LECTURE GEOG 270 Fall 2007 December 3, 2007 Joe Hannah, PhD Department of Geography University of Washington

GMO Recap and Wrap-up

Last Time ► Food Security (“chameleon word” – saturated with politics!) ► Debate: GMOs and hunger (“Naming and Framing”) ► Case study from Zerbe article: southern Africa food crisis (2002), American food Aid, and local policy responses

GMO topic Recap/Wrap-up ► “Green Revolution” ► “Gene Revolution” (GMO crops)

Green Revolution ► Malthusian Premise: While we work on reducing fertility, we can also increase food production ► Remember the context of the 1960s:  Erhlich’s Population Bomb  “Modernization” and the promise of technology ► Scientific, plant-breeding approach -- HYVs

HYV Characteristics ► large-yield, ► dwarf stock, ► disease and pest resistant (among other things) ► Hybrid crops – can’t collect seeds

Top-down ► Started by Governments and Foundations (like Rockefeller),  Not “requested” by Third World farmers ► Later largely financed by WB, UN (FAO, UNDP, UNEP) ► Set up plant breading and other research projects Essentially a Keynesian approach to development.

Critiques of the Green Revolution ► Increased use of chemicals, water, mechanization ► Water pollution, other environmental problems ► Monocultures, decreased biodiversity ► Economics favored rich farmers ► Technologies encouraged increased debt and consequent land consolidation ► Broke down social relations in communities, increased conflict

“Gene Revolution” ► Combining genes from one species with another to create specific traits ► Undertaken by private companies ► Originally (and fundamentally) a technology developed for profit ► Malthusian and humanitarian arguments as well Essentially a Neo-liberal approach to development.

I. GMO Basic Science: e.g., I. GMO Basic Science: e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)

GMO Basic Science: e.g., “Roundup Ready”

II. “Naming and Framing” in the GMO Debate ► Food Security / Feeding the World ► Increased yields – fact or fiction? ► Environmental risk ► Capitalism & Farm Incomes e.g., McGloughlin vs. Altieri & Rossett

III. Resistance and Social Movements: Kacy McKinney’s talk on MST, Land and GMOs in Brazil ► Interesting case of stakeholder response ► “Landless Peasants” “Land should be used to fulfill its larger social functions.”

GMOs: A threat? A rallying point? ► Against legalization of GMOs (successful until 2004) ► Lobby, demonstrate, raise awareness ► Exposed illegal plantings ► GMOs promoted by MNCs: “Privatization of development?” ► Roles of state, corporations, social movements: Peaceful? Violent?

IV. Three Criteria for GMO Business Profitability Science Law GMOs Essentially a Neo-liberal approach to development.

Three Criteria ► Science (expensive, risky investments, located in the First-World) ► Profits (corporations: recoup investments, expand markets) ► Law  IPR  “Free trade”  “Permissive” environment

V. Policy Responses in Third World Countries ► Countries must respond to pressures to adopt GMOs ► Policy responses are complex – corporate lobbying, trade policy, bilateral relations, responses of diverse interests within the country ► Neo-liberal/Keynesian? Precautionary/Permissive? (e.g. US vs. Europe)

“Permissive” vs. “Precautionary” Approaches ► “Permissive Approach” favors allowing an activity to continue until proof of either no effect or a negative impact is obtained. ► “Precautionary” approach favors constraining an activity when there is high scientific uncertainty regarding its effects on the natural environment;

VI. Food Security and Food Aid ► What is Food Security? ► GMOs and Food Security debate:  “Food gap” & “Productivity gap” vs.  Need soc-political change, not commercialized technology ► Case study of Southern Africa food crisis: different countries, different GMO policy responses

The GMO Issue: Unresolved ► What should be done? ► Should Third World countries be encouraged to adopt? (increased yields, less chemicals, etc.) ► Or should they resist? (unknown effects, genetic pollution, food safety, etc.) ► What about US domestic policy? (labeling, subsidies to farmers, food aid, etc.)

The Global Food System ► Shiva: Global food supply has been “hijacked” by corporate interests: ► Neo-liberal approach to food distribution (exemplified by GMOs and “privatized development”) makes the marginalized more vulnerable, leads to more hunger and more violence ► Should food be a commodity or a right?