I denne artikkelen drøfter vi hvordan norske forbrukeres holdninger til genmodifisert mat har endret seg gjennom årene. Allerede da genteknologi ble etablert som et eget forskningsfelt og utviklingsområde på 1980-tallet, viste den norske opinionen stor skepsis. Den norske lovgivningen tidlig på 1990-tallet utmerket seg også som den mest restriktive i Europa. Dette bildet endret seg ikke mye i løpet av 1990-tallet, mens opinionen i mange europeiske land i disse årene kom mer på linje med den norske. I hele denne perioden (...) var både forbrukeropinionen og lovgivningen i USA langt mer aksepterende enn i Europa, noe som ga seg utslag i en handelskonflikt som toppet seg med EU sitt moratorium for utsetting av genmodifiserte planter i 1999. I denne artikkelen stiller vi spørsmålet om norske forbrukeres holdninger til genmodifisert mat har endret seg de siste årene. Artikkelen viser at mellom 2002 og 2007 er det en voksende gruppe av forbrukere som ser ut til å akseptere genmodifiserte matvarer hvis det fører til en helse- eller miljøgevinst. Men til tross for dette så er nordmenn fremdeles skeptiske til genmodifisert mat. Det kan tolkes slik at genmodifisert mat ikke har ført til den nytten som ansees nødvendig for å ta den risikoen det innebærer å gjøre et betydelig skifte i matseddel. Matpatriotisme og en kulturell konservatisme når det gjelder skifte i matvaner bidrar også til å forklare den dominerende vente-og-se-holdningen. (shrink)

This article raises the issue of the extent to which a single nation can develop a “national agricultural policy,” pursuing internal goals in agrarian development, goals that vary significantly from those of other industrialized countries. What are the conflicts arising from such a policy and how do these conflicts interfere with the general agricultural crisis of these countries? The Norwegian case is explored as an example of a blend of social-democratic and center-populist agricultural policies. The decision in 1975 by the (...) Norwegian Parliament to establish the income level of farmers at the same level as workers is seen as an experiment. As agricultural policy, this new departure represented a deviation from the earlier policies of rationalization. The Social Democrats developed their new position as a result of internal and external pressure. A series of reforms financed by the new state incomes from oil production were undertaken, of which income equalization and a farm relief service were the most important. Most Norwegian farmers speak of the reform years as “the good years of escalation.” Equity was reached in 1982, but nevertheless several problems emerged: 1) the escalation of subsidized incomes led to overproduction and decreasing incomes from the market (after 1982), 2) the large budgetary transfers to agriculture caused a legitimation crisis, fueling the constituency of the right-wing Progress Party, 3) the large subsidies to agriculture contributed to the fiscal crisis of the state, 4) the problems mentioned above, contributed to the general crisis of the Norwegian Social Democracy which finds itself with dwindling support. The likely outcome of the present Norwegian farm crisis is the implementation of an agricultural policy that will protect the most vulnerable sector and open the more competitive sector to market forces. (shrink)

The main idea of this article is to present various perspectives in order to analyze the recent crisis concerning the agriculture-based rural societies in the developed capitalist communities. In all of these countries there is a production crisis, resulting in too much food. But this is also an ideological crisis, because the consumer thinks that the food is produced at too high a price. And it is a political crisis as well because a major part of the voters think subsidies (...) and trade barriers are too high. The paper argues that beneath the present agricultural and rural policy crisis lies the failure of three great projects of our time: 1) The project of natural science; 2) The project of liberal capitalism; and 3) The project of scientific socialism. The failure of these three projects has to do with the breakdown of the positivist idea of modernization. Modernization theory was partly wrong because it overlooked the persistence of locally based life modes. Those life modes must be understood before a sustainable rural development is found. The article reviews some contemporary social science perspectives that have recently been developed to grasp the fundamental changes of today's rural societies. Based on those perspectives and primarily the life mode perspective, five key elements that are essential to analyze if we want to understand future development are isolated: food production, resources, space, social diversity, and culture. (shrink)