Abstract
The priorities of French policy regarding genetically modified (GM) food shifted in the late 1990s from aggressive promotion to strict regulation based on precaution and separation of GM food. This paradigmatic policy change coincided with a rapid shift in the dominant meanings of GM food in larger French public discourses. Using data from media coverage, organizational documents, and in-depth interviews, the study examines the relationship between policy developments and GM food’s symbolic transformation. I argue that the interpretive dimension interacted with and co-evolved incrementally with formal policy developments, and that it cannot be understood as epiphenomenal to political processes, or as preceding and propelling a policy change. I identify three mechanisms of symbolic transformation: (1) multiplication of meanings; (2) association with other salient issues; and (3) coupling with national identity (boundary work). Conversely, this symbolic transformation influenced the terms of political debates and viable strategies, influencing policy developments. The study also demonstrates how certain longstanding elements of French political culture shaped, and were changed or reproduced through, these processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The term “GM food” generally refers to food that consists of or is made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are organisms created through the use of recombinant DNA techniques. Much of recent French controversy over “GMOs” (OGM in French, or organismes génétiquement modifiés) concerns the application in agriculture, specifically in food production.
In Eurobarometer, support for GM food declined from 54 % of the decided public in 1996 to 35 % in 1999 and 30 % in 2002. Out of 15 member states surveyed, France is one of the three that exhibited continuous decline in support.
In recent attempts to explain more incremental changes in formal rules, Mahoney and Thelen (2010) emphasize the interaction between the political context and such built-in properties of these rules as their openness to different interpretations. Although this insight about the interpretive flexibility afforded by institutions is an immensely productive one, these researchers still address everything else with an analytical focus on material interests and resources, leaving little room for the effect that changing dominant perceptions of an issue might have on the actor’s understanding of interests and political capacity.
For instance, as a factor behind European opposition’s success, they discuss public “outrage” toward GM food (Bernauer and Meins 2003) and the general contentiousness of the politics of food (Ansell et al. 2006). Schurman (2004) points to the biotech industry’s structural dependency on food processors and retailers, the sectors particularly vulnerable to consumer pressures, presupposing consumer problematization of GM food. Others explain the contentiousness of GM food with contextual factors, such as decreased level of trust in regulatory authorities (Gaskell et al. 2002) and emerging “greener” culture (Lynch and Vogel 2001).
For instance, the US Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick called the EU position on GMOs “Luddite” (Alvarez 2003).
For instance, Dobbin (1993) shows that policymakers embarked on a search for alternative economic policy paradigms when they faced the Great Depression.
In particular, I systematically content-analyzed 515 Le Monde articles from the period 1996–1999.
Conducted in June and July 2005, they are 23 subjects from 21 organizations, including biotech companies, government offices, a public research institute, a multinational food manufacturer, opposition NGOs, and universities.
Here I focus on “dominant” meanings, i.e., those repeatedly expressed in a highly visible and public forum (e.g., policy debates, governmental publications, major media) or across social groups (e.g., NGOs, industry).
Author interviews. Senior government scientist, June 2005 and July 2005.
Many French laboratories welcomed foreign requests for testing GMOs. INRA even had an agreement to develop transgenic plants in cooperation with Monsanto between 1987 and 1994 (Kemph 2003).
In 1993, the EEC was renamed the European Community and became part of the newly established European Union.
Author interviews. Representative of a biotechnology firm, July 2005; Consumer issue expert, July 2005.
Author interview. Representative of an alternative globalization group, July 2005.
Author interviews. Representative of an environmental group, July 2005; Senior government researcher, June 2005 and July 2005. Also see Marris (2000).
For instance, in 1997 two major French seed companies, Limagrain and Coop de Pau, created a joint venture, Biogemma, as the “French reaction to the global stake of plant biotechnology” (Joly and Lemarié 1998). An agricultural technology journal devoted a special issue to cover GMOs and even suggested that they might soon be called “genetically ameliorated organisms” (Raynaud 1997).
European Parliament. 1997. “Resolution on Genetically Modified Maize.” Official Journal C132, 28/04/1997 P. 0029.
At the press conference to announce these decisions, Minister of Health Bernard Kouchner (well-known as co-founder of Doctors without Borders) said, “GMOs are not the symbol of the devil, but the sign of progress” (quoted in Kemph 2003, p. 149).
Much confusion and ambiguity surrounded the labeling criteria adopted by two EU Regulations earlier that year. For instance, the thresholds for labeling were unspecified.
A publicly funded institution that gathers and disseminates information concerning consumer affairs.
For instance, in his May 1998 report for the Economic Affairs and Planning Commission at the Senate, a right-wing senator, Jean Bizet (1998), called for immediate action to revitalize the French biotech industry, pointing out its economic and other potentials and how countries like the United States and Japan were committed to its advancement.
For instance, see “Lettre de mission à Marylise Lebranchu.” March 29, 1999. Retrieved April 18, 2007. (http://www.finances.gouv.fr/ogm/lettre1.htm).
The Commission could technically overrule the European Council, as it did in December 1996 with regard to the authorization for Bt176. Yet given the increased contentiousness surrounding GMOs in Europe, this did not happen.
He was often called Asterix, a Gaulish cartoon character with a moustache like Bové’s, who fights against the Roman legions and represents the spirit of old France that resists the modernizer Romans.
Created in June 1998 in France to advocate the introduction of the Tobin tax on currency speculation to alleviate global inequality, the organization spread worldwide. It became highly visible in the French media, criticizing neo-liberalism and “merchandization” of society and calling for alternative ways of globalization.
Bové co-authored a book (Bové and Dufour 2000), The World is not for Sale: Farmers against Junk Food.
Author interview. Representative of an environmental group, June 2005.
Author interview. Ministry of Research official, July 2005.
Author interview. Senior government scientist, July 2005.
Author interview. Journalist, July 2005.
In September 1999, France’s largest animal feed supplier Glon-Sanders and largest poultry producer Bourgoin teamed up to launch the country’s first GM-free feed and a line of poultry and eggs free of GM feed (Lorelle 1999). In February 2000, Carrefour announced that it would eliminate GMOs from their animal feed.
Author interview. Representative of a biotechnology firm, July 2005.
Author interview. Representative of a biotechnology firm, July 2005.
For instance, ATTAC, a core alternative-globalization group, was founded in June 1998.
Frenchness can also be defined in opposition to other groups. For instance, see Scott (2007) for the ways in which Muslims are viewed as a fixed culture and a threat to mythologized French republicanism.
Where traces were detectable, labeling was required unless the presence of GM material in the food was below 0.9 % and proven accidental.
In May 2006, the WTO ruled in favor of the US side, arguing that delays in Europe’s GMO approval process constituted a WTO violation.
Author interview. Consumer expert, July 2005.
Author interview. Senior government scientist, July 2005.
In the case here, those factors allowed opposition activists to exert more influence in defining what GM food means than other sets of actors. Importantly, however, different contexts might have warranted different actors more influence than opposition activists on how the meanings changed. This was clearly the case, for instance, in the United States.
References
Alvarez, L. (2003). Consumers in Europe resist gene-altered foods. New York Times. February 11.
Ancelovici, M. (2002). Organizing against globalization: the case of ATTAC in France. Politics and Society, 30(3), 427–463.
Ansell, C., Maxwell, R., & Sicurelli, D. (2006). Protesting food: NGOs and political mobilization in Europe. In C. Ansell & D. Vogel (Eds.), What’s the beef?: The contested governance of European food safety (pp. 97–122). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bernauer, T., & Meins, E. (2003). Technological revolution meets policy and the market: explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 643–683.
Bizet, J. (1998). Transgéniques: pour des choix responsables. Commission des Affaires Economiques, Rapport d’Information 440 (97–98) May 20, 1998.
Bodnar, J. (2003). Roquefort vs Big Mac: globalization and its others. European Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 133–144.
Bonneuil, C., Joly, P.-B., & Marris, C. (2008). Disentrenching experiment: the construction of GM-Crop field trials as a social problem. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 201–229.
Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs?: Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 50–71.
Bové, J., & Dufour, F. (2000). Le Monde n’est pas une Marchandise: Des Paysans contre la Malbouffe. Paris: La Decouverte.
Bradley, K. (1998). The GMO-committee on transgenic maize: Alien corn, or the transgenic procedural maize. In M. P. C. M. van Schendelen (Ed.), EU committees as influential policymakers. Hampsire: Ashgate Publishing.
Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27, 377–409.
Campbell, J. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.
Cantley, M. (1995). The regulation of modern biotechnology: An historical and European perspective. In D. Brauer (Ed.), Biotechnology: Legal, economic and ethical dimensions (pp. 505–681). Weinheim, Germany: VCH.
Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–299.
Dobbin, F. (1993). The social construction of the Great Depression: industrial policy during the 1930s in the United States, France and Britain. Theory and Society, 22, 1–56.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dorozynski, A. (1987). Field testing dispute spread to Europe. The Scientist. August 10.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fantasia, R. (1995). Fast food in France. Theory and Society, 24, 201–243.
Fassin, É. (2001). Same sex, different politics: ‘Gay Marriage’ debates in France and the United States. Public Culture, 13(2), 215–232.
Ferguson, P. (2004). Accounting for taste: The triumph of French cuisine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forestier, N. (1997). Après l'affaire de la vache folle; La sécurité alimentaire objet de tous les combats. Le Figaro. February 19.
Frieden, J. (1991). Invested interests: the politics of national economic policies in a world of global finance. International Organization, 45(4), 425–451.
Furet, F. (1978). Penser la Révolution française. Paris: Gallimard.
Galinier, P, & Mauduit, L. (1997). Bercy s'émeut du jeu de chaises musicales que souhaiterait lui voir interpréter l'Elysée. Le Monde. February 11.
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructivist approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.
Gaskell, G., Thompson, P., & Allum, N. (2002). Worlds apart? Public opinion in Europe and the USA. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 351–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0 A report to the EC directorate general for research from the project Life Sciences in European SocietyQLG7-CT-(1999)-(0828)6.
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Gourevitch, P. (1986). Politics in hard times: Comparative responses to international economic crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Griswold, W. (1987). The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. The American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1077–1117.
Hacker, J., & Pierson, P. (2002). Business power and social policy: employers and the formation of the American Welfare State. Politics and Society, 30, 277–325.
Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policy-making in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
Hay, C. (2001). The ‘Crisis’ in Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain: An ideational institutionalist approach. In J. Campbell & O. Pedersen (Eds.), The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (pp. 193–218). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hecht, G. (1998). The Radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Heller, C. (2002). From scientific risk to Paysan savoir-faire: peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Science as Culture, 11(1), 5–37.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Design on nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Joly, P.-B. (2009). Beyond the French ‘technocratic regime’?: Transformations of the use of scientific expertise for public decisions. In P. Weingart & J. Lentsch (Eds.), Scientific advice to policy making: International comparison (pp. 117–140). Opladen and Farmington Hills: Budrich Barbara Publishers.
Joly, P.-B., & Lemarié, S. (1998). Industry consolidation, public attitude and the future of plant biotechnology in Europe. AgBioforum, 1(2), 85–90.
Kahn, A. (1996). Évaluation du risque et dissémination volontaire de plantes transgéniques: l'expérience française. In A. Kahn (Ed.), Les plantes trangéniques en agriculture: dix ans d’expérience de la Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (pp. 11–18). Paris: John Libbey.
Katzenstein, P. (1993). Coping with terrorism: Norms and internal security in Germany and Japan. In J. Goldstein & R. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change (pp. 265–295). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, P. (Ed.). (1996). The culture of national security. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kemph, H. (2003). La Guerre Secrete des OGM. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Kingdon, J. (1984). Agenda, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.
Korpi, W. (1989). Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: social rights during sickness in eighteen OECD countries since 1930. American Sociological Review, 54, 309–328.
Kuisel, R. (1993). Seducing the French: The dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lacorne, D., Rupnik, J., & Toinet, M.-F. (1990). The rise and fall of anti-Americanism: A century of French perception. Hampshire: Macmillan.
Lamont, M. (1995). National identity and national boundary patterns in France and the United States. French Historical Studies, 19(2), 349–365.
Lamont, M. (2000). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lamont, M., & Thévenot, L. (2000). Introduction: Toward a renewed comparative cultural sociology. In M. Lamont & L. Thévenot (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Polities and repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lezaun, J. (2006). Creating a new object of government: making genetically modified organisms traceable. Social Studies of Science, 36(4), 499–531.
Libération (1996). Alerte au Soja Fou. November 1.
Lorelle, V. (1999). Deux industriels créent la première filière « non OGM » en France. Le Monde. September 2.
Lynch, D., & Vogel, D. (2001). The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A case-study of contemporary European regulatory politics. A paper for the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8688/regulation_of_gmos_in_europe_and_the_united_states.html.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marris, C. (2000). Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs 1996–1999. Cahiers du C3ED (2).
McNamara, K. (1998). The currency of ideas. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mukerji, C. (2009). Impossible engineering: Technology and territoriality on the Canal du Midi. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mukerji, C. (2010). The territorial state as a figured world of power: strategies, logistics, and impersonal rule. Sociological Theory, 28(4), 402–424.
Oliver, P., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea: frames and ideology in social movement research. Mobilization, 5, 37–54.
Passard, A. (2002). Je ne cuisinerai pas de végétaux OGM, Le Monde, December 18.
Pedriana, N. (2006). From protective to equal treatment: legal framing processes and transformation of the women’s movement in the 1960s. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1718–1761.
Pedriana, N., & Stryker, R. (1997). Political culture wars 1960s style: equal employment opportunity-affirmative action law and the Philadelphia plan. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 633–691.
Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1993)[1977]. Regulating the poor: the functions of public welfare. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Raynaud, B. (1997). La Culture OGM. Agro Performances. October.
Rogowski, R. (1987). Political cleavages and changing exposure to trade. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1121–1137.
Rosanvallon, P. (2007). The demands of liberty: civil society in France since the Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roy, A., & Joly, P.-B. (2000). France: broadening precautionary expertise? Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 247–254.
Saguy, A. (2003). What is sexual harassment?: From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schurman, R. (2004). Fighting ‘Frankenfoods’: industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Social Problems, 51(2), 243–268.
Schurman, R., & Munro, W. (2009). Targeting capital: a cultural economy approach to understanding the efficacy of two anti-genetic engineering movements. The American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 155–202.
Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. (2007). The politics of the veil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sewell, W. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sheingate, A. (2003). The rise of the agricultural welfare state: Institutions and interest group power in the United States, France, and Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Snow, D., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, mobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
Somers, M., & Block, F. (2005). From poverty to perversity: ideas, markets, and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate. American Sociological Review, 70, 260–287.
Soysal, Y. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steensland, B. (2006). Cultural categories and the American Welfare State: the case of guaranteed income policy. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1273–1326.
Steensland, B. (2008). The failed welfare revolution: America’s struggle over guaranteed income policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steinmo, S. (1993). Taxation and democracy: Swedish, British, and American approaches to financing the modern state. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (Eds.). (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suleiman, E. (1974). Politics, power, and bureaucracy in France: The administrative elite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 20, 273–286.
Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Torgersen, H., et al. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, C. (1997). Le gouvernement autorise la mise en culture du maïs transgénique. Le Monde. November 28.
Vincent, C. (1998a). Un moratoire sur le maïs transgénique est réclamé par plusieurs associations. Le Monde, January 30.
Vincent, C. (1998b). Trois agriculteurs opposés au maïs transgénique comparaissent devant le tribunal d’Agen. Le Monde. February 5.
Vincent, C. (1998c). Les citoyens appellent à la prudence face aux plantes transgéniques. Le Monde. June 23.
Vogel, D. (2003). The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 557–581.
von Schomberg, R. (1998). An Appraisal of the Working in Practice of the Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of GM Organisms. Scientific and Technological Options Assessment of the European Parliament.
Waters, S. (2003). Social movements in France: Towards a new citizenship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weber, E. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Weir, M., & Skocpol, T. (1985). State structure and the possibilities for Keynesian responses to the great depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back (pp. 107–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolfreys, J. (2008). Regroupment and retrenchment on the radical left in France. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 16(1), 69–82.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the following for their helpful and insightful comments: Paul DiMaggio, Michèle Lamont, Peter Hall, Jal Mehta, King-To Yeung, Hélène Landemore, Barry Cohen, Bo-Mi Choi, and participants in the Culture and Inequality Workshop at Princeton University, the Culture and Social Analysis Workshop at Harvard University, and the Dissertation Writers Seminar at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University. The research for this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #0326142), Princeton University’s Global Network on Inequality, and Japan Economic Research Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sato, K. Genetically modified food in France: symbolic transformation and the policy paradigm shift. Theor Soc 42, 477–507 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-013-9198-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-013-9198-8