IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jdevst/v43y2007i1p130-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Herring

Abstract

Transgenic seeds in both India (Bt cotton) and Brazil (glyphosate-resistant soybeans) spread widely and rapidly through farming communities outside the reach of biosafety or bioproperty institutions. Stealth transgenics are saved, cross-bred, repackaged, sold, exchanged and planted in an anarchic agrarian capitalism that defies surveillance and control of firms and states. The outcome is more pro-poor than alternative modes of diffusion, but undermines a growing consensus in the international development community on appropriate bio-safety and intellectual property institutions for biotechnology. Second, stealth procurement of biotechnology divides nominally pro-poor political coalitions, driven by a great ideational divide on uncertainties and risks of transgenics. The ability of seeds to move underground through stealth strategies of farmers undermines widely-assumed bio-safety-regime capability. Likewise, property in biotechnology appears less monopolistic and powerful, more relational and contingent. Stealth practices of farmers in pursuit of transgenics contrary to wishes of firms, states and many NGOs suggest a different model of the farmer than that often encountered in both developmentalist and anti-'GMO' discourse: more active, creative and autonomous, less hapless and supine. Resultant incapacity of social institutions to secure interests of firms and states in biotechnology renders more likely eventual development of controls from genetic engineering - the 'terminator technology' of political dramaturgy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Herring, 2007. "Stealth seeds: Bioproperty, biosafety, biopolitics," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 130-157.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:43:y:2007:i:1:p:130-157
    DOI: 10.1080/00220380601055601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220380601055601
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220380601055601?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natalie G. Mueller & Andrew Flachs, 2022. "Domestication, crop breeding, and genetic modification are fundamentally different processes: implications for seed sovereignty and agrobiodiversity," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 455-472, March.
    2. Ramaswami, Bharat & Pray, Carl E. & Lalitha, N., 2012. "The Spread of Illegal Transgenic Cotton Varieties in India: Biosafety Regulation, Monopoly, and Enforcement," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 177-188.
    3. Spielman, David J. & Kennedy, Adam, 2016. "Towards better metrics and policymaking for seed system development: Insights from Asia's seed industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 111-122.
    4. Stone, Glenn Davis, 2011. "Field versus Farm in Warangal: Bt Cotton, Higher Yields, and Larger Questions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 387-398, March.
    5. Coomes, Oliver T. & McGuire, Shawn J. & Garine, Eric & Caillon, Sophie & McKey, Doyle & Demeulenaere, Elise & Jarvis, Devra & Aistara, Guntra & Barnaud, Adeline & Clouvel, Pascal & Emperaire, Laure & , 2015. "Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-50.
    6. Aniket Aga, 2021. "Environment and its Forms of Knowledge: The Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops in India," Journal of Developing Societies, , vol. 37(2), pages 167-183, June.
    7. David Kothamasi & Saskia Vermeylen, 2011. "Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: can regulations work?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 535-546, June.
    8. Huang, Jikun & Chen, Ruijian & Qiao, Fangbin & Wu, Kongming, 2015. "Biosafety management and pesticide use in China's Bt cotton production," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 67-75.
    9. Ahmad, Amal, 2022. "Imperfect information and learning: Evidence from cotton cultivation in Pakistan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 176-204.
    10. Hefferon, Kathleen L. & Herring, Ronald J., 2017. "The End of the GMO? Genome Editing, Gene Drives and New Frontiers of Plant Technology," Review of Agrarian Studies, Foundation for Agrarian Studies, vol. 7(1), July.
    11. Fischer, Klara, 2016. "Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1185-1194.
    12. Shahzad Kouser & David J Spielman & Matin Qaim, 2019. "Transgenic cotton and farmers’ health in Pakistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, October.
    13. repec:gig:joupla:v:5:y:2013:i:3:p:35-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Stone, Glenn Davis & Flachs, Andrew & Diepenbrock, Christine, 2014. "Rhythms of the herd: Long term dynamics in seed choice by Indian farmers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 26-38.
    15. N. Lalitha & Carl E. Pray & Bharat Ramaswami, 2008. "The Limits of intellectual property rights: Lessons from the spread of illegal transgenic seeds in India," Discussion Papers 08-06, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    16. Katharina Najork & Jonathan Friedrich & Markus Keck, 2022. "Bt cotton, pink bollworm, and the political economy of sociobiological obsolescence: insights from Telangana, India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1007-1026, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:43:y:2007:i:1:p:130-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FJDS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.