*This is an excerpt from a paper I wrote in 2015 for a my Research Methods in Communications class. It is here as an example of some of the topics I have researched and written. If you are looking for more examples of my professional writing, please reach out to me @ just.ag.productions@gmail.com*
Genetically Modified Organisms, often better known as GMOs, have been on the Canadian market since the early 1990’s. The scientific explanation of a genetically modified organism is as follows: “[GMOs are] created when the genetic code is altered to either express a desirable trait or suppress or remove an undesirable one. At its heart, genetic engineering is a short cut that speeds up the work of selective breeding, work that has been going on for centuries, but at a slower pace - indeed, nearly every food crop grown today has been modified through this older process.” (Klingbeil, 2014, para. 8) Only in recent years have GMOs become a heated discussion topic amongst Canadian and international cultures. “[The] idea of mutant food forms…first spawned the "Frankenfood" nickname back in the 1990s”, [which] only [increased] the uproar on the topic. (Klingbeil, 2014, para. 9)
As the growing population becomes more and more removed from where their food comes from, curiosity begins to peak when the discussion of GMOs in agricultural practices comes up for discussion. Throughout Canada and the rest of the world, citizens have begun to question the safety of GMOs, and thus have created two very opposing sides to the discussion. People are either pro-GMO and feel that GMOs are safe and have been thoroughly tested. Or they are anti-GMO and feel that the food safety levels associated with GMOs are subpar. When questioned what their core concerns are regarding GMOs, environmental impacts as well as skepticism regarding regulatory bodies are the two main themes that people who are anti-GMO will expand upon. People who are pro-GMO actually mirror those same key themes, except from the standpoint that GMOs help to reduce environmental impacts by reducing the use of pesticides, and by having confidence that the peer reviewed scientific studies indicating the safety of GMO suppresses any skepticism.
Textual Data
After further review on the subject of GMOs, the five newspaper articles I chose to use helped to illuminate the varying opinions and concerns that the Canadian and international public has on the subject. I decided to focus on articles that were relatively current, although I did include an article from fifteen years ago to help expand and analyze where the public’s opinion began, and where their opinion is today. These articles were mainly from North American newspapers although I did include an Australian article, as Australian and North American agricultural practices often mirror one another. Through analyzing and coding the articles from the North American newspapers, the articles demonstrated the concerns and views the public I am surrounded by hold. The ability to analyze local data and information has helped me understand where my fellow members of society stand, when the discussion on GMOs is present. I also began to notice trends in the articles, depending on the location of the reporter’s publication.
News articles published in heavily modernized or tourist areas, such as the one from the Monterey County Herald in California, were heavily coded in themes of environmental impact, food safety, social issues, and scientific skepticism due to GMOs not being classified as “natural”. The article from the Edmonton Journal mirrored some of the same issues, although I found it to be less biased and included information from both sides of the debate. I can assume the reason the Edmonton Journal included information from both sides of the debate is due to the location of Edmonton, and the heavily agricultural based economy surrounding the city. The Edmonton Journal also included information from unbiased sources such as professors of the University of Alberta, who dedicate their profession to research, therefore increasing their credibility.
All of the articles included interviews or statements from scientists or industry professionals who were in favor of GMO safety, which increased the credibility of the reporter’s article. The majority of my articles also included interviews and statements from organizations or individuals who do not believe in the safety of GMOs, which helped to show the two sides. Although as someone who is an educated professional in science, it makes it harder to accept statements from someone who has no professional or educational background on a subject that is so heavily based in science.
Identifying Discourses
The debate between whether or not GMOs are safe - creating the polar oppositions on the subject - is explained when considering the choices of discourse a reporter or writer uses. Between the five news articles, you can easily see the use of oppositional discourse as well as framing.
