本研究探討科普、農業與環境網路媒體的基改食品建構，對於消息來源、科學證據與立場有何不同。研究發現媒體立場壁壘分明；科普媒體立場中立偏向支持，農業和環境媒體則分別偏向反對與中立；媒體文章立場和基改食品的好處與危害的論述有顯著相關。從本研究結果來看，三類媒體基改立場不同，佔據發言位置主要還是來自學者專家與政府，和傳統主流媒體並沒有太大差異。帶有倡議性質的農業與環境媒體雖然較常引用非營利組織為消息來源，不過整體來說，還是以學者專家與政府居多。網路媒體時代，確實呈現多元立場與對立的科技與風險危害論述的趨勢，不過這些論述主要還是由學術專家與政府所掌控；非營利組織、公民團體等草根組織，在網路媒體中，並未處於主導論述的位置。

This study explores how the internet media construct GM foods by comparing popular science, agriculture, and environmental media concerning the sources, scientific evidence, and positions. The results indicate significant differences among the three types of internet media on the position of GM foods. Popular science media tend to neutralize and support GM foods, while agricultural and environmental media are mostly opposed and neutral. Although the media of different attributes have different positions on GM foods, the information sources are mainly from professional elites and government organizations, similar to traditional media. The agricultural and environmental media are more likely to cite non-profit organizations as their sources; however, as a whole, scholars, experts, and governments are the majority. Internet media indeed have diversified positions and opposing discourses on technology and risk hazards, but academic experts and the government mainly dominate these discourses.