Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies. / Lassen, Jesper.

In: Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 27, No. 8, 2018, p. 923-936.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Lassen, J 2018, 'Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies', Public Understanding of Science, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 923-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518766286

APA

Lassen, J. (2018). Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies. Public Understanding of Science, 27(8), 923-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518766286

Vancouver

Lassen J. Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies. Public Understanding of Science. 2018;27(8):923-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518766286

Author

Lassen, Jesper. / Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies. In: Public Understanding of Science. 2018 ; Vol. 27, No. 8. pp. 923-936.

Bibtex

@article{b2eb62da0be847598564aec352f0c4fd,
title = "Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies",
abstract = "In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as “ethical aspects.” Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.",
keywords = "attitudes on genetics, bioethics, GM food, governance of science and technology",
author = "Jesper Lassen",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1177/0963662518766286",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "923--936",
journal = "Public Understanding of Science",
issn = "0963-6625",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies

AU - Lassen, Jesper

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as “ethical aspects.” Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.

AB - In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as “ethical aspects.” Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.

KW - attitudes on genetics

KW - bioethics

KW - GM food

KW - governance of science and technology

U2 - 10.1177/0963662518766286

DO - 10.1177/0963662518766286

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29616888

VL - 27

SP - 923

EP - 936

JO - Public Understanding of Science

JF - Public Understanding of Science

SN - 0963-6625

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 194807184