No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper, we examine three unanticipated findings from a social constructionist analysis of popular media coverage of the pesticide DDT from the years 1944 to 1961. The first unanticipated finding was the early (1945) appearance of negative or cautionary claims in the media source examined, the New York Times. Second, while negative or cautionary claims about the pesticide did constitute a minority voice during this time period, it was nonetheless a persistent voice. The third unanticipated finding was the predominance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations among those claimsmakers initially cautioning potential users about unintended and potentially deleterious impacts. The concept of "routine monitoring mechanisms" is introduced to explain this third finding. We conclude by considering the potential impact of this coverage on the subsequent development of the controversy.

We use the case of red meat food safety to illustrate the need to problematize policy. Overtime, there have been numerous red meat scandals and scares. We show that the statutes and regulations that arose out of these events provided the industry with a means of demonstrating safety, facilitating large-scale trade, legitimizing conventional production, and limiting interference into its practices. They also created systemic fragility, as evidenced by many recent events, and hindered the development of an alternative, small-scale sector. Thus, the accumulated rules help to structure the sector, create superficial resilience, and are used in place of an actual policy governing safety. We call for rigorous attention to not only food safety, but also the role and effect of agrifood statutes and regulations in general, and engagement in policy more broadly.