15 pages., via online journal., Recent European policy highlights the need to promote local fishery and aquaculture by means of innovation and joint participation in fishery management as one of the keys to achieve the sustainability of our seas. However, the implicit assumptions held by the actors in the two main groups involved – innovators (scientists, businessmen and administration managers) and local fishermen – can complicate, perhaps even render impossible, mutual understanding and co-operation. A qualitative analysis of interviews with members of both groups in the Valencian Community (Spain) reveals those latent assumptions and their impact on the respective practices. The analysis shows that the innovation narrative in which one group is based and the inventions narrative used by the other one are rooted in two dramatically different, or even antagonistic, collective worldviews. Any environmental policy that implies these groups should take into account these strong discords.
14 pages., via online journal., ‘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.