The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) embodies a specific vision of agricultural systems that is highly controversial. The article focuses on how conflicts over GMOs contribute towards food democracy. Food democracy is defined as the possibility for all social groups to participate in, negotiate and struggle over how societies organize agricultural production, thereby ensuring that food systems fulfil the needs of people and sustain (re)productive nature into the future. EU agricultural policy envisages the coexistence of agricultural and food systems with and without GMOs. This policy, which on the surface appears to be a means of avoiding conflict, has in fact exacerbated conflict, while creating obstacles to the development of food democracy. By contrast, empirical analysis of movements against GMOs in Germany and Poland shows how they create pathways towards participation in the food system and the creation of alternative agricultural futures, thereby contributing to a democratization of food systems and thus of society–nature relations. Today, as products of new breeding techniques such as genome editing are being released, these movements are gaining new relevance.

Vor 300 Jahren entwickelte Hans Carl von Carlowitz Nachhaltigkeit als Konzept für eine naturgemäße Waldbewirtschaftung. 1987 setzte die Brundtland-Kommission mit sustainable development ein neues entwicklungspolitisches Paradigma auf die Agenda. Im deutschen Diskurs werden diese unterschiedlichen Konzepte verwoben. Wenn sich heute Forstwirtschaft, aber auch Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft auf nachhaltige Entwicklung bezie hen, tun sie das häufig durch die ökonomische Brille und betrachten Natur lediglich als Ressource.

The paper uses qualitative interviews and document analysis to examine conflicts over plant and animal breeding techniques from the perspectives of Social and Political Ecology. It asks how past conflicts over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can inform understandings of possible trajectories of emerging conflicts over new breeding techniques (NBTs) such as CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Case studies of conflicts in three areas where the transgenic maize MON810 was cultivated in Germany from 2005–2008 show that the escalation of conflict coincided with the first tangible presence of these already controversial organisms in the rural landscape. Location-specific interlinkages between discursive and material dimensions gave rise to different pathways of conflict in the three areas studied. These empirical results inform the analysis of emerging conflicts over NBTs in Germany and the United Kingdom. The future of NBTs in both countries is still open, and the divergence of regulatory frameworks in Europe could lead to the development of ‘NBT hotspots’ located in particular European countries, provoking an escalation of conflict in areas where commercial application takes place. The paper concludes by examining the potential for a politicization of future conflicts to encompass wider issues related to the transformation of agricultural systems towards sustainability.

No abstract

Auf europäischer Ebene wird derzeit die Regulierung neuer molekularbiologischer Verfahren für die Landwirtschaft verhandelt. Mit diesen Biotechnologien können gezielt Mutationen herbeigeführt, Genabschnitte ausgeschnitten und Gene umgeschrieben werden. Die neuen Techniken wecken Hoffnungen ‐ doch aufgrund der vielen offenen Fragen sollte die Regulierung landwirtschaftlicher Biotechnologien auf Vorsorge und Kennzeichnung setzen.