The Debates, Impacts, and Implications Surrounding Genetically Modified Crops in Third World Nations. Tamera Dandachi

Transcription

1 The Debates, Impacts, and Implications Surrounding Genetically Modified Crops in Third World Nations Tamera Dandachi Faculty Advisor: Ananth Aiyer Sociology, Criminal Justice, Anthropology A longstanding debate exists concerning whether genetically modified (GM) crops are beneficial or detrimental to agricultural practices and food security, especially in regards to developing countries. There are highly debated issues surrounding impacts on cultural practices and changes in farming systems and agricultural food production, as well as debates about the benefits and adverse effects of genetically modified crops for both developed and developing nations. Various movements, high profile campaigns, and policies have resulted from these debates and disagreements about the impacts and implications of the use of biotechnology and genetically modified crops in agriculture. This discussion explores genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and farming in order to find out how policies regarding agriculture affect food production and agricultural practices. Through exploring the social and cultural implications of using genetically modified organisms, the opposition to and campaigns against the implementation of genetically modified crops, the pushes for and the benefits of implementing genetically modified crops, and the ways in which farmers have adjusted their practices or changed their livelihoods to accommodate the changes in agriculture including the implementation and use of genetically modified crops, the reader will gain a better understanding as to how policies on agriculture and the implementation of genetically modified organisms affect food security in developing nations. The social and cultural impacts of biotechnology vary depending on the size and use of the farm, location, the crop being planted, and the current practices of the farmers on that farm. Worldwide, the reactions, successes, and failures in regards to the implementation of genetically modified crops vary so much because there are so many different ways in which agriculture is practiced. One study found that on 1 P a g e

2 smaller, subsistence farms adopting genetically modified organisms or transgenic crops has been much more difficult than on larger plantations or small-scale farms which produce for the market (Hall, Matos, and Langford, 2008). This is in part because the farmers in the area may not have had the formal education and introduction to agricultural technologies previously, so they are excluded from the knowledge required to adopt transgenic technology. A quantitative survey that ranked the willingness of people in Mexico to adopt genetically modified crops also showed that there are some people who are more likely to adopt genetically modified crops than others (Birol, Villalba, and Smale, 2009). Families who participate in agriculture but also have a substantial amount of income from outside sources, such as working in other industries or receiving remittances from family members who have migrated to work elsewhere, are less likely to desire trying genetically modified crops because they do not necessarily need the higher crop yield that is promised with the use of genetically modified maize (Birol, et al., 2009; Fitting, 2006b). The commodification of the seed, the desire for large corporations to have control over and gain profit from seeds, has led to some of the cultural and social implications that subsistence farmers are facing in developing countries. The commodification of seeds leads to the deskilling of farmers because they are no longer able to use their collective knowledge about seed saving and farming, but rather have to rely on the corporations, such as Monsanto, for their new seeds, creating a greater advantages for places such as the United States, which benefit from the increased use of GM seeds in developing nations (Herring, 2007; Kumambu, 2009; McAfee, 2003; Stone, 2004). Kumambu further explains the impact of the commodification of seeds on culture by stating that the selection, collection and preservation of seed and their use according to geophysical or agro-climatic conditions, is an accumulated knowledge source passed on through generations, (2009:27). Another study in the northeastern region of Brazil shows that subsistence farmers are less likely to successfully adopt transgenic technology than are the farmers working on small, export-oriented farms in southern Brazil who have previously had assistance with agricultural technologies from the Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA) (Hall et 2 P a g e

