Let's talk about
GM (again)
An otter using a rock to open a clam
Sea otters are cute, but that's not the (only) reason I've chosen to include the above image. It shows an otter using a rock to open a clam. Without going into the whole "what does natural even mean?" can of worms, this makes me think that it is only 'natural' that animals use what is available to them to get what they want, and us human animals aren't so different. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, technology is "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes". So, just like the otter the rock to get the clam meat, humans too have used what's available to us (scientific knowledge about GM seeds) to achieve what we want (increased yields).
Product v Process
Product v Process
To be clear about what I'm talking about, the WHO defines
Genetically Modified (GM) foods as "foods derived from organisms whose genetic
material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g.
through the introduction of a gene from a different organism", usually to
improve yields and/or to introduce herbicide resistance or drought tolerance.
The GM discussion is one that has been going on for years, and there are manyavenues to explore in the debate: ranging from intention to effectiveness. Are GM crops really needed to solve hunger? Are they actually safe? etc. etc. etc. These questions focus on GM foods as a product; whereas I want to think about GM foods (and in particular, their governance) as a process.
The GM discussion is one that has been going on for years, and there are manyavenues to explore in the debate: ranging from intention to effectiveness. Are GM crops really needed to solve hunger? Are they actually safe? etc. etc. etc. These questions focus on GM foods as a product; whereas I want to think about GM foods (and in particular, their governance) as a process.
Following on from my otter analogy, if we assume it is to be
expected that humans have created GM foods, what next? Drawing on Bruno Latour's
ideas, let's consider GM technology as a network of agency. Once GM crops exist
in the world, they influence farmers' and companies' decisions; therefore we
can consider the GM technology itself as having agency. Recognising where most
agency and power lie in the discourse is key in identifying where we look to
make change.
Problems: Patenting and Power
In the GM sphere, corporate scientists are the experts and
the power is in their patents. Intellectual property is the key way GM
corporations such as Monsanto/Bayer exercise power. How has this come to be?
Too often do I hear discussions ending with "Corporations are evil!” I
don't think it is productive to end there; and if I pause to think about it, of course they want to patent their
seeds, because they want to maximise
profits. It's no use yelling, "MONSANTO!!" angrily and dropping
the mic when it's the entire capitalist system and its associated network of
agency that need to be discussed. With just over 1000 words to play with, I
don't intend to do so here and now, but what I do want to do is explore what
changes can be made to make GM more equitable.
Room for improvement: from California to India
According to the LA Times, Monsanto's GM material is contaminating organic farms in California. Despite the organic farmers' fraught desire to keep their crops organic and GM-free, they are the ones being sued by Monsanto on the basis of patent infringement. With fault lying far from the organic farmers, for me, this example begs for a more common sense and empathetic approach to governance and regulation of GM crops. If, for example the scientific knowledge was made to be open source rather than patented for profit, we could avoid much distress.
A case study that particularly moved me is that of the farmersuicides in the Maharashtra region of India. According to the BBC 14,000
farmers committed suicide in 2011. There is some dispute as to whether the
association between GM and the suicides is a myth, and a 2015 study has shown
that large irrigated farms are under less threat. I think individual stories such
as Usha's (below) speak for themselves. Not only are GM seeds expensive, genetic engineers also design them to seldom provide viable seeds of their own, meaning
farmers must buy new seeds every year. Farmers often take out loans at high
rates to get started, so combining the above with volatile climate factors,
it's no surprise that the farmers feel there is no way out.
This is a
photograph of Usha, who found her husband dead in the field. He had borrowed
money to pay for GM seeds, fertiliser and pesticides but the crops failed
because there was not enough rainfall. The government sold his land to pay off
his debt and Usha was left with nothing.
Given the word limit, I cannot delve into the role of Indian politics or culture in this case study, but regardless I think the example demonstrates
how current governance of GM technology perpetuates current global power
relations. The discourse presents the scientists from the 'west' or the 'global
north' as the experts with the 'technological fix' for low yields. Rather than
empowering local people who have been working the land for generations,
corporations like Monsanto seem to prioritise profit at their expense.
Challenging assumptions
In his book 'Balancing on a Planet: The Future of Food and Agriculture', Prof. David Cleveland highlights the importance of identifying
assumptions in taking steps towards progress. Promoters of GM assume that
farmers are 'risk neutral' (i.e. indifferent to risk) and that their objective
is to maximise expected profits e.g. in his book he writes about mainstream
economists concluding that farmers readily adopt GM crops because they increase
yield and income, reduce pesticide applications, or improve farmer health. Most
proponents of GM also make the value based assumption that farming in the
developing world should be or is like industrial agriculture, and that GM will
have the same risks and benefits regardless of place e.g. the US government
only examines risks of GM seeds within the US, despite exporting large
quantities of seed and grain. It is assumptions such as these that should be
questioned when moving forward with GM.
An alternative vision for the future
In my opinion, GM technology is not inherently bad, and it
has the potential to be extremely helpful, if only discussions around it are
exactly that: discussions. If GM is to help those in need, communication is
key. Inviting stakeholders into the conversation (especially the globally
disempowered such as farmers in developing countries) is essential in order to
understand their needs, as well as to learn from their first hand agricultural
experience. This is a call for governance with empathy. After all, what would a
friendly otter do?
I can't leave you without a meme
Source
Source