Reporters who prefer to present themselves as unbiased, particularly when reporting on heated subjects, will consider using an oppositional technique. By using an oppositional technique they are presenting both sides of the story in the GMO reports, which include both scientific and skeptical points. Four of the five articles, demonstrated the use of both skeptical points and scientific in an oppositional style. The Edmonton Journal article demonstrates this well in the following citation:
Genetically Modified Organisms, often better known as GMOs, have been on the Canadian market since the early 1990’s. The scientific explanation of a genetically modified organism is as follows: “[GMOs are] created when the genetic code is altered to either express a desirable trait or suppress or remove an undesirable one. At its heart, genetic engineering is a short cut that speeds up the work of selective breeding, work that has been going on for centuries, but at a slower pace - indeed, nearly every food crop grown today has been modified through this older process.” (Klingbeil, 2014, para. 8) Only in recent years have GMOs become a heated discussion topic amongst Canadian and international cultures. “[The] idea of mutant food forms…first spawned the "Frankenfood" nickname back in the 1990s”, [which] only [increased] the uproar on the topic. (Klingbeil, 2014, para. 9)
As the growing population becomes more and more removed from where their food comes from, curiosity begins to peak when the discussion of GMOs in agricultural practices comes up for discussion. Throughout Canada and the rest of the world, citizens have begun to question the safety of GMOs, and thus have created two very opposing sides to the discussion. People are either pro-GMO and feel that GMOs are safe and have been thoroughly tested. Or they are anti-GMO and feel that the food safety levels associated with GMOs are subpar. When questioned what their core concerns are regarding GMOs, environmental impacts as well as skepticism regarding regulatory bodies are the two main themes that people who are anti-GMO will expand upon. People who are pro-GMO actually mirror those same key themes, except from the standpoint that GMOs help to reduce environmental impacts by reducing the use of pesticides, and by having confidence that the peer reviewed scientific studies indicating the safety of GMO suppresses any skepticism.
Textual Data
After further review on the subject of GMOs, the five newspaper articles I chose to use helped to illuminate the varying opinions and concerns that the Canadian and international public has on the subject. I decided to focus on articles that were relatively current, although I did include an article from fifteen years ago to help expand and analyze where the public’s opinion began, and where their opinion is today. These articles were mainly from North American newspapers although I did include an Australian article, as Australian and North American agricultural practices often mirror one another. Through analyzing and coding the articles from the North American newspapers, the articles demonstrated the concerns and views the public I am surrounded by hold. The ability to analyze local data and information has helped me understand where my fellow members of society stand, when the discussion on GMOs is present. I also began to notice trends in the articles, depending on the location of the reporter’s publication.
News articles published in heavily modernized or tourist areas, such as the one from the Monterey County Herald in California, were heavily coded in themes of environmental impact, food safety, social issues, and scientific skepticism due to GMOs not being classified as “natural”. The article from the Edmonton Journal mirrored some of the same issues, although I found it to be less biased and included information from both sides of the debate. I can assume the reason the Edmonton Journal included information from both sides of the debate is due to the location of Edmonton, and the heavily agricultural based economy surrounding the city. The Edmonton Journal also included information from unbiased sources such as professors of the University of Alberta, who dedicate their profession to research, therefore increasing their credibility.
All of the articles included interviews or statements from scientists or industry professionals who were in favor of GMO safety, which increased the credibility of the reporter’s article. The majority of my articles also included interviews and statements from organizations or individuals who do not believe in the safety of GMOs, which helped to show the two sides. Although as someone who is an educated professional in science, it makes it harder to accept statements from someone who has no professional or educational background on a subject that is so heavily based in science.
Identifying Discourses
The debate between whether or not GMOs are safe - creating the polar oppositions on the subject - is explained when considering the choices of discourse a reporter or writer uses. Between the five news articles, you can easily see the use of oppositional discourse as well as framing.
Reporters who prefer to present themselves as unbiased, particularly when reporting on heated subjects, will consider using an oppositional technique. By using an oppositional technique they are presenting both sides of the story in the GMO reports, which include both scientific and skeptical points. Four of the five articles, demonstrated the use of both skeptical points and scientific in an oppositional style. The Edmonton Journal article demonstrates this well in the following citation:
While there is no widely accepted science supporting the idea that GM foods are unsafe to eat or more damaging to the environment than conventional crops, opponents voice concerns and call for further testing. "Our concerns are the environmental, social and economic impacts these crops have," says Taarini Chopra, with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which has called for more testing to see what effects GM crops have on humans and the environment. (Klingbeil, 2014, para.15)
This citation demonstrates the use of having two opposing thoughts presented within the same paragraph. The scientific evidence stating there is no concern that GM foods are unsafe is then countered with a direct quote from Taarini Chopra, stating that they want more information on GMOs before they accept them as safe. Thus creating an undertone of general uncertainty and confusion on the subject.
