IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2019i1p144-d301214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Beate Friedrich

    (Institute of Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University Lüneburg, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany)

Abstract

The paper uses qualitative interviews and document analysis to examine conflicts over plant and animal breeding techniques from the perspectives of Social and Political Ecology. It asks how past conflicts over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can inform understandings of possible trajectories of emerging conflicts over new breeding techniques (NBTs) such as CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Case studies of conflicts in three areas where the transgenic maize MON810 was cultivated in Germany from 2005–2008 show that the escalation of conflict coincided with the first tangible presence of these already controversial organisms in the rural landscape. Location-specific interlinkages between discursive and material dimensions gave rise to different pathways of conflict in the three areas studied. These empirical results inform the analysis of emerging conflicts over NBTs in Germany and the United Kingdom. The future of NBTs in both countries is still open, and the divergence of regulatory frameworks in Europe could lead to the development of ‘NBT hotspots’ located in particular European countries, provoking an escalation of conflict in areas where commercial application takes place. The paper concludes by examining the potential for a politicization of future conflicts to encompass wider issues related to the transformation of agricultural systems towards sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Beate Friedrich, 2019. "Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:144-:d:301214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Preston, Christopher J. & Wickson, Fern, 2016. "Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 48-57.
    2. Diana Hummel & Thomas Jahn & Florian Keil & Stefan Liehr & Immanuel Stieß, 2017. "Social Ecology as Critical, Transdisciplinary Science—Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Shaping Societal Relations to Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    4. Ulrich Hartung & Simon Schaub, 2018. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Jale Tosun & Susumu Shikano, 2016. "GMO-free regions in Europe: an analysis of diffusion patterns," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 743-759, June.
    6. Georgina Catacora-Vargas & Rosa Binimelis & Anne I. Myhr & Brian Wynne, 2018. "Socio-economic research on genetically modified crops: a study of the literature," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(2), pages 489-513, June.
    7. Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis & Amaranta Herrero, 2016. "Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Beate Friedrich & Sarah Hackfort & Miriam Boyer & Daniela Gottschlich, 2019. "Conflicts over GMOs and their Contribution to Food Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 165-177.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Tim Dassler & Trine Antonsen & Odd-Gunnar Wikmark & Anne I. Myhr, 2023. "With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 533-545, June.
    2. Cisnetto, Valentina & Barlow, James, 2020. "The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    3. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    4. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Felipe Gallardo-López & Mario Alejandro Hernández-Chontal & Pedro Cisneros-Saguilán & Ariadna Linares-Gabriel, 2018. "Development of the Concept of Agroecology in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    6. Sigfrid Kjeldaas & Trine Antonsen & Sarah Hartley & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2021. "Public Consultation on Proposed Revisions to Norway’s Gene Technology Act: An Analysis of the Consultation Framing, Stakeholder Concerns, and the Integration of Non-Safety Considerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-25, July.
    7. Christoph Görg & Ulrich Brand & Helmut Haberl & Diana Hummel & Thomas Jahn & Stefan Liehr, 2017. "Challenges for Social-Ecological Transformations: Contributions from Social and Political Ecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Richard Helliwell & Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce, 2019. "NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 779-791, December.
    9. Ulrich Hartung & Simon Schaub, 2018. "The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    11. David Horan, 2019. "A New Approach to Partnerships for SDG Transformations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Jennifer Clapp & Sarah-Louise Ruder, 2020. "Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-EditedCrops, and the Politics of Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 49-69, August.
    13. Vincent Canwat & Stephen Onakuse, 2023. "Organic agriculture and agri-food system democracy: an institutional perspective from Kenya," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2020. "The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Hirt, Léon F. & Sahakian, Marlyne & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "What subnational imaginaries for solar PV? The case of the Swiss energy transition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Tatjana Brankov & Bojan Matkovski & Marija Jeremić & Stanislav Zekić, 2022. "GMO standards in South East Europe: assessing a GMO index within the process of EU integration," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 253-275, February.
    18. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    19. Jane Kolodinsky & Sean Morris & Orest Pazuniak, 2019. "How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 117-125, March.
    20. Changxin Yu & Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu, 2019. "Attitude Gaps with Respect to GM Non-Food Crops and GM Food Crops and Confidence in the Government’s Management of Biotechnology: Evidence from Beijing Consumers, Chinese Farmers, Journalists, and Gov," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:144-:d:301214. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.