Framing local: an analysis of framing strategies for genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling initiatives in the northeastern U.S

References

• Albers, J. 2000. Hands on the land: A history of the vermont landscape. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alkon, A. H., and J. Guthman. 2017. Introduction. In The new food activism: Opposition, cooperation, and collective action, ed. A. H. Alkon and J. Guthman, 1–17. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anspach, N. M., and G. Dragulic. 2019. Effective advocacy: The psychological mechanisms of environmental issue framing. Environmental Politics 28 (4):615–38. doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1565468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bain, C., and T. Dandachi. 2014. Governing GMOs: The (counter) movement for mandatory and voluntary non-GMO labels. Sustainability 6:9456–76. doi:10.3390/su6129456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartley, T., S. Koos, H. Samel, G. Setrini, and N. Summers. 2015. Looking behind the label. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F., and B. D. Jones. 2009. Agendas and instability in american politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., J. M. Berry, M. Hognaki, D. C. Kimball, and B. L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and policy change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benbrook, C. 2012. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – The first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 24:24. doi:10.1186/2190–4715–24–24.
   Google Scholar
• Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2017. Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2015. GM Crops & Food 8 (3):156–93. doi:10.1080/21645698.2017.1317919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brulle, R. J., and R. Benford. 2012. From game protection to wildlife management: Frame shifts, organizational development, and field practices. Rural Sociology 77 (1):62–88. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2011.00067.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs, A. E., B. J. M. Arts, B. H. M. Elands, and J. Lengkeek. 2011. Beyond environmental frames: The social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42 (3):329–41. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.12.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buttel, F. 2005. The environmental and post-environmental politics of genetically modified crops and foods. Environmental Politics 14 (3):309–23. doi:10.1080/09644010500151602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caniglia, B. S., R. J. Brulle, and A. Szasz. 2015. Civil society, social movements, and climate change. In Climate change and society, ed. R. E. Dunlap and R. J. Brulle, 235–68. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, L. F., C. D. Ryan, and W. A. Kerr. 2014. Direct democracy, state government, and the re-energized GMO debate: Implications for California’s Proposition 37. AgBioForum 16 (3):177–86.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2018. Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Curchoe, C. 2017. Rice, papaya, oranges – 3 GMO versions of conventional crops tweaked for humanity’s benefit. Genetic Literacy Project, July 24. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/07/24/rice-papaya-oranges-3-gmo-versions-conventional-crops-tweaked-humanitys-benefit/.
   Google Scholar
• Dentzman, K. 2018. “I would say that might be all it is, hope”: The framing of herbicide resistance and how farmers explain their faith in herbicides. Journal of Rural Studies 57:118–27. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.12.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eaton, E. 2017. How Canadian farmers fought and won the battle against GM wheat. In The new food activism: Opposition, cooperation, and collective action, ed. A. H. Alkon and J. Guthman, 55–79. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• FOE (Friends of the Earth). 2017. Concerned Americans say new GMO regulations would make oversight worse, not better. Friends of the Earth, June 19. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://foe.org/2017-06-concerned-americans-say-new-gmo-regs-would-worsen-oversight/.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, C. 2018. Contested Fields: An Analysis of Anti-GMO politics on Hawaiʻi Island. Agriculture and Human Values 35:181–92. doi:10.1007/s10460-017-9814-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthman, J. 2003. Eating risk. In Engineering Trouble, ed. R. Schurman, D. Doyle, and T. Kelso, 130–51. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guthman, J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39:1171–83. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haydu, J. 2012. Frame brokerage in the Pure Food Movement, 1879–1906. Social Movement Studies 11(1): 97–112. doi:10.1080/14742837.2012.640536.
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on H.112 – An Act Relating to the Labeling of Food Produced with Genetic Engineering. Hearing before the Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Committee of Agriculture. 2013–2014 session. 2014. Audio recording. Retrieved from Vermont Archives Office (Testimony from Paula, Barry, Judy and Susan).
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on H.3242 –An Act Establishing the Genetic Engineering Transparency Food and Seed Labeling Act. Hearing before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resource and Agriculture. 2015–2016 session. 2015. September 22. Retrieved from Massachusetts State House (Testimony from Joey, Brenda, Kelly, and Massachusetts Food Association).
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on H.722 – An Act Relating to the Labeling of Food Produced with Genetic Engineering. Hearing before the Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary. 2011–2012 session. 2012. Audio recording. Retrieved from Vermont Archives Office (Testimony from Joe).
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on HB-5117 - An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Foods. Hearing before the Connecticut Environment Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. 2011–2012 session. 2012. Retrieved from the Connecticut State House (Testimony from Connecticut Food Association).
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on HB-6519 – An Act Concerning the Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Food. Hearing before the Connecticut Public Health Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. 2013–2014 session. 2013. The Connecticut State House (Testimony from Whitney and Michael).
