1. 1 Is Franken Food Food for Thought?

2. 2 Introduction and Background  Previous research  Public attitudes to biotechnology in Britain  Metaphor as argument and interaction in the debate  Metaphor in a critical perspective

3. 3 Public attitudes to biotechnology (e.g. Frewer et al. 1995, 1997; Hviid Nielsen et al. 2002)  Risk  Benefits  Ethics  Two segments Modernist ‘green’ Traditional ‘blue’

4. 4 Conceptual Metaphor Theory (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1993; Lakoff & Turner 1989; Chilton 1996; Musolff 2000)  Metaphor is primarily cognitive, but realised linguistically  Metaphors are coherent, systematic and pervasive  Metaphors are conceptual, while at the same time strategic and intentional

5. 5 The Socio-Cognitive Approach (e.g. Van Dijk 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002)  Combining the social and the cognitive  Group structure and schema  Consequences for the study of metaphor

6. 6 The UK GM debate  UK national debate on GM issues  Metaphorical mappings in the first report Battle & Invasion Personification Liquids & Paths

7. 7 Metaphors in the GM Science Review Report Battle/InvasionPersonificationLiquids/Paths  Invasion  Counterparts  Aliens  Colonisation  Establishment  Fitness  Survival  Thriving  Escape  Behaviour  Parent plants  2nd generation plants  Descendents  Gene flow  Gene transfer  Movement

8. 8 GM metaphors in the media Objects and Substances‘Supernatural’ personification  Contamination ‘the contamination threat’ ‘the potential to contaminate non-GM crops’ ‘GM crop contamination’  Frankenstein foods  Superweeds ‘ All this talk of Frankenstein food is misleading’ ‘the irresponsible journalist who labelled them “Frankenstein foods”’ ‘genetically modified superweeds rampaging’

9. 9 Concluding remarks  Metaphors as deliberate choice  Metaphor as reflecting and influencing public attitudes