Within the articles that were written in an oppositional style, the main key themes emerging were: environmental impacts, social issues related to regulations, human health risks, and benefits to producers but not the consumer. One would think that by presenting two sides to the story it would help to mitigate the fear that people have with GMOs, although I felt as though the unbiased or oppositional style allowed to create undertones that could be misleading.
Considering the misleading undertones, the majority of the information presented against GMOs safety were direct quotes from individuals who had deemed GMOs a health risk to only themselves and what their personal opinion was, instead of the general opinion of a larger group of individuals. Very little of the opposing quotes were from regulatory bodies, scientists, or other industry professionals. The choice of quoting an individual who suffered from a mysterious medical issue, that was miraculously relieved when they stopped eating a GMO product, can create two undertones. One undertone can conclude that this individual was conditioned to believe their ailment was relieved by food choices, compared to other lifestyle changes they may have made, as well it did not address in the article how medical issues can be relieved by not eating GMOs. This scenario creates more confusion on the subject, and continues to ignite an already debatable topic.
These articles also displayed the use of framing discourse. The media can be an exceptionally good gatekeeper when presenting information to the general public. This is something we see often when discussing GMOs. Each article took factual data – be it scientific or first-hand experience – and framed it to suit their agenda. Due to these articles all coming from relatively urban areas, they were able to use their knowledge of their audience’s needs and present the information, as they knew their audience would want it.
Urban areas have taken great care and attention with environmental impacts in recent years, therefore using words such as environmental concerns – when either addressing the biotech salmon or the use of pesticides – helps to relate to the reader’s needs and create a connection. The use of direct quotes from producers and not just scientists or companies, creates a connection as well. Through framing the statements from the producers, and their opinions on the environmental impacts, creates connections the urban readers want. This also helps to create a connection with rural readers who are producers as well. It’s often easier to absorb information from someone you respect than from a corporation – it creates a human connection.
Through framing their intentions, the reporters were able to create interest in the topic. The use of conspiracies or skeptics creates a dramatic feel to the situation, which draws readers into the GMO debate. By drawing readers into the debate, it creates the opportunity for people to feel they need to choose one side over another. It creates a cycle of readers wanting to find more information on a subject that has peaked their interest. This can become a deadly cycle if the readers choose not to delve deeper into a subject, and only take the information presented in articles as hard facts.
It’s evident from a researcher’s perspective that there are many ways one can take the debate on GMO safety. You can be confident in GMOs, you can be skeptical and want more information, or you can be against GMOs. If the reader does not take the time to consider the way discourse is presented it can easily create an opportunity for people to create unrealistic expectations on a topic. There is always more to the topic than what appears on the surface – if you don’t take the time to explore you will only get the tip of the iceberg when you could enjoy it all.
Within the articles that were written in an oppositional style, the main key themes emerging were: environmental impacts, social issues related to regulations, human health risks, and benefits to producers but not the consumer. One would think that by presenting two sides to the story it would help to mitigate the fear that people have with GMOs, although I felt as though the unbiased or oppositional style allowed to create undertones that could be misleading.
Considering the misleading undertones, the majority of the information presented against GMOs safety were direct quotes from individuals who had deemed GMOs a health risk to only themselves and what their personal opinion was, instead of the general opinion of a larger group of individuals. Very little of the opposing quotes were from regulatory bodies, scientists, or other industry professionals. The choice of quoting an individual who suffered from a mysterious medical issue, that was miraculously relieved when they stopped eating a GMO product, can create two undertones. One undertone can conclude that this individual was conditioned to believe their ailment was relieved by food choices, compared to other lifestyle changes they may have made, as well it did not address in the article how medical issues can be relieved by not eating GMOs. This scenario creates more confusion on the subject, and continues to ignite an already debatable topic.
