Advertisement

Theory and Society

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 477–507 | Cite as

Genetically modified food in France: symbolic transformation and the policy paradigm shift

  • Kyoko SatoEmail author
Article

Abstract

The priorities of French policy regarding genetically modified (GM) food shifted in the late 1990s from aggressive promotion to strict regulation based on precaution and separation of GM food. This paradigmatic policy change coincided with a rapid shift in the dominant meanings of GM food in larger French public discourses. Using data from media coverage, organizational documents, and in-depth interviews, the study examines the relationship between policy developments and GM food’s symbolic transformation. I argue that the interpretive dimension interacted with and co-evolved incrementally with formal policy developments, and that it cannot be understood as epiphenomenal to political processes, or as preceding and propelling a policy change. I identify three mechanisms of symbolic transformation: (1) multiplication of meanings; (2) association with other salient issues; and (3) coupling with national identity (boundary work). Conversely, this symbolic transformation influenced the terms of political debates and viable strategies, influencing policy developments. The study also demonstrates how certain longstanding elements of French political culture shaped, and were changed or reproduced through, these processes.

Keywords

Cultural politics Policy Social movement Food politics French politics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the following for their helpful and insightful comments: Paul DiMaggio, Michèle Lamont, Peter Hall, Jal Mehta, King-To Yeung, Hélène Landemore, Barry Cohen, Bo-Mi Choi, and participants in the Culture and Inequality Workshop at Princeton University, the Culture and Social Analysis Workshop at Harvard University, and the Dissertation Writers Seminar at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University. The research for this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #0326142), Princeton University’s Global Network on Inequality, and Japan Economic Research Foundation.

