Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling

Abstract

New techniques in genome editing have led to a controversial debate about the opportunities and uncertainties they present for agricultural food production and consumption. In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union defined genome editing as a new process of mutagenesis, which implies that the resulting organisms count as genetically modified and are subject, in principle, to the obligations of EU Directive 2001/18/EG. This paper examines how key protagonists from academia, politics, and the economy strategically framed the debate around genome editing in agriculture in Germany prior to its legal classification by the Court of Justice. It is based on an analysis of 96 official statements, including position papers, press releases, and information brochures. Our study reveals eight strategic frames used in the discourse on genome editing and uncovers the strategies used to disconnect from or connect with the previous discourse on green genetic engineering in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Building on competitive framing theory, the study provides explanations for the use and emergence of counter-framing strategies and their success or failure in the debate around genome editing.

Communicating about plant breeding and genome editing in plants: Assessment of European stakeholders, sources, channels and content

“…A safety‐related debate on genome editing seems to be primarily demanded by environmental and consumer organisations, which corresponds with the findings of Siebert et al (2021) that risk‐related statements are most frequently used by plant genome editing critical stakeholders in Germany. However, communication about safety‐related aspects does not necessarily imply that this is a consequence of a risk‐focused approach.…”

“…This precautionary approach states that ‘Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost‐effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’ (General Assembly, 1992). Based on a content analysis of position papers and press releases of German discourse stakeholders, Siebert et al (2021) describe two major strategic frames used by proponents and opponents of regulation. The latter warn that the use of genome editing in agriculture would pose an inestimable risk, due to ‘unknown uncertainties’, and the former highlight the view that there is a lack of public trust in scientific results.…”

Regulating gene editing in agriculture and food in the European Union: Disentangling expectations and path dependencies

“…For example, a study by Siebert et al. (2022) analyses the strategic framing of GEAF in Germany leading up to the ECJ ruling. Several of these frames also appear in the 2021 EU Commission report concluding that the GMO Directive is not fit for regulating new genomic techniques such as gene editing.…”

“…Sociological studies often examine the dynamics of persuasion techniques and messaging but overlook important temporal factors (Beckert, 2016). For example, a study by Siebert et al (2022) analyses the strategic framing of GEAF in Germany leading up to the ECJ ruling. Several of these frames also appear in the 2021 EU Commission report concluding that the GMO Directive is not fit for regulating new genomic techniques such as gene editing.…”

Highly sensitive and quick in ovo sexing of domestic chicken eggs by two-wavelength fluorescence spectroscopy

“…Laying hens that develop from these embryos as well as the eggs they lay are not genetically modified. However, methods that allow the identification of female and male embryos by means of genetic engineering are publicly criticized and will probably not be used due to a lack of consumer acceptance, at least in Western European countries [ 6 ].…”