In the words of experts: the interpretive process of the food irradiation debate

Abstract

Irradiation has been touted as a way to safeguard the food supply. When we asked oyster harvesters in Southern Louisiana about their awareness and knowledge concerning this postharvest technology, we found that nearly half of them had never heard about it. We decided to look closer at the irradiation debate that has been taking place in two regional newspapers (Louisiana and Florida) to try to understand why the coverage of this issue may not be of interest to oyster harvesters. We interviewed reporters and sources who were involved in this coverage, and argue that one possible reason is that journalists have decided who the experts are on the issue, and have framed the controversy over irradiation as a public relations battle, and sources have not been overly opposed to this type of newswork. This type of journalism may have the effect of alienating those individuals whose livelihoods may be greatly impacted by the adoption of this technology. In addition, these findings have implications for individuals and groups interested in attracting the media spotlight concerning food safety issues.

ISO 14470:2011 and EU legislative background on food irradiation technology: The Italian attitude

“…The market alone cannot do much more in this context (Fox, 2002;Ten Eyck & Deseran, 2001). Indeed, if one of the main obstacles could be the labelled description on the irradiated food, namely "Treated with radiations", or "Treated by irradiation", or "Treated with ionizing energy" (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2007), it is important to remember that consumer's behavioural patterns change according to the perceived risk and the process-related benefits compared to any existing alternatives (Henson, 1995).…”

The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities

“…Ten Eyck and Deseran (2001) identify the way in which food risk issues (in this case food irradiation) can be framed as public relations battles. In a subsequent paper, the authors examine what they refer to as chiastic media presentations (two parallel lines moving in opposite directions), whereby positive and negative statements regarding food risks appear in the same issue of a newspaper (Ten Eyck and Deseran, 2004).…”

Social Representations of Risk in the Food Irradiation Debate in Canada, 1986-2002

“…There has been little study on the discourse of these actors, however, as the majority of the studies have concerned the recipients of their discourse. Other authors studied the news coverage of the technology (e.g., Ten Eyck & Deseran, 2001;Thomsen, Longstreth, & Miller, 2003). Those studies have in common a focus on actors who generate or circulate certain informational content on irradiation; they inspired our interest in this content as a key element in the issue of the acceptability of food irradiation.…”