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.
18 pages., via online journal, The aim of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of small-scale farmers in Brazil towards genetically modified (GM) crops based on a sample of 15 focus groups involving 111 individuals. The analysis of the corpus shows heterogeneous perceptions regarding these crops, shaped by diverse factors, including economic prospects and concerns with the impact on health and the environment. There are many misgivings about these effects among the farmers, who are keen to receive unbiased information on the topic. These uncertainties affect them more as consumers, as most would prefer eating GM-free food, than as producers, as they consider other aspects, especially economic feasibility, when deciding what to grow. Although most farmers believe they should have a voice in decision-making on agricultural issues, few have made concerted efforts to be heard.
