Acerca del autor

Sandra Bamford is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. She is the editor of Embodying Modernity and Postmodernity: Ritual, Praxis and Social Change in Melanesia, and coeditor of Genealogy--Beyond Kinship: Sequence, Transmission and Essence in Ethnography and Social Theory.

De la contraportada

De la solapa interior

Fragmento. © Reproducción autorizada. Todos los derechos reservados.

Biology Unmoored

University of California Press

Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS....................................ixACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................xiIntroduction: Conceptual Frameworks......................11. Cultural Landscapes...................................202. Insubstantial Identities..............................463. Embodiments of Detachment.............................804. (Im)Mortal Undertakings...............................1175. Conceiving Global Identities..........................150Conclusion: Conceptual Displacements.....................169NOTES....................................................179REFERENCES...............................................191INDEX....................................................219

Chapter One

MONSANTO MEETS MARY DOUGLAS

August 26, 2001, was a sunny and warm day in southern France. Shortly after noon, a group of men and women began to convene on a small plot of land near the rural town of Auch, a region well known for its culinary delights and picturesque beauty. A distinctly festive atmosphere prevailed. Many arrived on the scene with picnic baskets brimming with Roquefort cheese, foie gras, potted duck, and other regional specialties. To look at the smiling faces in the crowd, one would think it was a belated Bastille Day celebration, rather than the inauguration of a clandestine operation that by the end of the day would render all participants guilty of "trespassing, property destruction, and theft" (Ford 2001). When the assembly reached approximately 150 strong, the small contingent got to work. Armed with scythes, machetes, scissors, and pruning hooks, the group set about razing a plot of genetically modified maize. Within five minutes, the eighty-square-yard plot of corn had been felled, leaving behind nothing but rows of stalks. The protestors then piled the offending crop into the trunks of their cars before driving to the nearby site of Cleon d'Andran, where they cut down another field of experimental corn while police officers watched from the sidelines (Mallet 2001).

What took place on that warm summer day was not the first-or the last-attack on French soil directed against the expanding use of genetic engineering in agriculture. In 1997, a group of protestors in Nerac, also in southern France, demolished a stock of genetically modified corn seed belonging to the Swiss multinational Novataris AG (Egan 2003; Sciclino 2002). Two years later, protestors razed genetically altered rice plants and related research facilities at Cirad, an internationally funded agricultural research institute attached to Montpellier University (Graham 2001; Sciclino 2002).

The driving force behind these and similar campaigns has been the Confederation Paysanne (CP), a militant French farmers' organization first formed in 1987. Led by Jos Bove, a Parisian intellectual turned activist farmer (Klee 1999), the Confederation Paysanne is seeking to obliterate all genetic crop experiments in France and to protest what it sees as the growing imperialism of multinational biotech companies (Godoy 2003). For his efforts in masterminding these and other demonstrations, Bove was sentenced to ten months in jail, but he served only five weeks. He emerged from imprisonment as one of France's most popular heroes and within days appeared onstage in front of two hundred thousand supporters, where he once again spoke out against what he called "the seeds of death" (Henley 2003). "The judge did us a great service by throwing me in jail," Bove said. "We couldn't have asked for better publicity" (quoted in Sancton 1999).

Since genetically modified organisms (GMOs) first appeared on the scene in the early 1990s, their use has created a storm of controversy. Recent developments in science and technology have made it possible for genes to be transferred from one species to another, either by inserting them directly into the cells of a recipient organism, or by infecting cells with them using an altered virus or synthetic vector. The tools needed to achieve these transfers of genes have been available since the advent of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology in the 1980s. This technology splices a gene from one organism into a piece of DNA from a virus or some other small object, and then uses that object to bring the new genetic material to a desired chromosome, often the chromosome of another species (Carlson 2001). In this manner, genes from bacteria (in particular, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt) have been transferred to plants, including corn and cotton, to protect them from a variety of pests. Similarly, genes can be moved between human beings and fish or between animals and vegetables, depending on the desired objective of the transfer (Mulugu 1998).

The first plant food derived from a genetically modified crop to be sold in North America was the FlavrSavr tomato. It was introduced in 1994 and carried a gene that reduced the production of the fruit's ripening enzyme, thereby extending its shelf life. Soon to follow were crush-resistant zucchini, virus-resistant watermelons, and insect-resistant corn and potatoes (Rugg 2002). Crops that tolerate herbicides, such as soybeans and canola, appeared in 1996. These crops tolerate chemical herbicides, allowing farmers to kill early-season weeds in their fields, thereby reducing the need for spraying later (Guyan 1999). The introduction of "golden rice" in 2000 was the first example of a genetically modified crop that was intended to benefit not just its farmers, but also the consumers who eat it. In this case, the consumers include at least a million children who die each year, and an additional 350,000 who go blind, because of a vitamin A deficiency. By adding two plant genes and one bacterial gene to the crop, this "miracle rice" allows beta carotene to be synthesized in the edible portion of the plant, rather than in its leaves, thereby substantially improving the nutritional value of the crop (Kohl 2001; Nash 2000; Ruggs 2002).

