Cross-Atlantic Differences in Biotechnology and GMOs: A Media Content Analysis

  • Lena GalataEmail author
  • Kostas Karantininis
  • Sebastian Hess
Part of the Cooperative Management book series (COMA)


Different regulations about the permission and approval rate of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) between the USA and Europe have been controversial for decades. While there is a wide scientific coverage of what may be the cause of this divergence, little is known about the role that popular media play in the related political discourse. We analyzed the media coverage of biotechnology topics in both the USA and UK from 2011-2013 by examining two opinion-leading newspapers. We test the hypothesis that the respective media content reflects differences in transatlantic policies towards biotechnology. The two newspapers differed in reporting intensity but were alike in their content about GMOs: with the central actors being scientists and NGOs, arguing mostly in the field of the agricultural sector, the debate seems to be locked in a stalemate of potential risks re-iterated against potential benefits, with none of the two positions clearly dominating the discourse.


Media Coverage Media Profile Public Outrage Mere Exposure Effect British Press 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



It is a great pleasure to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. George Baourakis and the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (MAICh) that presented me with a most memorable learning experience and an inside look into the world of science and research. First and foremost, I could not but thank Dr. Kostas Karantininis for his invaluable guidance, advice, support, and encouragement, both in times of excitement and disappointment. My deepest appreciation goes also to Drs. Gaskell and Bauer for all their academic work that has always been an enormous inspiration for me.


  1. Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European sourcebook. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook for social research. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook for social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2002). Biotechnology-the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carlarne, C. (2007). Notes from a climate change pressure-cooker: sub-federal attempts at transformation meet national resistance in the USA. Connecticut Law Review, 40, 1351.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. Directorate-General for Economic. (2007). The joint harmonised EU programme of business and consumer surveys (No. 5-2006). European Communities.Google Scholar
  6. Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1996). The role of employers in addressing the needs of employed parents. Journal of Social Issues, 52(3), 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. W. (Eds.). (2001). Biotechnology, 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: NMSI Trading Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science, 285(5426), 384–387.Google Scholar
  9. Gutteling, J. M., Fjæstad, B., & Olofsson, A. (2002). Media coverage 1973–1996: trends and dynamics.Google Scholar
  10. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C., & Ahlheim, C. (1991). Gentechnik im Widerstreit: Zum Verhaltnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus.Google Scholar
  12. Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
  15. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Neuman, W. R. (1989). Parallel content analysis: Old paradigms and new proposals. Public communication and behavior, 2, 205–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Politi, M. C., Kaphingst, K. A., Kreuter, M., Shacham, E., Lovell, M. C., & McBride, T. (2014). Knowledge of health insurance terminology and details among the uninsured. Medical Care Research and Review, 71(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reid, I., & Association, Canadian Medical. (2002). Annual national report card on health care 2002. Ottawa, Ont: Canadian Medical Association.Google Scholar
  19. Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13, 1–32.Google Scholar
  20. Sheldon, I. M. (2002). Regulation of biotechnology: Will we ever ‘freely’ trade GMOs? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(1), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sliter, M., Boyd, E., Sinclair, R., Cheung, J., & McFadden, A. (2013). Inching Toward Inclusiveness: Diversity Climate, Interpersonal Conflict and Well-Being in Women Nurses. Sex Roles, 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Tsioumani, E. (2004). Genetically modified organisms in the EU: Public attitudes and regulatory developments. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 13(3), 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Valtysson, B. (2014). Democracy in disguise: the use of social media in reviewing the Icelandic Constitution. Media, Culture and Society, 36(1), 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. WHO, F. (2000). Ad-hoc intergovernmental Codex task force on animal feeding. 13 p. First Session. Dinamarca, 13–15.Google Scholar
  25. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9(2p2), 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lena Galata
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kostas Karantininis
    • 2
  • Sebastian Hess
    • 2
  1. 1.Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (MAICh)CreteGreece
  2. 2.Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations