Multiple exposures: Scientific controversy, the media, and public responses to bisphenol a

Science Communication

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 76-97

  Brewer, Paul R ^a   Ley, Barbara L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

bisphenol A; mass media; public responses; scientific controversy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955535168     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547010377879     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ashby, J., Tinwell, H., & Haseman, J. (1999). Lack of effects for low dose levels of bisphenol A and diethylstilbestrol on the prostate gland of CF1 mice exposed in utero. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 30, 156-166.
2. Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
3. Bord, R., & O'Connor, R. (1992). Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis, 12, 411-416.
4. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M.C. (2006). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52.
5. Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 291-312.
6. Butterworth, T. (2009). Science suppressed: How America became obsessed with BPA. Retrieved fromhttp://stats.org/stories/2009/Science%20Suppressed_%20America%27s%20Obsession%20with%20BPA_July9_09.pdf.
7. Chaffee, S.H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to news media. Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
8. Clarke, C.E. (2008). A question of balance: The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30, 77-107.
9. Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
10. Colborn, T., Dumanoski, D., & Meyers, J.P. (1997). Our stolen future: Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival? A scientific detective story. New York, NY: Plume.
11. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
12. European Union Risk Assessment. (2008). Updated European risk assessment report: 4,4′-Isopropylidenediphenol (bisphenol-A). Retrieved fromhttp://ecb.jrc.it/documents/Existing-Chemicals/RISK_ASSESSMENT/ADDENDUM/bisphenola_add_325.pdf.
13. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
14. Fox, S., & Jones, S. (2009). The social life of health information. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx.
15. Friedman, S.M. (1999). The never-ending story of dioxin. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 113-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Gutteling, J., Hanssen, L., van der Veer, N., & Seydel, E. (2006). Trust in governance and the acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 103-112.
17. Health Canada. (2008). Bipshenol A. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/index-eng.php.
18. Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D.A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.
19. Hornig, S. (1992). Gender differences in responses to news about science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17, 532-542.
20. Kellstedt, P.M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28, 113-126.
21. Krimsky, S. (2000). Hormonal chaos: The scientific and social origins of the environmental endocrine hypothesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22. Lang, I.A., Galloway, T.S., Scarlett, A., Henley, W.E., Depledge, M., Wallace, R.B., & Melzer, D. (2008). Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1303-1310.
23. Lee, C., Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
24. Ley, B.L. (2009). From pink to green: Disease prevention and the environmental breast cancer movement. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
25. Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication, and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704-718.
26. Malka, A., Krosnick, J.A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.
27. Miller, J.D., Augenbraun, E., Schulhof, J., & Kimmel, L.G. (2006). Adult science learning from local television newscasts. Science Communication, 28, 216-242.
28. Nagel, S.C., vom Saaal, F.S., Thayer, K.A., Dhar, M.G., Boechler, M., & Welshons, W.V. (1997). Relative binding affinity-serum modified access (RBA-SMA) assay predicts the relative in vivo bioactivity of the xenoestrogens bisphenol A and octylphenol. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105, 70-76.
29. National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). NTP-CERHR monograph on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of bisphenol A. Retrieved fromhttp://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf.
30. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.
31. Niemark, J. (2008, May). The dirty truth about plastic: BPA and other plastics may be as harmful as they are plentiful. Discover. Retrieved fromhttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/18-the-dirty-truth-about-plastic/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=.
32. Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90-112.
33. Nisbet, M.C., & Goidel, R.K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
34. Nisbet, M.C., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
35. Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Knowledge, reservation, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
36. Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2008). Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Science Communication, 30, 8-47.
37. Popkin, S.L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38. Priest, S.H. (2001a). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.National Toxicology Program
39. Priest, S.H. (2001b). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23, 97-110.
40. Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanan, M. (2003). The "trust gap" hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23, 751-766.
41. Rust, S., & Kissinger, M. (2009, August 22). "Watchdog" advocates for BPA. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html.
42. Rust, S., Spivak, C., & Kissinger, M. (2007, December 2). Warning: The chemical bisphenol A has been known to pose severe health risks to laboratory animals. And the chemical is in you. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved fromhttp://www.3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=692145.
43. Schettler, T., Solomon, G., Valenti, M., & Huddle, A. (1999). Generations at risk: Reproductive health and the environment. Cambridge: MIT Press.
44. Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
45. Shim, M., Kelly, B., & Hornik, R. (2006). Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge, lifestyle choices, and screening. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 157-172.
46. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-204.
47. Tian, Y., & Robinson, J.D. (2009). Incidental health information use on the Internet. Health Communication, 24, 41-49.
48. Trumbo, C.W., & McComas, K.A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23, 343-353.
49. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Bisphenol A (BPA). Retrieved fromhttp://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm.
50. Willhite, C.C., Ball, G.L., & McLellan, C.J. (2008). Derivation of a bisphenol A oral reference dose (RfD) and drinking-water equivalent concentration. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 11, 69-146.