{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028021978021978023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008791208791208791, 'mean_word_length': 5.411971830985915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Agenda-Setting and Controversies: A Comparative Approach to the Case of GMO’s in France and the United States

In the European Union GMOs are hardly utilized in food and agriculture but constitute a public problem, whereas in the USA, they are widely utilized and yet do not exist on the public policy agenda. This paradoxical situation was particularly apparent between 1997 and 1999, and was commonly explained by referring to cultural differences. Thus, commentators frequently stated that Americans are technophile whereas Europeans are technophobic; that Americans trust their regulators whereas Europeans, especially following the BSE crisis, do not; and that Americans are less attached to the cultural identity of their foods than Europeans. We suggest that these hypothesized explanations have not been substantiated, and that the idea that American consumers have accepted GMOs is unconvincing. Furthermore, we argue that focusing exclusively on public perceptions is in any case not sufficient to explain how an issue becomes a public problem. It is also necessary to analyze the mechanics of agenda-setting, by following the actors involved and identifying the different frames of reference utilized, with more or less success, in different arenas (scientific, regulatory, legal, political, media...). We analyze these processes in France and the USA during the period 1996-2000 and identify three key themes which crystallize the debate on both sides of the Atlantic: (i) the issue of labeling of GM-food products; (ii) questions of agricultural policy focalized around "Terminator" technology (farmer dependence on biotechnology corporations and monopolistic "food power" in the hands of a few firms); (iii) controversies about framing issues in risk assessment, emphasized by the Monarch butterfly affair.