What is it about?
The parliament is expected to represent public concerns. This article compares the nature of public concerns about GM foods and the the debates in parliament.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
It is shown that core concerns among the public to do with perceived unnaturalness are not taken up in the parliamentary debates about the regulation of GM foods. This is important because such a mismatch is a sign of the development of a elite of parliamentarians out of touch with the public it represents. Ultimately this may result in prolonged controversy over GM foods just as it may lead to disillusionment with parliamentarian government.
Perspectives
I hope this article will contribute to our understanding of how liberal democracy works and the importance of maintaining a close connection between the public and the parliamentarians.
Professor Jesper Lassen
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Listened to, but not heard! The failure to represent the public in genetically modified food policies, Public Understanding of Science, April 2018, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/0963662518766286.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
