Tensions at the boundary: Rearticulating ‘organic’ plant breeding in the age of gene editing

Abstract

A host of technologies is rapidly entering agriculture. These new technologies-particularly gene editingrepresent multifaceted shifts beyond "genetic modification" (GM), and are outpacing both public understanding and the capacity of regulatory regimes. This paper employs the case of the organic sectors in Canada and the United States, strongholds of GM resistance, to examine conversations about gene-editing technologies unfolding within the organic community, and elucidate their implications for the sector. We employ the concept of "boundary work" to illuminate how key actors and institutions delineate the concept of organic breeding in the face of emerging technologies. We draw upon semi-structured interviews with organic sector representatives, a review of documents published by organic organizations, and data from participant observation. We find that the organic community is reaffirming and deepening boundaries in response to arguments made by proponents of gene editing. Both internal and external pressures on the sector are facilitating a dampening effect on conversations about the boundaries between gene editing and organic agriculture, as the sector is compelled to present a united voice against the affront of new genetic technologies. The sector is also redrawing existing boundaries, as the advent of gene editing has forced conversations about the compatibility of both new and established breeding methods with organic. The resulting questions about what distinguishes acceptable levels of human intervention in plant genomes are highlighting some differences within the diverse organic community. We also argue that debates about gene editing and organic breeding may be "bounding out" important actors from deliberation processes, and note initial attempts to reckon with this exclusion.

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

“…These proponents should also focus their resources on innovation that supports more sustainable systems, rather than funneling resources into applications that merely sidestep existing and unsustainable systems (e.g., those used for monocultural operations as opposed to agroecological farming). While it is not clear that there is much appetite for a combination of gene editing and more agroecologically oriented sectors such as the organic industry [ 85 ], there may be still be other opportunities to pursue agroecologically aligned applications. Given the complexity of shifting to more sustainable food systems, an important way to do this is will likely be to prioritize the involvement of more diverse actors, particularly groups traditionally marginalized in the development of agricultural technologies, such as smallholders and farmworkers, as others have already recommended [ 41 , 86 ].…”

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

“…For instance, organic agriculture communities and consumer and environmental advocacy NGOs contain some diverging perspectives on the compatibility and acceptability of GEAF in agriculture systems (Helliwell et al., 2017). Within those communities, internal power imbalances are shaping which social actors’ voices are heard and considered legitimate in discussions about GEAF and organics (Nawaz et al., 2020), which aligns with the performative aspect of expectations that ultimately appears as a bifurcated public debate despite the presence of nuanced positions within and between social actor groups.…”

Agriculture Innovation, Organic Farming and Gene Editing: The Way Forward

“…2. There are too many areas of incertitude with respect to its possible adverse effects at environmental and social justice level [25]. 1 reassumes some of the stances that the organic sector is taking in its assessment effort of gene editing technologies.…”