Reporters See Indifference On Genetically Modified Food By: Linda Steiner and Nora Bird Steiner, L. & Bird, N. (winter, 2008). Reporters see indifference on genetically modified food. Newspaper Research Journal, 29 (1), 63-77. Made available courtesy of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: http://newspaperresearchjournal.org/ ***Note: Figures may be missing from this format of the document Abstract: Interviews with journalists indicate decreasing public opposition to genetically modified food and the perception that U.S. consumers do not understand these products. Journalists continue to be skeptical about sources and experts on GM food. Article: As much as they may distrust news media, non-scientist audiences for science news depend on journalists to obtain information from reliable sources, to interpret it and to make it accessible. This is especially true with respect to emerging issues in science and technology. While science may generally enjoy an upper hand over journalism, science's interpretive control is significantly loosened in cases of controversial topics.1 The already difficult relationship of scientists and journalists is more fluid, fraught and significant with science stories that involve questions of public impact and policy, which in turn often involve government regulation, new technologies and corporate development and support.2 One such issue is genetically modified food, involving as it does human consumption of plants altered through genetic manipulation and of food products made with genetically modified (GM) ingredients.3 In the decade since the U.S. government first approved genetically engineered crops, literally millions of acres of GM crops have been planted. Approximately 80 percent of the processed foods sold in supermarkets use some GM product. In 2006, 89 percent of all soybeans, 61 percent of corn and 81 percent of cotton planted in the U.S. were genetically engineered. For example, oils from these crops are genetically modified.4 The question of GM food and other food risks (put positively, food safety) is itself fraught with questions. First, scientists are divided regarding its potential dangers, if not to individual consumers, then to the environment or agriculture. Meanwhile, in the U.S. and abroad, relationships among scientists, activist organizations, corporations, government agencies, individual farmers and agribusinesses and other stakeholders are complex and sometimes competitive or even antagonistic.5 As with other science issues, the huge volume of efforts from universities, corporations, think tanks, advocacy groups and government agencies to garner attention requires journalists covering issues involving GM products to act as gatekeepers.6 Given reporters' significance here as gatekeepers, the focus is what reporters say they think and know about genetically modified food, also known as genetically engineered, bioengineered or transgenic food. Of particular concern is whom journalists regard as credible, or not, and why. News regarding GM issues is usually studied in terms of content (or quantity); this was not the primary method here, although articles by reporters interviewed were carefully read and compared to a sample from reporters not interviewed. The Scientist-Journalist Relationship Science journalists have been criticized on several grounds, including for maintaining a "gee whiz" attitude toward science and forgetting their usual skepticism, highlighting the positive "mystique" of science and avoiding controversial issues and presenting each medical and nutrition report as if it were the whole truth, producing a "cure-of-the-day" mentality.7 Given Americans' general respect for science and given reporters' lack of confidence in their understanding of science, scientists can purvey story ideas to journalists and drive the