Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the way in which Japanese regulatory authorities discursively construct legitimacy and stabilize the dominant sociotechnical imaginaries in the governance of genome-edited foods. Drawing on a discourse analysis of regulatory documents, expert committee reports, and public consultation materials produced between 2018 and 2024, the study identifies three recurring response patterns: selective incorporation, technocratic reinterpretation, and deferral, which systematically depoliticize societal concerns. Through these strategies, regulators present governance as scientifically sound and procedurally transparent, while sidestepping broader critiques of accountability, value pluralism, and democratic participation. Public submissions, however, articulate competing imaginaries grounded in precautionary principles, social inclusion, and consumer rights, revealing persistent tensions between innovation imperatives and demands for legitimacy. The Japanese case shows that imaginaries are not only envisioned but actively stabilized through discursive practices, and that this stabilization remains fragile and contested. The article advances imaginaries scholarship by demonstrating how depoliticization operates within regulatory discourse and by arguing for a more inclusive governance capable of engaging diverse visions of food system futures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Governing by imaginaries? Regulatory legitimization of genome-edited foods in Japan

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月23日

查看全文
  • Tomiko Yamaguchi

摘要

This article examines the way in which Japanese regulatory authorities discursively construct legitimacy and stabilize the dominant sociotechnical imaginaries in the governance of genome-edited foods. Drawing on a discourse analysis of regulatory documents, expert committee reports, and public consultation materials produced between 2018 and 2024, the study identifies three recurring response patterns: selective incorporation, technocratic reinterpretation, and deferral, which systematically depoliticize societal concerns. Through these strategies, regulators present governance as scientifically sound and procedurally transparent, while sidestepping broader critiques of accountability, value pluralism, and democratic participation. Public submissions, however, articulate competing imaginaries grounded in precautionary principles, social inclusion, and consumer rights, revealing persistent tensions between innovation imperatives and demands for legitimacy. The Japanese case shows that imaginaries are not only envisioned but actively stabilized through discursive practices, and that this stabilization remains fragile and contested. The article advances imaginaries scholarship by demonstrating how depoliticization operates within regulatory discourse and by arguing for a more inclusive governance capable of engaging diverse visions of food system futures.