Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty

Abstract

Can gene editing and agroecology be complementary? Various formulations of this question now animate debates over the future of food systems, including in the UN Committee on World Food Security and at the UN Food Systems Summit. Previous analyses have discussed the risks of gene editing for agroecosystems, smallholders, and the concentration of wealth by and for agro-industry. This paper takes a different approach, unpacking the epistemic, socioeconomic, and ontological politics inherent in complementarity. I ask: How is complementarity understood? Who is asking and defining this question? What are the politics of entertaining the debate at all? I sketch the epistemic foundations of science and technology that organize different notions of evidence used in agroecology and genetic engineering. On this base, I offer 8 angles on the compatibility question, exploring the historical contradictions that complementarity discourses reveal and the contemporary work they do. I work through questions of (1) technological neutrality, (2) “root cause” problems, (3) working with nature, (4) encoding racism, and dilemmas of (5) ownership and (6) access. These questions, I argue, require a reckoning with (7) ontologies of coloniality-modernity, which help us get underneath—and beyond—the complementarity question. Finally, I offer (8) a framework for thinking about and working toward technology sovereignty.

Turning promise into practice: Crop biotechnology for increasing genetic diversity and climate resilience

“…It would be reasonable to predict a future boost in genetic diversity because of gene editing if these technologies are deployed as scientists currently imagine. The technological potential today exists—and yet, recalling the promises made of recombinant DNA techniques in the 1970s and 80s, there is reason to wonder whether this potential can be realized in practice [ 82 ].…”

Climate solution or corporate co-optation? US and Canadian publics’ views on agricultural gene editing

“…One of the key benefits of gene editing, they argue, is its ability to be readily applied to a range of agricultural challenges—such as helping agriculture adapt to rapidly changing climatic conditions [ 5 ]. On the other hand, critics have raised myriad social, political, and cultural concerns about GMOs, and increasingly, apply these to gene editing [ 6 – 9 ]. Critics question, in particular, assumptions about the kind of food systems most desirable for the future—pitting, as pejorative, industrialized systems designed to produce food for profit against food systems that reflect more diverse social and ecological goals.…”

Regulating gene editing in agriculture and food in the European Union: Disentangling expectations and path dependencies

“…A central tension among both groups’ expectations is the idea that GEAF can coexist or contribute to agroecological models of production. Montenegro de Wit (2022) interrogates the ‘complementarity narrative’ whereby proponents argue CRISPR‐Cas9 gene editing can complement agroecology values, principles and goals. Montenegro de Wit (2022) emphasises that a core assumption within this narrative is that technology is neutral, yet ‘incentive structures for tech innovation are anything but neutral…the trope of neutrality unmoors biotechnology from path‐dependent real‐world circumstances…’ (p. 738).…”