Lassen Jesper
University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Public Underst Sci. 2018 Nov;27(8):923-936. doi: 10.1177/0963662518766286. Epub 2018 Apr 4.
'In the mid-1990s, a mismatch was addressed between European genetically modified food policy, which focused primarily on risks and economic prospects, and public anxieties, which also included other concerns, and there was a development in European food policy toward the inclusion of what were referred to as "ethical aspects." Using parliamentary debates in Denmark in 2002 and 2015 as a case, this article examines how three storylines of concern that were visible in public discourse at the time were represented by the decision makers in parliament. It shows that core public concerns raising fundamental questions about genetically modified foods, and in particular their perceived unnaturalness, were not considered in the parliamentary debates. It is suggested that the failure of the parliament to represent the public may undermine the legitimacy of politicians and lead to disillusionment with parliamentary government.
20世纪90年代中期，欧洲转基因食品政策主要关注风险和经济前景，与公众的焦虑之间存在脱节，公众的焦虑还包括其他担忧，并且欧洲食品政策有了新发展，开始纳入所谓的“伦理层面”。本文以2002年和2015年丹麦议会辩论为例，研究当时公众话语中可见的三条关切主线是如何被议会中的决策者呈现的。研究表明，议会辩论未考虑公众对转基因食品提出根本性问题的核心关切，尤其是其被认为的非自然性。有人认为，议会未能代表公众可能会削弱政治家的合法性，并导致对议会制政府的幻灭感。
