IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i11p1105-d81631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story

Author

Listed:
  • Fern Wickson

    (GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Siva Innovasjonssenter, PB 6418, Tromsø 9294, Norway
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Rosa Binimelis

    (GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Siva Innovasjonssenter, PB 6418, Tromsø 9294, Norway
    Agroecology and Food Systems Chair, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, c/de la Laura, 13, Vic 08500, Spain
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Amaranta Herrero

    (GenØk Centre for Biosafety, Siva Innovasjonssenter, PB 6418, Tromsø 9294, Norway
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Biotechnology is diversifying rapidly through the development and application of new approaches to genome editing and ongoing research into synthetic biology. Proponents of biotechnology are enthusiastic about these new developments and have recently begun calling for environmental movements to abandon their campaigns against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and for organic agriculture to reconsider its exclusion of Genetic Modification (GM). In this article, we begin by describing the diversity of practices that cluster under both the terms GM and organic and show that although there is a clash of different cultures of agriculture at stake, there is also a spectrum of practices existing between these two poles. Having established the terms of the debate, we then go on to analyse whether the organic movement should reconsider its position on GM in light of new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs), using the criteria highlighted as important by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in their 2016 draft revised position on GMOs. Through this analysis, we suggest that given the in-context-trajectory of biotechnology development, the continued narrow framing of agricultural problems and the ongoing exclusion of important socio-economic, political and cultural dimensions, the organic movement is justified in maintaining its opposition to GM in the face of NPBTs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1105-:d:81631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1105/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1105/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2012. "Opening Up the Politics of Knowledge and Power in Bioscience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    3. Roberta Sonnino & Terry Marsden, 2006. "Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 181-199, April.
    4. Salvatore Ceccarelli, 2014. "GM Crops, Organic Agriculture and Breeding for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Heidi Ledford, 2015. "CRISPR, the disruptor," Nature, Nature, vol. 522(7554), pages 20-24, June.
    7. Heidi Ledford, 2016. "Bitter fight over CRISPR patent heats up," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7586), pages 265-265, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Albert Thembinkosi Modi, 2003. "What do subsistence farmers know about indigenous crops and organic farming? Preliminary experience in KwaZulu-Natal," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 675-684.
    12. Sylvie Bonny, 2011. "Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. Gilles Grolleau & Alain Marciano & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Scandals : a ‘reset button’ to drive change?," Post-Print hal-02921614, HAL.
    3. Cisnetto, Valentina & Barlow, James, 2020. "The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    4. Gerhart U. Ryffel, 2017. "I Have a Dream: Organic Movements Include Gene Manipulation to Improve Sustainable Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    5. R. Guy Reeves & Martin Phillipson, 2017. "Mass Releases of Genetically Modified Insects in Area-Wide Pest Control Programs and Their Impact on Organic Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, January.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. Edwin Nuijten & Monika M. Messmer & Edith T. Lammerts van Bueren, 2016. "Concepts and Strategies of Organic Plant Breeding in Light of Novel Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Desquilbet, Marion & Dorin, Bruno & Couvet, Denis, 2013. "Land sharing vs. land sparing for biodiversity: How agricultural markets make the difference," TSE Working Papers 13-435, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2015.
    4. Colin Ray Anderson & Janneke Bruil & Michael Jahi Chappell & Csilla Kiss & Michel Patrick Pimbert, 2019. "From Transition to Domains of Transformation: Getting to Sustainable and Just Food Systems through Agroecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-28, September.
    5. Kouser, Shahzad & Qaim, Matin & Abedullah, 2015. "Bt cotton and employment effects for female agricultural laborers in Pakistan: An application of double-hurdle model," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212014, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Beadle, Brian, 2023. "The design and application of an agricultural sustainability index using item response theory," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 278112, March.
    7. Trevisan, A.C.D. & Schmitt-Filho, A.L. & Farley, J. & Fantini, A.C. & Longo, C., 2016. "Farmer perceptions, policy and reforestation in Santa Catarina, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 53-63.
    8. Shilomboleni, Helena & Owaygen, Marwan & De Plaen, Renaud & Manchur, Wendy & Husak, Laura, 2019. "Scaling up innovations in smallholder agriculture: Lessons from the Canadian international food security research fund," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 58-65.
    9. Marion Desquilbet & Bruno Dorin & Denis Couvet, 2016. "Land Sharing vs Land Sparing to Conserve Biodiversity: How Agricultural Markets Make the Difference [land-sharing/land-sparing, comment les marchés font la différence]," Post-Print hal-03948463, HAL.
    10. Lauren Brzozowski & Michael Mazourek, 2018. "A Sustainable Agricultural Future Relies on the Transition to Organic Agroecological Pest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-25, June.
    11. Cristian Timmermann & Georges Félix, 2015. "Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 523-538, September.
    12. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    13. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    15. Luna, Jessie K. & Dowd-Uribe, Brian, 2020. "Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    18. Qiao, Fangbin, 2015. "Fifteen Years of Bt Cotton in China: The Economic Impact and its Dynamics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-185.
    19. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    20. Sini Forssell & Leena Lankoski, 2015. "The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through “alternative” characteristics," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(1), pages 63-75, March.

    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:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1105-:d:81631. 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.