Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment

Abstract

Over the past twenty years, agricultural biotechnologies have generated chronically unresolved political controversies. The standard tool of risk assessment has proven to be highly limited in its ability to address the panoply of concerns that exist about these hybrid techno/organisms. It has also failed to account for both the conceptual and material networks of relations agricultural biotechnologies require, create and/or perform. This paper takes as a starting point that agricultural biotechnologies cannot be usefully assessed as isolated technological entities but need to be evaluated within the context of the broader socio-ecological system that they embody and engender. The paper then explores, compares and contrasts some of the methodological tools available for advancing this systems-based perspective. The article concludes by outlining a new synthesis approach of comparative cartographies of agri/cultures generated through multi-sited ethnographic case-studies, which is proposed as a way to generate system maps and enable the comparison of genetically modified (GM) food with both conventional and alternative agri-food networks for sustainability assessment. The paper aims to make a unique theoretical and methodological contribution by advancing a systems-based approach to conceptualising and assessing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and proposing a synthesised methodology for mapping networks of relations across different agri/cultures. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 11322

Differentiated impacts of human interventions on nature

“…Defining risk is inherently problematic because "risk to whom and what counts as risky are a set of questions with a contested political and social history" (Montenegro de Wit, 2020), which we will not resolve here. As will become apparent, however, biochemical imaginaries tend to cluster around a narrow conception of risk as actual or potential biological harms (Pavone et al, 2011;Herrero et al, 2015;Macnaghten and Habets, 2020). This view was formalized by the U.S. National Research Committee (NRC, 1987) as: "Assessment of the risks of introducing R-DNAengineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method by which it was modified."…”

“…. they also shape the discourses, practices, knowledge, skills, meanings, problems and purposes of the human and nonhuman actants they emerge into being with" (Herrero et al, 2015). New approaches to obtaining social license are needed (Marris, 2015;Foley et al, 2016;Steinbrecher and Paul, 2017;Lassen, 2018;Dressel, 2019).…”

Public knowledge and acceptance of genetically modified organisms in Shiraz, Iran

“…Zilberman et al (2018) stated that GE may play a vital role in the economics of sustainable development worldwide because it decreased the application of pesticides, increased yield per unit, contributed to more efficient land use and decreased greenhouse gas emissions during the process of growing crops and foods. Similar to other technologies, GMOs do not occur under vacuum conditions but work as a socio-technical or socio-ecological system (Herrero et al, 2015). Meanwhile, the specific fears, such as modification in nutritional quality of foods, possible spread of antibiotic resistance, allergenicity and carcinogenicity of GM foods, have been expressed by opponents of GM technology.…”

Just Existing Is Resisting: The Everyday Struggle against the Expansion of GM Crops in Spain

“…However, if we look at the introduction of GMOs from a system's perspective (Herrero et al . ), we can see that, besides the most visibly rebellious and overtly political actors, many other players have found themselves in a situation of oppression by the expansion of GM crops (in the sense of being subject to burdensome power and constraints by both the intentional and unintentional spread of GMOs) and been forced to (re)act under unfavourable conditions (Binimelis ). In light of the increasing demand for non‐GM products (Research and Markets ) and the desire to keep avenues open for alternative visions of agricultural production and consumption, how do actors in contexts of so‐called coexistence manage to resist GM crop expansion and continue to maintain and promote GM‐free spaces, approaches and markets?…”