3 al., 2008). In the regions in which subsistence farming is prominent, farming has a social meaning, and this is something that is not accounted for in the implementation and use of genetically modified seeds and transgenic technologies. A study in India also discusses the ways in which culture and agriculture can impact each other symbiotically and the ways in which this plays a role in the adoption of genetically modified seeds (Kumambu, 2009). Kumambu (2009) explains that socioeconomic and cultural factors influence the likeliness of farmers to adopt genetically modified seeds in India. Some of the factors which play a role in the adoption of genetically modified seeds for rural farmers include trust, caste, and allegiance (Herring, 2007; Kumambu, 2009). Herring (2007) explains that farmers are less likely to trust transgenic or genetically modified seeds which come from a large corporation or seed selling company than those which, although perhaps genetically altered, come from other farmers or underground seed networks. Agricultural crops are also culturally constructed to serve political purposes. One example of this is the way in which maize is culturally constructed for political uses in Mexico. Fitting (2006b) looks at the ways in which claims about culture are used to frame, reject, or defend policy changes which prioritize market liberalization, corn imports, and a notion of agricultural efficiency. She argues that rather than looking at agriculture as a dynamic practice, it should be looked at as a millennial culture because agriculture changes as the economy changes and as policies are implemented in order to fit the current climate of the area. The culture surrounding agriculture is not terminal, and there are ways in which the farmers and people who live in the agricultural villages have been adjusting their cultures and practices to fit the more broad changes that have been occurring in Mexico. The cultural construction of crops is also discussed in a study in south India. Finnis (2008) discusses the symbolic meanings of agricultural crops and the ways in which the symbols and meanings can change over time and with an increase in globalization. As agricultural food crops become more commercialized they are looked at more for their nutrition and health values rather than the local social and symbolic meanings that may coincide with the traditional food crops of a region (Finnis, 2008). 3 P a g e

4 This is not to say that all farmers are adopting genetically modified crops and biotechnology without opposition. Although many farmers have been adjusting in order to survive, there has been a great deal of opposition to policies that implement the use of biotechnology and pushes toward the use of genetically modified seeds. The degrees of mobilization against biotechnology vary depending on location and what the degree of experience with the technology is, and often times the campaigns are led by environmental and agrarian groups who oppose the technology (Newell 2008). Additionally, there is a great deal of opposition toward genetically modified crops from those who are also opposed to commodifying seeds and increased globalization. Newell (2008) and Fitting (2006a) both point out that in Latin America there is much opposition and contestation to genetically modified crops because there is a fear of bio-safety and that these crops will cause a loss of biodiversity in the region. Studies in both Brazil and India had similar findings about the safety of using genetically modified crops, which had not been tested and approved by the government (Herring, 2007). The seeds were not deemed safe officially but were still being used by farmers who were able to trade the seed in underground systems. Fitting (2006b) discusses specifically the campaigns centered on the tradition and culture of corn and networks that have been formed around what corn symbolizes. She states that in the anti-genetically modified campaign in Mexico maize farmers are portrayed as the producers and guardians of both traditional corn varieties and of national cultural practices and traditions. The loss of variety and biodiversity within the region is something that many campaigns focus on. Another study in India found that part of the opposition toward genetically modified crops and biotechnology was that through the seed companies there would be an increase in globalization (Herring, 2007). There are also opponents of genetically modified organisms which feel that the way in which the technology is marketed and pushed is simply rhetoric that has resulted from the backlash that biotechnology companies faced when introducing genetically modified organisms (Glover, 2010). Those who are opposed to biotechnology and genetically modified organisms often point out that there are many adverse effects that result from the use of genetically modified organisms. Opponents of 4 P a g e

