Wang Di, Li Yinyun, Mao Zhifei, He Mengfan, Hon Chitin, Liu Zige
Literature on GM foods reports often examined article tones in general, omitting the differences in various social actors' attitudes. To explore such differences, we conducted a comparative framing analysis of news reports on genetically modified (GM) foods in the United States and China, two large markets of GM foods, to examine (1) the use of frames on GM foods; (2) who has more power in defining the risks of GM foods and (3) the tones towards GM foods of the sources in each country. We used both article and source assertion as the unit of analysis. By content analyzing 267 news articles on GM foods from 2014-2023, including 126 from the People’s Daily (PD) and 141 from the New York Times (NYT), we identified the frames, sources, and tones of each article. We also identified 1,496 source assertions to examine the tones of each source. Results showed PD used more treatment responsibility frame than NYT, while the latter used more conflict and causal responsibility frames than the former. While both publications primarily published neutral articles, NYT published more anti-GM food articles than PD. The NYT used a broader range of sources and more anti-GM food sources than PD, while PD cited more pro-GM food sources. The two newspapers both held neutral attitudes toward GM foods. By reporting both sides of the opinion on the issue, most news articles framed it as uncertain rather than having harm or benefit to human society, which may lead to public confusion about GM foods.