The new agrarian double movement: hegemony and resistance in the GMO food economy

Abstract

DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/412 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ( 1 ), Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions ( 2 ), Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure ( 3 ), Whereas: (1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ) and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5) establish a comprehensive legal framework for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is fully applicable to GMOs to be used for cultivation purposes throughout the Union as seeds or other plant-propagating material ('GMOs for cultivation').(2) Under that legal framework, GMOs for cultivation are to undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC taking into account the direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects, as well as the cumulative long-term effects, on human health and the environment. That risk assessment provides scientific advice to inform the decision-making process and is followed by a risk management decision. The aim of that authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market. A uniform high level of protection of health, the environment and consumers should be achieved and maintained throughout the territory of the Union. The precautionary principle should always be taken into account in the framework of Directive 2001/18/EC and its subsequent implementation.

Transforming Socially Responsible Investment: Lessons from Environmental Justice

“…Such an emergent historic bloc would include alliances that cut across class interests and societal divides by providing a new ideological, institutional, and material basis for cooperation and consent. As Carroll ( 2016 ) argues, “relations of force can be demonstrated in the way assemblages of economic and political power, institutional authority, and discursive resonance enable certain actors to assert hegemonic control over a terrain of political struggle” (p. 6).…”

‘Biotechnologizing’ or ‘democratizing’?

“…1 Biosafety is one aspect of GMO regulation focussed on ameliorating the threat of genetic contamination. Biosafety concerns focus on the safe transport, tracking and handling of genetically modified seeds, rather than the logic of genetic modification more generally (UNEP N.d.) In light of these diverse, large-scale movements, many scholars have drawn on Karl Polanyi's (1944) concept of "double movement" to help explain GMO resistance (Carroll, 2016;Levien, 2007;Wittman, 2009). Double movement describes a dialectic pattern of unregulated capital accumulation followed by reactionary counter movements.…”

“…Polanyi is less interested in which class takes the lead in social movements, as in all cases movements are not motivated by selfinterest but "out of the functional need for society to protect itself" (Levien, 2007, p. 125). The concept of double movement helps to account for the broad alliances which have formed to contest GMOs because, as Carroll (2016) concludes, "Self-protection does not need to be part of a deeply held commitment to radical transformation. It can just as easily come as a reaction to the potentially adverse environmental and safety consequences of treating nature like a commodity" (p. 19).…”

Narrating technonatures: discourses of biotechnology in a neoliberal era

“…In general, this signifies the concern that scientists and humans more widely will pay for interfering in the natural order of things. It is in this sense that we can understand some of the concerns that led to the precautionary approach of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, as activists and some governments, including many from the Global South, made a convincing case that GMOs contained potential unknown risks that required use of the precautionary principle, thus formalizing an agreement that has granted states significant leeway in controlling the crossborder flow of GMOs (see Andree 2007;Carroll 2016). Moreover, the activist campaigns against Zeneca's GM trees that spoke of "contempt" for nature resonates within this discourse: by violating and undermining nature's authority and will, we will pay unforeseen consequences.…”

“…Other crops such as wheat, potatoes, tomatoes and rice have failed as successful GMO products (Carroll 2017), and at least 64 countries have instituted bans, moratoria or mandatory labelling policies (CFFS 2013). Global social movements and national governments have further iterated their concerns through the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the CBD's standing moratorium on Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), or terminator technology (Carroll 2016). Public and activist pressure has driven retailer-based bans in Britain and elsewhere in Europe and beyond.…”