Scientific information, elite attitudes, and the public debate over food safety

Ardith Maney, Eric Plutzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Why do consumers often react with alarm to food technologies (such as irradiation, genetic engineering, artificial hormones, and chemical pesticides) that scientists regard as essentially safe? We examine the attitudes toward food safety of three types of elites who serve as providers of scientific information regarding food safety to the United States public. Previous research suggests that journalists are likely to exaggerate risks associated with emerging food technologies, while minimizing risks associated with natural pathogens. This bias is hypothesized to be political in origin. By and large, our sample of newspaper editors was only slightly more concerned than were United States government policymakers and a sample of scientists. The expected pattern of alarm occurs clearly only in the case of irradiation. In addition, modest correlations of ideology to safety assessments were found for all three types of elites.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)42-56
Number of pages15
JournalPolicy Studies Journal
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996

Fingerprint

food safety
irradiation
elite
food
genetic engineering
government and state
ideology
hormone
pathogen
pesticide
safety
journalist
newspaper
editor
food technology
alarm
public
trend
chemical

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

@article{5c0e7e14b7b54881ae7b5cf279a1a69a,
title = "Scientific information, elite attitudes, and the public debate over food safety",
abstract = "Why do consumers often react with alarm to food technologies (such as irradiation, genetic engineering, artificial hormones, and chemical pesticides) that scientists regard as essentially safe? We examine the attitudes toward food safety of three types of elites who serve as providers of scientific information regarding food safety to the United States public. Previous research suggests that journalists are likely to exaggerate risks associated with emerging food technologies, while minimizing risks associated with natural pathogens. This bias is hypothesized to be political in origin. By and large, our sample of newspaper editors was only slightly more concerned than were United States government policymakers and a sample of scientists. The expected pattern of alarm occurs clearly only in the case of irradiation. In addition, modest correlations of ideology to safety assessments were found for all three types of elites.",
author = "Ardith Maney and Eric Plutzer",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1541-0072.1996.tb00550.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "42--56",
journal = "Policy Studies Journal",
issn = "0190-292X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Scientific information, elite attitudes, and the public debate over food safety. / Maney, Ardith; Plutzer, Eric.

In: Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 01.01.1996, p. 42-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientific information, elite attitudes, and the public debate over food safety

AU - Maney, Ardith

AU - Plutzer, Eric

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - Why do consumers often react with alarm to food technologies (such as irradiation, genetic engineering, artificial hormones, and chemical pesticides) that scientists regard as essentially safe? We examine the attitudes toward food safety of three types of elites who serve as providers of scientific information regarding food safety to the United States public. Previous research suggests that journalists are likely to exaggerate risks associated with emerging food technologies, while minimizing risks associated with natural pathogens. This bias is hypothesized to be political in origin. By and large, our sample of newspaper editors was only slightly more concerned than were United States government policymakers and a sample of scientists. The expected pattern of alarm occurs clearly only in the case of irradiation. In addition, modest correlations of ideology to safety assessments were found for all three types of elites.

AB - Why do consumers often react with alarm to food technologies (such as irradiation, genetic engineering, artificial hormones, and chemical pesticides) that scientists regard as essentially safe? We examine the attitudes toward food safety of three types of elites who serve as providers of scientific information regarding food safety to the United States public. Previous research suggests that journalists are likely to exaggerate risks associated with emerging food technologies, while minimizing risks associated with natural pathogens. This bias is hypothesized to be political in origin. By and large, our sample of newspaper editors was only slightly more concerned than were United States government policymakers and a sample of scientists. The expected pattern of alarm occurs clearly only in the case of irradiation. In addition, modest correlations of ideology to safety assessments were found for all three types of elites.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4243182938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4243182938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1996.tb00550.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1541-0072.1996.tb00550.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:4243182938

VL - 24

SP - 42

EP - 56

JO - Policy Studies Journal

JF - Policy Studies Journal

SN - 0190-292X

IS - 1

ER -