5 genetically modified crops discuss the safety risks involved in using genetically modified seeds as well as the "terminator" technology, which has been placed in certain seeds to stop them from producing viable seeds for the next year's harvest. Additionally, there are many opponents who cite the cultural impacts and implications that come with changing from a traditional method of agriculture, which may include seed saving and the planting of agricultural crops that have a cultural meaning, to a more commodified method of agriculture. For example, in Latin America, the side effects of using genetically modified seeds include lessened biodiversity and cultural impacts, which are felt more strongly by peasants and subsistence farmers than export-oriented farmers (Fitting, 2006a; Hall, et al. 2008; Newell, 2008). In India, the detrimental effects of the use of genetically modified organisms for subsistence farmers are very similar and include deskilling of farmers, a decrease in biodiversity, an increase in the social devaluing of women, and a loss of local knowledge (Kumambu, 2009; Stone, 2004). For the rural poor, it appears that many of the benefits that large corporations, policy makers, politicians, and scientists claim come with the use of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms do not exist. For subsistence farmers the technology can be difficult to use, and it may be very different from the ways in which they have previously done agriculture (Hall et al., 2008; Kumambu, 2009). The knowledge that the farmers had used previously is no longer relevant, and some of the agricultural practices that had been passed down for generations could be lost in the implementation of genetically modified organisms. Additionally, in both India and Latin America it has been shown that biotechnology can exclude lower classes and reinforce inequities (Hall et al., 2008; Kumambu, 2009). Fitting (2006a) explains that some of the policies which have been implemented in Mexico regarding agriculture have exacerbated the hardships that maize farmers were already facing, causing the younger generation, in particular, to look elsewhere for work in order to support their families. This includes migration to the United States for labor and sending home remittances to their families. On the other hand, there are also many campaigns that push for and urge the use of biotechnology, and more specifically genetically modified crops. There are many claims that biotechnology is beneficial 5 P a g e

6 for farmers and that it will boost yields and there will be a more fruitful harvest, as well as claims that suggest that biotechnology and genetically modified crops could end world hunger and help to feed developing nations (Glover, 2010; Hall et al., 2008; Kumambu, 2009; Newell, 2008). Often times these pushes and advertisements are coming from policy makers, politicians, the large corporations which produce the seeds and technologies, or the biotechnologists and scientists who work to modify and create these products. Fitting (2006b) explains that biotechnologists and scientists often discount the concerns of non-scientists who are concerned about gene-flow in corn varieties. These biotechnologists and scientists claim that genetically modified corn would be beneficial for the traditional varieties of maize in Mexico, and the problem of traditional agriculture is that these varieties have not interacted with genetically modified corn enough because the genetically modified corn has been modified to be resistant to pesticides and will hold up better than the local varieties of maize. Their argument is that the antigenetically modified groups should not be concerned about biodiversity of maize in Mexico because the maize will only become better if there is a transfer of genes amongst the genetically modified corn and the native maize. There are also arguments that there are benefits to genetically modified organisms and biotechnology, such as higher yields with lower costs as well as lowered use of pesticides (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006). Those who are proponents for the use of genetically modified seeds often cite the fact that the food needs of the world are continually growing, and that in improving plants and animals in the form of genetically modified organisms. Some view the manipulation of crops as a way in which the world is advancing, and that genetic modification began with the domestication of plants and animals (Stone, 2010). One study found that in contrast to the case of subsistence farms, there were benefits for large-scale farms and smaller farms that are export oriented because the farmers were able to adopt the transgenic technologies without much trouble (Hall et al., 2008). For these farmers, the higher yield of the genetically modified crops was worth the adjustment to a new system because there was not much difficulty. A study in India found that the crops from genetically modified seeds actually flourished in 6 P a g e

7 comparison to those from the same field that were a traditional hybrid crop (Herring, 2007). Additionally, Brookes and Barfoot (2006) state that when looking at the impacts of genetically modified technology over the past decade or so, that many of the impacts have been positive both economically and environmentally. They claim that there has been a positive impact on farm income including cost savings in the soybean sector as well as lower costs and higher yields for the cotton sector. These claims on the positive impacts for farm income are not clear though. There is not a mention as to what size farm these technologies are beneficial for, or in what ways the technologies might be detrimental to subsistence farmers as Hall et al. (2008) showed. They also show that the use of pesticides has decreased since the use of genetically modified organisms and biotechnology has increased and that this is beneficial for the environment, although they do not address the safety of biotechnology for the environment in contrast to that of pesticide use. Reactions from farmers and peasants to the implementation of agricultural policies and genetically modified organisms have varied from finding other forms of work to adjusting their practices in order to survive the changes that are happening around them. In the case of Mexican farmers and their families, a common response has been to move away for work in the United States or to go outside of their village for education and work. Many of the people from the younger generations do not believe that working in agriculture is a worthwhile pursuit and feel that they will be better off if they go to work elsewhere in a different industry (Fitting, 2006b). Preibisch, Herrejon, and Wiggins (2002) also discuss how major changes in agricultural policy can cause people to work outside of the home rather than in agriculture. As there is a push for market-oriented agriculture in many developing countries, rural subsistence farmers are forced to find other forms of work and labor, which is generally outside of the home and away from the farm (Birol et al., 2009; Fitting, 2006a; Preibisch et al., 2002). For those who are remaining in the home while others go out to work, maize is still very important. For women facing the uncertainty of cash remittances or declining income, subsistence production becomes an important safety net. Considering that maize provides a third of the proteins and 40 percent of the caloric intake of 7 P a g e

8 rural Mexicans, and that in many communities the market is monopolized by buyers who deplete local supplies, the production of maize frees up income to be used for other purchases, (Preibisch et al., 2002). In India the practices have been altered, as cottonseeds are no longer collected from the field, which used to be the job of women since women had the particular knowledge on how to select and care for seeds, which was passed on generationally. Since genetically modified seeds have started to be used instead of local seeds, seed collecting is no longer necessary. Instead men purchase the seeds at the market. The knowledge that women held on seed collecting was previously valued, but now that the knowledge is no longer necessary the work of women has been devalued (Kumambu, 2009). Kumambu also explains the new seed from the market have enhanced opportunities for men to participate in the agricultural input as well as its output, and have reinforced patriarchal power relations in households in general, together with the male domination of decision-making throughout the agricultural production process, (2009:34). Another study found that since crops that were modified with a terminator technology could not produce viable seeds to be collected for the next season (Herring, 2007). This technology creates a dependency on the companies who manufacture the seeds rather than allowing farmers to be self-reliant. The social and cultural implications of using genetically modified crops varies depending on many factors pertaining to the agricultural practices and policies of a given location or society. This has been demonstrated through the literature written on the topic of genetically modified crops, which shows that the size of a farm and the intended use of a farm, as well as the culture surrounding agriculture in the area, can affect the ways in which farmers and agriculturalists respond to the implementation of genetically modified crops. The impacts and implications of changing agricultural policies and the use of genetically modified organisms are varied from country to country and also based upon socioeconomic factors. Although most genetically modified organisms are said to be created for large-scale, industrial use, the crops have spread into many smaller farms in developing countries. Subsistence farmers have been found to be more adversely affected by genetically modified organisms and biotechnologies than are large-scale farms and farms which are export-oriented, and the change to genetically modified seeds can 8 P a g e

9 also be difficult for farmers who used to rely on generational knowledge and skills. Additionally, the modifications to some seeds, such as the use of terminator technology as a way to prevent viable seeds from forming from the crop, have caused some farmers to become dependent on the large companies which sell the seeds and a cash exchange system in order to continue their livelihoods. While there have been benefits for some, the overall effect of biotechnology on subsistence farmers, in particular, has been negative. The changing nature of agriculture on a broader scale and the push for genetically modified technology and biotechnology has caused many debates as well as many changes in farming practices and the way that people from farming communities survive. There are certainly campaigns that push for the implementation of genetically modified organisms as a way to help provide for the increasing demand for food worldwide. Proponents argue that genetically modified organisms have been beneficial for agriculture both environmentally and economically. On the other hand, there is a great deal of literature which addresses the reasons for which people are opposed to implementing and using genetically modified crops. The amount of literature which addresses the negative effects of genetically modified crops and is much more expansive and detailed than that which discusses the benefits of genetically modified organisms, especially in regards to subsistence and peasant farmers in developing nations. Those who oppose the implementation of genetically modified crops often discuss topics related to biosafety and cultural impacts for peasant farmers. Negative impacts and implications cited regarding the implementation of genetically modified organisms generally surrounds the adjustment which people must make in order to go from their previous agricultural practices to new agricultural practices centered on the use of genetically modified crops. Additionally, several studies found that in using genetically modified organisms there were cultural nuances and skills related to agricultural practices which could be lost. This is a major impact for certain societies, and a very gendered impact as it has been found that much of the cultural knowledge and expertise which is lost with the use of genetically modified organisms was knowledge that women possessed. 9 P a g e

