GM: Agency and Empathy

Let's talk about GM (again)

If there are people who eat to live and people who live to eat, then I would probably fall in the latter category. Not only do I love eating delicious foods, I also love learning about them. As part of my interdisciplinary degree I have studied world agriculture, fair trade, and the relationship between food and identity; so I am excited to be writing this blog about food and technology, specifically about GM foods and how we govern them. 

An otter using a rock to open a clam

Source

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

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.

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.

Source

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

 Thank you for reading/skimming :-)