Rewrite How Chinese online critics oppose genetically modified foods: discourse analysis and food policy implications as a headline for a science magazine post, using no more than 8 words

As this study has shown, discourses of anti-GMFs are highly emotional, employing metaphors, irony, moralization, and intertextuality. Specifically, we find that a) War metaphors and ironic language are frequently used in anti-GMF discourses to provoke emotions; b) GMFs opponents first portray GMFs as immediate threats and dangers to the public, then employ emotional and moral appeals based on traditional Chinese values to position themselves as the patriotic Us so as to assert a sense of moral superiority; c) GMFs opponents also employ intertextual resources, including proverbs, ancient sayings, idioms, and revolutionary discourses to arouse a spirit of resistance among the public. These strategies are imbedded with ideological and cultural factors.

On one hand, these discursive strategies serve as a common survival ideology among Chinese opponents of GMFs. For example, the use of war metaphors reflects people’s strong determination to fight for their survival, particularly reproduction. The utilization of moralization (appealing to filial piety and patriotism) urges people to oppose GMFs so that they can preserve their family bloodline and ensure the survival of the nation. The integration of intertextual elements and revolutionary discourse evokes a spirit of resistance in the public. These discursive strategies all work to reflect and reproduce the public’s survival ideology.

Furthermore, many of these discursive strategies are morality-driven, reflecting a particular aspect of Chinese culture, wherein moral strength plays a significant role in shaping people’s beliefs and actions. The opponents leverage morality to implicitly persuade the public against GMFs. Specifically, an Us versus Them opposition is constructed. Those who resist GMFs are referred to as brave fighters, heroes, filial sons and daughters, and patriots, creating a positive image of the Self, while those who support GMFs are labeled as enemies, running dogs, and traitors, casting them a negative image of the Other. This moral abduction effectively mobilizes the public’s moral stance to resist GMFs.

However, considering the broad sociopolitical environment in China, particularly the power imbalance between the elites and the common citizens, we argue that underlying the survival ideology and the moral persuasion may reflect a power imbalance between the opposing parties. GMFs opponents typically have limited social status and financial resources given that they are mostly individuals or grassroots such as farmers. Therefore, they have few available resources other than social values, emotions, and morality, in contrast to GMFs supporters who are often backed by professional knowledge, government support, and legal protection. This power asymmetry may result in an imbalance of discursive rights in GMFs debates, making it difficult for different opinions, especially those of disadvantaged groups to voice their thoughts. It is also not helpful to reconcile different opinions, if reconciliation is wanted. This power imbalance may partly explain the morality-laden argumentation pattern in anti-GMFs discourses. We think that this attention to the power imbalance is crucial for researchers to investigate such a controversial topic, as it may enable us to better understand the nuances of the opponents’ stance and discourses. We thus stress the importance of keeping a balanced position in analyzing and interpreting GMFs oppositional discourses, despite that these discourses counter the modern agricultural technology and accompanied scientific values. Furthermore, we hope that the insights from this study will offer interpretive frameworks that can be applied to other contentious issues, such as debates surrounding surgical procedures and cosmetic surgeries.

The study has several implications for food policymakers addressing arguments against GMFs. First, given the moral and emotional nature of anti-GMF arguments identified in this study, there is a need for enhanced science communication that goes beyond mere dissemination of facts. Educational initiatives should focus on demystifying GMFs, addressing public concerns, and providing transparent information about the science and safety of GMFs. Effective communication strategies should aim to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public perceptions, helping to alleviate fears and misconceptions. Second, the research highlights a significant power imbalance between GMF opponents and proponents, which affects the representation and consideration of various viewpoints in the debate. To address this, food policymakers may consider establishing public forums and participatory policymaking processes. These platforms would provide opportunities for diverse voices, particularly those from grassroots groups, to be heard and integrated into the decision-making process. Such efforts could contribute to a more inclusive and democratic debate surrounding GMFs. Third, the use of traditional Chinese values, such as filial piety and nationalism, in anti-GMF arguments reflects the deep cultural and ideological contexts influencing public opinions. Food policymakers may find it useful to appropriate these traditional Chinese values, to foster more culturally sensitive and effective communication. By aligning policies with these values, they could resonate more deeply with the public and enhance trust in GMF-related policies. Finally, the study has advocated for maintaining a neutral yet critical stance when analyzing and interpreting anti-GMFs discourses. For policymakers and researchers, this means approaching the issue with an open mind and avoiding the demonization of opposing views. Engaging critically with all arguments, regardless of their source, can lead to more balanced and effective policy solutions. This approach also fosters trust and encourages constructive dialogue among stakeholders with differing viewpoints.

In conclusion, the findings of this study present a nuanced understanding of anti-GMFs discourses, demonstrating that critics of GMFs employ strategic discursive practices that serve not only as emotional appeals but also as legitimate modes of persuasion within their socio-cultural context. These findings challenge previous studies’ simplistic characterization of anti-GMFs critics as rumormongers, underscoring the complexity of their discourses. Furthermore, the study advocates for a multifaceted approach to addressing arguments against GMFs, one that recognizes the emotional, moral, and cultural dimensions of the discourse. By understanding and addressing the rhetorical strategies employed by opponents, recognizing power imbalances, and promoting inclusive dialogue, policymakers and researchers can develop more effective and culturally sensitive strategies for managing GMFs debates. Continued research and critical engagement are essential for navigating this complex and evolving issue. Future research can build on these findings by incorporating diverse sources and exploring longitudinal changes in anti-GMFs discourse.