10 Through further examining the research which has been done on this topic, something that was not discussed as much as some other aspects was the political use of culture in regards to genetically modified crops. Fitting (2006b) found that the culture of maize was used politically as an argument against the implementation of genetically modified crops, but that in some cases those who farmed maize were less concerned about the culture of maize in Mexico than some of those who were campaigning against genetically modified organisms. The culture of the people who farm maize changes with time and with the policies of the country, and this culture is not static. As this was the only study that I found on the political use of an agricultural crop in relation to genetically modified organisms, it would be interesting to find more information surrounding this aspect of agriculture and the debates surrounding the use of genetically modified crops. Many of the studies reviewed in this paper discussed the ways in which agricultural practices have changed and adjusted in response to the implementation of genetically modified organisms, especially for smaller scale subsistence farms. From analyzing the information in the various studies, it seems that what is lacking is a discussion regarding whether the changes to the agricultural practices in India and Latin America are helping or harming food security in the regions. The impacts and implications for the culture, as well as some of the benefits and negativities of using genetically modified crops are discussed, but there is a lack of information that puts into perspective the changes that cultures undergo over time and whether the people in the region feel that the changes are a problem or not. Because there is not a lot of research done on this yet, researching this aspect of the changes in agriculture due to the implementation of genetically modified crops would add new information to what has been published at the present. It would be interesting to look at the changes in agricultural practices which have occurred over time in a region and find out how the people in the region feel about these changes. Discovering whether they are embracing the changes or opposed to the changes would be interesting in looking at the ways in which campaigns surrounding the use of genetically modified organisms have been put together. As it was found in a study in Mexico that some of the people in the younger generation were actually embracing the changes and 10 P a g e

11 encouraged a shift away from agriculture, it would be interesting to see if this was the case in other regions or if it is a localized phenomena. Researching this in a different region than Mexico, such as India as there has been a great deal of focus on the topic of genetically modified crops in the region, would provide new insight into the field pertaining to the way that people are reacting to the changes in agricultural practices due to the implementation and use of genetically modified organisms. 11 P a g e

12 References Birol, E., Villalba, E., & Smale, M. (2009). Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in mexico: A latent class approach. Environment and Development Economics, 14(4), Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2006). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum, 9(3), Finnis, E. (2008). Economic wealth, food wealth, and millet consumption: Shifting notions of food, identity, and development in south India. Food, Culture & Society, 11(4), Fitting, E. (2006a). Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1), Fitting, E. (2006b). The political uses of culture: Maize production and the GM corn debates in Mexico. Focaal, (48), Glover, D. (2010). The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1) Hall, J., Matos, S., & Langford, C. (2008). Social exclusion and transgenic technology: The case of Brazilian agriculture. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(1), Herring, R. J. (2007). Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics. Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), Kumbamu, A. (2009). The global knowledge encounter: A sociological analysis of the introduction of genetically modified seed in Warangal, India. International Social Science Journal, 60(1), McAfee, K. (2003). Corn culture and dangerous DNA: Real and imagined consequences of maize transgene flow in Oaxaca. Journal of Latin American Geography, 2, 18. Newell, P. (2008). Trade and biotechnology in Latin America: Democratization, contestation and the politics of mobilization. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2 3), P a g e

13 Preibisch, K., Gladys, R. H., & Wiggins, S. (2002). Defending food security in a free-market economy: The gendered dimensions of restructuring in rural Mexico. Human Organization, 61(1), Stone, G. D. (2004). Biotechnology and the political ecology of information in India. Human Organization, 63(2), 127. Stone, G. D. (2010). The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), P a g e