References

  1. Alvarez, L. (2003). Consumers in Europe resist gene-altered foods. New York Times. February 11.Google Scholar
  2. Ancelovici, M. (2002). Organizing against globalization: the case of ATTAC in France. Politics and Society, 30(3), 427–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansell, C., Maxwell, R., & Sicurelli, D. (2006). Protesting food: NGOs and political mobilization in Europe. In C. Ansell & D. Vogel (Eds.), What’s the beef?: The contested governance of European food safety (pp. 97–122). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernauer, T., & Meins, E. (2003). Technological revolution meets policy and the market: explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 643–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bizet, J. (1998). Transgéniques: pour des choix responsables. Commission des Affaires Economiques, Rapport d’Information 440 (97–98) May 20, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Bodnar, J. (2003). Roquefort vs Big Mac: globalization and its others. European Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment: the construction of GM-Crop field trials as a social problem. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs?: Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bové, J., & Dufour, F. (2000). Le Monde n’est pas une Marchandise: Des Paysans contre la Malbouffe. Paris: La Decouverte.Google Scholar
  12. Bradley, K. (1998). The GMO-committee on transgenic maize: Alien corn, or the transgenic procedural maize. In M. P. C. M. van Schendelen (Ed.), EU committees as influential policymakers. Hampsire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27, 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, J. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantley, M. (1995). The regulation of modern biotechnology: An historical and European perspective. In D. Brauer (Ed.), Biotechnology: Legal, economic and ethical dimensions (pp. 505–681). Weinheim, Germany: VCH.Google Scholar
  17. Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dobbin, F. (1993). The social construction of the Great Depression: industrial policy during the 1930s in the United States, France and Britain. Theory and Society, 22, 1–56.Google Scholar
  21. Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorozynski, A. (1987). Field testing dispute spread to Europe. The Scientist. August 10.Google Scholar
  23. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fantasia, R. (1995). Fast food in France. Theory and Society, 24, 201–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fassin, É. (2001). Same sex, different politics: ‘Gay Marriage’ debates in France and the United States. Public Culture, 13(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferguson, P. (2004). Accounting for taste: The triumph of French cuisine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forestier, N. (1997). Après l'affaire de la vache folle; La sécurité alimentaire objet de tous les combats. Le Figaro. February 19.Google Scholar
  29. Frieden, J. (1991). Invested interests: the politics of national economic policies in a world of global finance. International Organization, 45(4), 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Furet, F. (1978). Penser la Révolution française. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  31. Galinier, P, & Mauduit, L. (1997). Bercy s'émeut du jeu de chaises musicales que souhaiterait lui voir interpréter l'Elysée. Le Monde. February 11.Google Scholar
  32. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructivist approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gaskell, G., Thompson, P., & Allum, N. (2002). Worlds apart? Public opinion in Europe and the USA. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 351–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0 A report to the EC directorate general for research from the project Life Sciences in European SocietyQLG7-CT-(1999)-(0828)6.Google Scholar
  35. Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gourevitch, P. (1986). Politics in hard times: Comparative responses to international economic crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Griswold, W. (1987). The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. The American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1077–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hacker, J., & Pierson, P. (2002). Business power and social policy: employers and the formation of the American Welfare State. Politics and Society, 30, 277–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policy-making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hay, C. (2001). The ‘Crisis’ in Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain: An ideational institutionalist approach. In J. Campbell & O. Pedersen (Eds.), The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (pp. 193–218). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hecht, G. (1998). The Radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Heller, C. (2002). From scientific risk to Paysan savoir-faire: peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Science as Culture, 11(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Design on nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Joly, P.-B. (2009). Beyond the French ‘technocratic regime’?: Transformations of the use of scientific expertise for public decisions. In P. Weingart & J. Lentsch (Eds.), Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison (pp. 117–140). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Budrich Barbara Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Joly, P.-B., & Lemarié, S. (1998). Industry consolidation, public attitude and the future of plant biotechnology in Europe. AgBioforum, 1(2), 85–90.Google Scholar
  47. Kahn, A. (1996). Évaluation du risque et dissémination volontaire de plantes transgéniques: l'expérience française. In A. Kahn (Ed.), Les plantes trangéniques en agriculture: dix ans d’expérience de la Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (pp. 11–18). Paris: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  48. Katzenstein, P. (1993). Coping with terrorism: Norms and internal security in Germany and Japan. In J. Goldstein & R. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change (pp. 265–295). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Katzenstein, P. (Ed.). (1996). The culture of national security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kemph, H. (2003). La Guerre Secrete des OGM. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  51. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agenda, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  52. Korpi, W. (1989). Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: social rights during sickness in eighteen OECD countries since 1930. American Sociological Review, 54, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kuisel, R. (1993). Seducing the French: The dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lacorne, D., Rupnik, J., & Toinet, M.-F. (1990). The rise and fall of anti-Americanism: A century of French perception. Hampshire: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Lamont, M. (1995). National identity and national boundary patterns in France and the United States. French Historical Studies, 19(2), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lamont, M., & Thévenot, L. (2000). Introduction: Toward a renewed comparative cultural sociology. In M. Lamont & L. Thévenot (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Polities and repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lezaun, J. (2006). Creating a new object of government: making genetically modified organisms traceable. Social Studies of Science, 36(4), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Libération (1996). Alerte au Soja Fou. November 1.Google Scholar
  60. Lorelle, V. (1999). Deux industriels créent la première filière « non OGM » en France. Le Monde. September 2.Google Scholar
  61. Lynch, D., & Vogel, D. (2001). The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A case-study of contemporary European regulatory politics. A paper for the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8688/regulation_of_gmos_in_europe_and_the_united_states.html.
  62. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Marris, C. (2000). Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs 1996–1999. Cahiers du C3ED (2).Google Scholar
  64. McNamara, K. (1998). The currency of ideas. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mukerji, C. (2009). Impossible engineering: Technology and territoriality on the Canal du Midi. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mukerji, C. (2010). The territorial state as a figured world of power: strategies, logistics, and impersonal rule. Sociological Theory, 28(4), 402–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Oliver, P., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea: frames and ideology in social movement research. Mobilization, 5, 37–54.Google Scholar
  68. Passard, A. (2002). Je ne cuisinerai pas de végétaux OGM, Le Monde, December 18.Google Scholar
  69. Pedriana, N. (2006). From protective to equal treatment: legal framing processes and transformation of the women’s movement in the 1960s. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1718–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pedriana, N., & Stryker, R. (1997). Political culture wars 1960s style: equal employment opportunity-affirmative action law and the Philadelphia plan. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 633–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1993)[1977]. Regulating the poor: the functions of public welfare. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  74. Raynaud, B. (1997). La Culture OGM. Agro Performances. October.Google Scholar
  75. Rogowski, R. (1987). Political cleavages and changing exposure to trade. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1121–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rosanvallon, P. (2007). The demands of liberty: civil society in France since the Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Roy, A., & Joly, P.-B. (2000). France: broadening precautionary expertise? Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saguy, A. (2003). What is sexual harassment?: From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schurman, R. (2004). Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Social Problems, 51(2), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schurman, R., & Munro, W. (2009). Targeting capital: a cultural economy approach to understanding the efficacy of two anti-genetic engineering movements. The American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 155–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Scott, J. (2007). The politics of the veil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sewell, W. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sheingate, A. (2003). The rise of the agricultural welfare state: Institutions and interest group power in the United States, France, and Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Snow, D., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, mobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Somers, M., & Block, F. (2005). From poverty to perversity: ideas, markets, and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate. American Sociological Review, 70, 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Soysal, Y. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  88. Steensland, B. (2006). Cultural categories and the American Welfare State: the case of guaranteed income policy. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1273–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Steensland, B. (2008). The failed welfare revolution: America’s struggle over guaranteed income policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Steinmo, S. (1993). Taxation and democracy: Swedish, British, and American approaches to financing the modern state. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Suleiman, E. (1974). Politics, power, and bureaucracy in France: The administrative elite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 20, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Torgersen, H., et al. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Vincent, C. (1997). Le gouvernement autorise la mise en culture du maïs transgénique. Le Monde. November 28.Google Scholar
  97. Vincent, C. (1998a). Un moratoire sur le maïs transgénique est réclamé par plusieurs associations. Le Monde, January 30.Google Scholar
  98. Vincent, C. (1998b). Trois agriculteurs opposés au maïs transgénique comparaissent devant le tribunal d’Agen. Le Monde. February 5.Google Scholar
  99. Vincent, C. (1998c). Les citoyens appellent à la prudence face aux plantes transgéniques. Le Monde. June 23.Google Scholar
  100. Vogel, D. (2003). The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. von Schomberg, R. (1998). An Appraisal of the Working in Practice of the Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of GM Organisms. Scientific and Technological Options Assessment of the European Parliament.Google Scholar
  102. Waters, S. (2003). Social movements in France: Towards a new citizenship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weber, E. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Weir, M., & Skocpol, T. (1985). State structure and the possibilities for Keynesian responses to the great depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back (pp. 107–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wolfreys, J. (2008). Regroupment and retrenchment on the radical left in France. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 16(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Science, Technology, and SocietyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations