Abstract
This study investigates media coverage of the re-evaluation process of glyphosate from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2018. In a comparative, qualitative print media analysis, the promotion of claims and the use of narratives of Die Zeit, a weekly newspaper, and top agrar, an agricultural trade journal, are explored. Results identify noticeable differences in both media outlets’ news reporting. Whereas Die Zeit focused on potential health risks and the scientific controversy, top agrar’s coverage emphasized the harmlessness of glyphosate. The multifaceted use of narratives by Die Zeit contrasts with the comparatively low use of narratives by top agrar.
Highlights
Plant protection products aim to eradicate pests or weeds [1]
In the beginning of the media discourse in 2015, Die Zeit laid emphasis on the potential health risks caused by glyphosate
In an article on 29 December 2015, Die Zeit referred to the histories of these agrochemicals as ‘stories of being late’, referring to the harm caused by their application, as well as the long time period until they were prohibited
Summary
Plant protection products aim to eradicate pests or weeds [1]. They consist of at least one active ingredient, which is the component that removes the pests or weeds. Glyphosate is used, albeit to a lesser extent, in post-harvest treatments It can function as a desiccant and plant-growth regulator when applied at a lower dose [7]. Site-specific weed management strategies (i.e., precision-farming) present an option, as they result in a more productive and resource-efficient agriculture [11] and, reduce the use of herbicides [12]. Their costs act as a barrier for farmers and prevent adoption [13].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
