfa

Lindberg

Bain

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The passage of this law can be attributed to a culmination of grassroots mandatory GMO labeling movements that occurred across the US beginning in the early 2010s. Around 2012, multiple states including California, Washington, Connecticut and Vermont began to introduce ballot initiatives and legislation to require labeling of GMOs (Bain and Dandachi, 2014; Velardi and Selfa, 2021). Labeling proponents contended that due to increased social, environmental and human health risks with the consumption of GMOs, GMOs should be labeled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Labeling proponents contended that due to increased social, environmental and human health risks with the consumption of GMOs, GMOs should be labeled. A prominent message that emerged from these labeling movements was the consumers' ‘right to know’ what they were eating when it came to the consumption of genetically modified foods (Velardi and Selfa, 2021). Most ballot initiatives and legislation failed to pass with the exception of Vermont's labeling law which passed in 2014 and went into effect in 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of genetically modified and bioengineered organisms and corresponding food labels among undergraduate students at Binghamton University

Marcus

Velardi

2022

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In January 2020, the United States implemented a federal bioengineered labeling standard for food products that contain genetically modified material set to go into effect in January 2022. This bioengineered label indicates which products contain detectable levels of genetic material that have been modified through lab techniques that cannot be achieved in nature. An already existing alternative to the bioengineered label is the Non-GMO Project verified label which has been on the market since 2007, and indicates products free of genetically modified material through lab techniques. As consumers are now confronted with multiple labels pertaining to information related to genetic engineering, it is important to understand how people interpret these labels as it can lead to a greater understanding of how they inform consumer choice. We conducted a survey with 153 biology and environmental studies undergraduate students at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York, asking questions about participants' views on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and related terminology, corresponding food labels and how these labels influence their purchasing decisions. Results demonstrated a lack of awareness of the bioengineered label compared to the Non-GMO Project verified label. Additionally, individuals associated ‘bioengineered’ and ‘genetically modified’ with differing themes, where ‘bioengineered’ was more often associated with a scientific theme and ‘genetically modified’ was more often associated with an agricultural theme. There was also a discrepancy in how individuals said these labels influenced their purchases vs how the labels actually influenced purchasing decisions when participating in choice experiments. While the majority of participants reported that neither the Non-GMO Project verified label nor the bioengineered label influenced their purchasing decisions, in choice experiments, the majority of respondents chose products with the Non-GMO Project verified label. This study can give insight into overall perceptions of different terminologies associated with genetic engineering, in addition to how these labels are interpreted by consumers, and how they could affect purchasing decisions with the implementation of the new bioengineered label.

show abstract

Biotechnology activism is dead; long live biotechnology activism! The lure and legacy of market-based food movement strategies

Pechlaner

2023

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly debate over the transformative potential of neoliberal, market-based, food movement strategies historically contrasts those who value their potential to reform the food-system from the inside against those who argue that their use concedes the primacy of the market, creates citizen-consumers, and undermines overall movement goals. While narrow case studies have provided important amendments, the legacy of such strategies requires impacts to be evaluated both contextually and more broadly than the specific activism. This study thus conceptualizes the ‘case’ of U.S. biotechnology market activism expansively, drawing on interviews with 25 activists from diverse organizations to investigate the legacy of two food-labeling movement strategies (one public and mandatory, one private and voluntary). The results support that the legacy of market strategies extends more broadly than the immediate initiative. They also confirm that the consequences of such neoliberalized strategies are most productively assessed contextually and applied, rather than categorically—as most clearly illustrated by the counterintuitive results of the failed mandatory labeling effort. Of the two market strategies, voluntary labeling demonstrated the most problematic relationship to broader movement goals of food system transformation, in part because of the greater potential for overlapping credence claims and in part due to the risks of niche market logic.

show abstract

Framing local: an analysis of framing strategies for genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives in the northeastern U.S

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Perceptions of genetically modified and bioengineered organisms and corresponding food labels among undergraduate students at Binghamton University

Biotechnology activism is dead; long live biotechnology activism! The lure and legacy of market-based food movement strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About