These articles also displayed the use of framing discourse. The media can be an exceptionally good gatekeeper when presenting information to the general public. This is something we see often when discussing GMOs. Each article took factual data – be it scientific or first-hand experience – and framed it to suit their agenda. Due to these articles all coming from relatively urban areas, they were able to use their knowledge of their audience’s needs and present the information, as they knew their audience would want it.
Urban areas have taken great care and attention with environmental impacts in recent years, therefore using words such as environmental concerns – when either addressing the biotech salmon or the use of pesticides – helps to relate to the reader’s needs and create a connection. The use of direct quotes from producers and not just scientists or companies, creates a connection as well. Through framing the statements from the producers, and their opinions on the environmental impacts, creates connections the urban readers want. This also helps to create a connection with rural readers who are producers as well. It’s often easier to absorb information from someone you respect than from a corporation – it creates a human connection.
Through framing their intentions, the reporters were able to create interest in the topic. The use of conspiracies or skeptics creates a dramatic feel to the situation, which draws readers into the GMO debate. By drawing readers into the debate, it creates the opportunity for people to feel they need to choose one side over another. It creates a cycle of readers wanting to find more information on a subject that has peaked their interest. This can become a deadly cycle if the readers choose not to delve deeper into a subject, and only take the information presented in articles as hard facts.
It’s evident from a researcher’s perspective that there are many ways one can take the debate on GMO safety. You can be confident in GMOs, you can be skeptical and want more information, or you can be against GMOs. If the reader does not take the time to consider the way discourse is presented it can easily create an opportunity for people to create unrealistic expectations on a topic. There is always more to the topic than what appears on the surface – if you don’t take the time to explore you will only get the tip of the iceberg when you could enjoy it all.
References
Van Dijk, T. (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis [PDF]
Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf
Evans, M. (2013) The Author and the Princess – An Example of Critical Discourse Analysis
[Website]Retrieved from http://www.languageinconflict.org/component/content/article/90frontpage/145-the-author-and-the-princess-an-example-of-critical-discourse-
analysis.html
Davies, P.J. (2015) Is the debate about health and safety and GMO truly unbiased?
[Website] Retrieved from https://gmoanswers.com/ask/debate-about-health-and-safety-
and-gmp-truly-unbiased
Lee, J. (2010) Genetically modified food raises questions. Monterey County Herald [Website]
Retrieved from
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Klingbeil, C (2014) Fields of gold ... or plains of ruin? Edmonton Journal [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Conko, G. (2014) Genetically Modified Foods Are as Safe as Conventional Ones. [Website]
Retrieved from https://gmoanswers.com/studies/genetically-modified-foods-are-safe-
conventional-ones
Lewis, T. (2015) Chipotle and GMOs. Washington Post [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Fannin, P. (2000) Modified foods declared safe. The Nation [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Van Dijk, T. (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis [PDF]
Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf
Evans, M. (2013) The Author and the Princess – An Example of Critical Discourse Analysis
[Website]Retrieved from http://www.languageinconflict.org/component/content/article/90frontpage/145-the-author-and-the-princess-an-example-of-critical-discourse-
analysis.html
Davies, P.J. (2015) Is the debate about health and safety and GMO truly unbiased?
[Website] Retrieved from https://gmoanswers.com/ask/debate-about-health-and-safety-
and-gmp-truly-unbiased
Lee, J. (2010) Genetically modified food raises questions. Monterey County Herald [Website]
Retrieved from
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Klingbeil, C (2014) Fields of gold ... or plains of ruin? Edmonton Journal [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Conko, G. (2014) Genetically Modified Foods Are as Safe as Conventional Ones. [Website]
Retrieved from https://gmoanswers.com/studies/genetically-modified-foods-are-safe-
conventional-ones
Lewis, T. (2015) Chipotle and GMOs. Washington Post [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
Fannin, P. (2000) Modified foods declared safe. The Nation [Website]
Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/
RSS Feed