   Google Scholar
• Hearing on LD 718 – An Act to Protect Maine Food Consumers’ right to Know about Genetically Engineered Food and Seed Stock. Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. 2013–2014 session. 2013. The Maine State House (Testimony from C.R.).
   Google Scholar
• Hewitt, L., and H. J. McCammon. 2005. Explaining suffrage mobilization: Balance, neutralization, and range in collective action frames. In Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective, ed. H. Johnston and J. A. Noakes, 33–52. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Holleman, H. 2012. Energy policy and environmental possibilities: Biofuels and key protagonists of ecological change. Rural Sociology 77 (20):280–307. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2012.00080.x.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, N. 2013. Who’s paying for GO-labeling initiative campaigns? Slate, August 21. Accessed August 23, 2019. https://grist.org/food/whos-paying-for-gmo-labelling-initiative-campaigns/.
   Google Scholar
• Kaur, A., R. K. Kohli, and P. S. Jaswal. 2013. Genetically modified organisms: An Indian ethical dilemma. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):621–28. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9429-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, A., J. R. Parkins, and E. H. Kennedy. 2016. Environmental harm and ‘the good farmer’: Conceptualizing discourses of environmental sustainability in the beef industry. Rural Sociology 81 (2):172–93. doi:10.1111/ruso.12091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, A. E. 2011. Feedlots of the sea: Movement frames and activist claims in the protest over salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest. Humanity & Society 35:343–75. doi:10.1177/016059761103500402.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow, L., and K. Boschert. 2008. Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum 39 (1):174–90. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leyden, K. 1995. Interest group resources and testimony at a congressional hearing. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (3):431–39. doi:10.2307/440230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipschutz, R. D., and J. K. Rowe. 2005. Globalization, governmentality, and global politics: Regulation for the rest of Us? London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Micheletti, M. 2003. Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association). 2018. Genetically modified organism (GMOs) in agriculture. Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. Accessed January 4, 2019. http://www.mofga.org/Programs/Public-Policy/GMOs.
   Google Scholar
• Mooney, P. H., and S. A. Hunt. 2009. Food security: The elaboration of contested claims to a consensus frame. Rural Sociology 74 (4):469–97. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00701.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, T. A., M. C. Nisbert, E. W. Maibach, and A. A. Leiserowitz. 2012. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climate Change 113 (3):1105–12. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neuendorf, K. A. 2001. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Noakes, J. A. 2005. Official frames in social movement theory: The FBI, HUAC, and the communist threat in Hollywood. In Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective, ed. H. Johnston and J. A. Noakes, 89–111. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Norero, D. 2018. Unfairly demonized GMO crops can help fight malnutrition. Cornell Alliance for Science. Accessed June, 23 2020. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/unfairly-demonized-gmo-crops-can-help-fight-malnutrition/.
   Google Scholar
• Pechlaner, G. 2012. GMO-free America? Mendocino county and the impact of local level resistance to the agricultural biotechnology paradigm. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 19 (3):445–64.
   Google Scholar
• Rahn, W. M., S. E. Gollust, and X. Tang. 2017. Framing food policy: The case of raw milk. The Policy Studies Journal 45 (2):359–83. doi:10.1111/psj.12161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reese, S. D. 2010. Finding frames in a web of culture: The case of the war on terror. In Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. P. D’Angelo and J. A. Kuypers, 17–42. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Riddle, E. 2016. The fight for mandatory GMO labeling. Sierra Club Chapter. Accessed January, 4 2019. https://atlantic2.sierraclub.org/content/fight-mandatory-gmo-labeling.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, K. 1994. Maine and Vermont restrict dairies’ use of a growth hormone. New York Times, April 15. Accessed January 4, 2019. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/maine-and-vermont-restrict-dairies-use-of-a-growth-hormone.html.
   Google Scholar
• Schurman, R., and W. Munro. 2010. Fighting for the future of food. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., and R. D. Benford. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontiers in social movement theory, ed. A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, 133–55. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spiegel, J. E. 2013. Senate, House wrangling over state’s first-in-the-nation GMO labeling. The CT Mirror, May 23. Accessed January 4, 2019. https://ctmirror.org/2013/05/23/senate-house-wrangling-over-states-first-nation-gmo-labeling/.
   Google Scholar
• Stephan, H. R. 2015. Cultural Politics and the Transatlantic Divide over GMOs. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vermont Right to Know. 2017. Who we are. Accessed January 4, 2019. http://www.vtrighttoknowgmos.org/who-we-are/#supporters.
   Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., and J. Manssens. 2005. Mobilizing the white march: Media frames as alternatives to movement organizations. In Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective, ed. H. Johnston and J. A. Noakes, 113–40. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh-Dilley, M. 2009. Localizing control: Mendocino county and the ban on GMOs. Agriculture and Human Values 26:95–106. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9176-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar