Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade

Appetite

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 78-89

  Dudo, Anthony ^a   Choi, Doo Hun ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Coverage trends; Food nanotechnology; Media; Newspapers; Public opinion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FOOD HANDLING; FOOD PROCESSING; MASS MEDIUM; NANOTECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

BIBLIOMETRICS; FOOD; HUMANS; JOURNALISM; MASS MEDIA; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NEWSPAPERS; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650055543     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.143     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Allan S. Media risk and society 2002, Open University Press, Philadelphia.
2. Althaus S.L., Edy J.A., Phalen P.F. Using substitutes for full-text news stories in content analysis. Which text is best?. American Journal of Political Science 2001, 45(3):707-723.
3. Anderson A., Allan S., Petersen A., Wilkinson C. The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication 2005, 27:200-220.
4. Arias A.I. The media coverage of nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Access, 2004 2004.
5. Arora A., Padua G.W. Review. Nanocomposites in food packaging. Journal of Food Science 2010, 75(1):R43-R49.
6. Berube D.M. Nano-Hype. The truth behinf the nanotechnology buzz 2006, Prometheus Books, New York.
7. Berube D.M., Searson E.M., Morton T.S., Cummings C.L. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. Consumer product inventory evaluated. Nanotechnology Law & Business 2010, 7(spring):152-163.
8. Brody A.L. Packaging and the science of tiny. Food Technology 2010, 64(2):74-76.
9. Brossard D., Nisbet M.C. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public. Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2006, 19(1):24-52.
10. Business Wire, Business Wire (2006, March 08). Sharper Image introduces FresherLonger™ Miracle Food Storage Containers. Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/product-management/5457852-1.html.
11. Buzby J.C. Nanotechnology for food applications. More questions than answers. Journal of Consumer Affairs 2010, 44(3):528-545.
12. Chau C.-F., Wu S.-H., Yen G.-C. The development of regulations for food nanotechnology. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2007, 18:269-280.
13. Chaudhry Q., Scotter M., Blackburn J., Ross B., Boxall A., Castle L., et al. Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Additives & Contaminants. Part A 2008, 25(3):241-258.
14. Chun A.L. Will the public swallow nano food?. Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4(12):790-791.
15. Cobb M.D., Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2004, 6(4):395-405.
16. Conway M. The subjective precision of computers. A methodological comparison with human coding in content analysis. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2006, 83(1):186-200.
17. Corley E.A., Scheufele D.A. Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist 2010, 24(1):22.
18. Downs A. Up and down with ecology. The Issue-Attention Cycle. Public Interest 1972, 28:38-50.
19. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (in press). The emergence of nano news. Tracking thematic trends and changes in newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
20. Dunwoody S. The science writing inner club. A communications link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1980, 5:14-22.
21. ETC Group. (2004). Down on the Farm. The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/80.
22. Evans W. Computer-supported content analysis. Trends, tools, and techniques. Social Science Computer Review 1996, 14(3):269-279.
23. Friedman S.M., Egolf B.P. Nanotechnology Risks and the media. Ieee Technology and Society Magazine 2005, 24(4):5-11.
24. Friedman S., Dunwoody S., Rogers C. Scientists and journalists. Reporting science as news 1986, Free Press, New York.
25. Friedman S.M., Dunwoody S., Rogers C.L. Communicating Uncertainty. Media coverage of new and controversial science 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
26. Garber, C. (2006, December 28). Nanotechnology food coming to a fridge near you. Retrieved from http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1360.php.
27. Gaskell G., Ten Eyck T., Jackson J., Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology. Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 2005, 14(1):81-90.
28. Gorss, J., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The salience of small. Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the International Communication Association.
29. Gregory J., Miller S. Science in public. Communication, culture and credibility 1998, Plenum, New York.
30. Hampton, T. (2006, September 27). Nanotechnology task force. Retrieved from http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/12/1458-b.
31. Hertog, J. K. (1990). Elite press support for the administration during periods of external conflict. A test of three theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN.
32. Hocking J., Stacks D., McDermott S. Communication research 2003, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., U.S.
33. House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee. (2010). Nanotechnologies and food (Volume I. Report). London: U.K. Retrieved February 3, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldsctech/22/22i.pdf.
34. Iyengar S., Kinder D.R. News that matters. Television and American opinion 1987, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
35. Jandt K.D. Probing the future in functional soft drinks on the nanometre scale towards tooth friendly soft drinks. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2006, 17:263-271.
36. Joseph, T., & Morrison, M. (2006, May). Nanotechnology in agriculture and food. Nanoforum Report.
37. Kahan D.M., Slovic P., Braman D., Gastil J., Cohen G., Kysar D. Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility. An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Brief No.3 2008.
38. Kahan D.M., Braman D., Slovic P., Gastil J., Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4(2):87-90.
39. Kjærgaard R.S. Making a small country count. Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science 2010, 19:80-97.
40. Krosnick J.A., Kinder D.R. Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review 1990, 84:497-512.
41. Kuzma J., VerHage P. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production 2006, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
42. Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Retrieved March, 30, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/events/archive/new_page/.
43. Lee C.J., Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):240-267.
44. Linderman A. Computer content analysis and manual coding techniques. Theory, method and practice in computer content analysis 2001, 97-109. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CN. M.D. West (Ed.).
45. MacFie H. Consumer-led food product development 2007, Woodhead, Cambridge, UK.
46. Maynard, A., & Michelson, E. (2006). The nanotechnology consumer products directory. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php%3Fs=file_download%26id=38.
47. McCombs M.E. Setting the agenda. Mass media and public opinion 2004, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
48. McLeod J.M., Becker L.B. Testing the validity of gratification measures through political effects analysis. The uses of mass communication. Current perspectives on gratifications research 1974, 137-162. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. J.G. Blumler, E. Katz (Eds.).
49. Mooney, C. (2008). The science writer's lament. Scienceprogress.com. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/.
50. Mooney C., Kirshenbaum S. Unpopular Science The crisis in journalism has gutted intelligent science reporting-just when we need it most. Nation 2009, 289(5):20-24.
51. Mooney C., Kirshenbaum S. Unscientific America. How scientific illiteracy threatens our future 2009, Basic Books, New York.
52. Nacos B.L., Shapiro R.Y., Young J.T., Fan D.P., Kjellstrand T., McCaa C. Comparing human coding and a computer-assisted method. The content analysis reader 2009, 243-252. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA. K. Krippendorff, M. Bock (Eds.).
53. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2007). Strategic plan. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf.
54. National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2008). FY 2009 budget & highlights. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.nano.gov/NNI_FY09_budget_summary.pdf.
55. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (Chapter 7). Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/.
56. National Science Board. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (Chapter 7). National Science Foundation Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm.
57. Nature Filling the Void. Nature 2009, 458:260.
58. Nisbet M.C., Brossard D., Kroepsch A. Framing science. The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 2003, 8(2):36-70.
59. Nisbet M.C., Lewenstein B.V. Biotechnology and the American media. The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 2002, 23(4):359-391.
60. Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2007). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of-nanotech-stuck-at-low-level.
61. Poland C.A., Duffin R., Kinloch I., Maynard A., Wallace W.A.H., Seaton A., et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 2008, 3(7):423-428.
62. Priest S. Biotechnology, nanotechnology, media and public opinion. What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs 2008, 221-234. Elsevier, Burlington, MA. K. David, P.B. Thompson (Eds.).
63. Pusztai A., Bardocz S. The future of nanotechnology in food science and nutrition. Can science predict its safety?. Nanotechnology. Risk, ethics and law 2006, Earthscan, London. G. Hunt, M.D. Mehta (Eds.).
64. Riffe D., Lacy S., Fico F.G. Analyzing media messages. Using quantitative content analysis in research 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 2 ed.
65. Robinson, D. K. R., & Morrison, M. (2009). Report on nanotechnology and agrifood. European Union, ObservatoryNANO. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/filesystem/files/Full%2520Report%2520Nanotechnology%2520in%2520Agrifood%2520May%25202009.pdf.
66. Salamanca-Buentello F., Persad D.L., Court E.B., Martin D.K., Daar A.S., Singer P.A. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLOS Medicine 2005, 2(5):383-386.
67. Sanguansri P., Augustin M.A. Nanoscale materials development. A food industry perspective. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2006, 17(10):547-556.
68. Scheufele D.A. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 1999, 49(1):103-122.
69. Scheufele D.A. Messages and heuristics. How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. Engaging science. Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. J. Turney. London, The Wellcome Trust 2006, 20-25.
70. Scheufele D.A, Corley E.A., Dunwoody S., Shih T., Hillback E., Guston D.H. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology 2007, 2(12):732-734.
71. Scheufele D.A., Corley E.A., Shih T.-j., Dalrymple K.E., Ho S.S. Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US. Nature Nanotechnology 2009, 4(2):91-94.
72. Scheufele D.A., Dudo A. Emerging agendas at the intersection of political and science communication. The case of nanotechnology. Communication Yearbook 34 2010, 143-167. Routledge, New York, NY. C.T. Salmon (Ed.).
73. Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology. How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2005, 7(6):659-667.
74. Scheufele D.A., Tewksbury D. Framing, agenda setting, and priming. The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 2007, 57(1):9-20.
75. Sekhon B.S. Food nanotechnology. An overview. Nanotechnology, Science, and Applications 2010, 3:1-15.
76. Shelton A.M., Roush R.T. False reports and the ears of men. Nature Biotechnology 1999, 17(9):832-1832.
77. Shoemaker P.J., Reese S.D. Mediating the message. Theories of influences on mass media content 1996, Longman, White Plains, NY. 2 ed.
78. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2008, 19(11):603-608.
79. Siegrist M., Cousin M.E., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49(2):459-466.
80. Siegrist M., Stampfli N., Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods. A conjoint study examining consumer's willingness to buy. British Food Journal 2009, 111(7):660-668.
81. Siegrist M., Stampfli N., Kastenholz H., Keller C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 2008, 51(2):283-290.
82. Sorrentino A., Gorrasi G., Vittoria V. Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2007, 18(2):84-95.
83. Stephens L.F. News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication 2005, 27(2):175-199.
84. Tarver T. Food nanotechnology. Food Technology 2006, 60(11):22-26.
85. te Kulve H. Evolving repertoires. Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science in Culture 2006, 15(4):367-382.
86. Tewksbury D., Scheufele D.A. News frames theory and research. Media effects. Advances in theory and research 2009, 17-33. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New York. J. Bryant, M.B. Oliver (Eds.).
87. The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2008a). Audience segments in a changing news environment. Key news audiences new blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.%20Pdf.
88. The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2008b). The state of the news media. An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2008/index.php.
89. Weaver D.A., Bimber B. Finding news stories. A comparison on searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2009, 85(3):515-530.
90. Weaver D.A., Lively E., Bimber B. Searching for a frame. News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication 2009, 31(2):139-166.
91. Weiss R. Nanotech product recalled in Germany. The Washington Post 2006, (April):A2.
92. Weiss J., Takhistov P., McClements D.J. Functional materials in food nanotechnology. Journal of Food Science 2006, 71:R107-R116.
93. Wilkinson C., Allan S., Anderson A., Petersen A. From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk & Society 2007, 9(2):145-157.
94. Wogan T. U. K. Lords. Nanofoods deserve further scrutiny [Electronic Version]. Science 2010, Retrieved January 25, 2010, from http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/uk-lords-nanofo.html.
95. Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2007). Nanotechnology, from the science to the social. The social, ethical, and economic aspects of the debate. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Nano07_tcm6-18918.pdf.
96. Zaller J. Information, values, and opinions. American Political Science Review 1991, 85:1215-1237.