“Frequently Asked Questions” About Genetic Engineering in Farm Animals: A Frame Analysis

Food Ethics 9 (1):1-20 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Calls for public engagement on emerging agricultural technologies, including genetic engineering of farm animals, have resulted in the development of information that people can interact and engage with online, including “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQs) developed by organizations seeking to inform or influence the debate. We conducted a frame analysis of FAQs webpages about genetic engineering of farm animals developed by different organizations to describe how questions and answers are presented. We categorized FAQs as having a regulatory frame (emphasizing or challenging the adequacy of regulations), an efficiency frame (emphasizing precision and benefits), a risks and uncertainty frame (emphasizing unknown outcomes), an animal welfare frame (emphasizing benefits for animals) or an animal dignity frame (considering the inherent value of animals). Animals were often featured as the object of regulations in FAQs, and questions about animals were linked to animal welfare regulations. The public were represented using a variety of terms (public, consumer) and pronouns (I, we). Some FAQs described differences between technology terms (gene editing, genetic modification) and categorized technologies as either well-established or novel. This framing of the technology may not respond to actual public concerns on the topic. Organizations seeking to use FAQs as a public engagement tool might consider including multiple viewpoints and actual questions people have about genetic engineering.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals.Rob Vries - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (5):469-493.
Ethical limits to domestication.P. Sandøe, N. Holtug & H. B. Simonsen - 1996 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9 (2):114-122.
Why aquatic animals matter for food justice.Chiawen Chiang & Jeff Sebo - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Genetically Modifying Livestock for Improved Welfare: A Path Forward.Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):161-180.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-02-13

Downloads
69 (#860,978)

6 months
17 (#690,063)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2000 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (1):3-29.
A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2005 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 30 (2):251-290.
Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. [REVIEW]Erving Goffman - 1974 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39 (4):601-602.

View all 9 references / Add more references