At the time of this writing, manufacturers had highlighted six purported uses of GMO technology (de Gruchy 2002):

. To increase crop yields

. To produce crops that can withstand environmental pressures such as drought, excessive soil salinity, or frost

. To increase the nutritional value of plants so that a variety of crops would carry certain amino acids that they currently lack

. To enhance resistance to disease, weeds, and pests

. To reduce the need for fertilizers and other chemicals

. To improve the flavor and shelf life of crops

To date, more than forty genetically modified crops, including chicory, papayas, potatoes, squash, sugar, beets, and tomatoes, have been approved for commercial use by various agencies in the United States (Toner 2002). Researchers are hoping to develop crops in the future that will produce inedible commodities. Two such possibilities include plants that can be used as raw material for biodegradable plastics and plants that can replace animal and petroleum products as the basis of cosmetics (Kenward 1994).

Given all of these decidedly beneficent attributes, one may wonder why anyone would object to the use of GMOs in crop development. Yet object they have. In 1998, farmers in India torched test plots of genetically modified cotton in a demonstration they called Operation Cremation Monsanto (Anonymous 1998; Desmarais 2002). Later that same year, protestors in Ireland destroyed several experimental fields of genetically engineered potatoes (Ivins 1999). In 1999, demonstrators dumped four tons of modified soya beans outside British prime minister Tony Blair's residence at 10 Downing Street. At the 2001 World Social Summit in Port Alegro, Brazil, French, Basque, and Indonesian farmers joined forces with their Brazilian counterparts, uprooting three hectares of GM soya and occupying the laboratories and stores where the seeds were held (Guyan 1999). Although North Americans have tended to be somewhat more accepting of GMOs, here too, the opposition has been spreading. In April 2001, the National Farmers Union in Canada and the National Family Farm Coalition in the United States announced they were exploring joint actions to ban the introduction of GM wheat in North America (Desmarais 2002).

Academic discussions concerning the negative response to GMOs have often focused on safety issues and political concerns. Given that genetic engineering alters the chemical structure of plants, some have argued that these organisms could pose a threat to people with sensitive immune systems, for example by causing unanticipated allergic reactions (Kaiser 2000: 1867). Other commentators have expressed concern about a system that in creating patents (that is, patenting modified food), will also create monopolies, not to mention force "developing" countries into greater dependency on multinational corporations (Pottage n.d. a, n.d. b; Shiva 2000). These arguments have a great deal of force behind them. What comes as something of a surprise is that neither of these concerns appear to weigh heavily on the popular imagination. In September 2003, the British government, under the auspices of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), carried out a national survey of public attitudes toward GMOs. Respondents were asked to state their views on genetic modification and the growing of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom. Did they want genetic modification and genetically modified crops to be adopted in the United Kingdom? If they were prepared to consider the widespread use of GMOs in the future, what information or evidence would they like to see presented first? (AEBC 2003).

While the majority of respondents (a resounding 86 percent) were vehemently opposed to the use of GMOs under any circumstances, human health risks and political concerns rated last and second to last on respondents' lists of objections (AEBC 2003: 19-21). Far more pressing in the minds of many was a vague anxiety concerning the "unintended consequences" that might accompany GMOs (Bremmer 1998). "Right now, GMOs are like a child that is not fully developed," says Micos Ruzicka who runs an organic food club from his home near Prague. "We don't yet know the consequences" (quoted in Becker 2003). This notion of "unintended consequence" is rich in implications. It encapsulates a broad range of ideas concerning how "life" is imagined in the West, including the extent to which a biological paradigm grounds not only Euro-American ideas about "kinship," but also how we imagine our relationship to other beings in the organic world.

One of the most interesting findings of the AEBC report is that the notion of crossing "species boundaries" is what Europeans and North Americans find particularly disquieting. As noted by the authors of this survey, "people opposed to GM were generally far more opposed to trans-species applications, than others, especially GM animals" (AEBC 2003: 22). Central to the folk model of Europeans and North Americans is the view that all constituents of the organic world fall into certain naturally occurring types that can be defined on the basis of their unique reproductive histories. This system of ideas dates back to the seventeenth century, when the botanist John Ray suggested that sexual reproduction be used to classify the natural world. Ray argued that however much variation existed among individuals of the same general type, "one species never springs from the seed of another or vice versa" (quoted in Mayr 1982: 257). Since that time, species have been defined by Western audiences in terms of their ability to mate and produce reproductively viable offspring.

For many Europeans and North Americans, the most disturbing thing about genetic engineering is that it involves taking genes from one organism and introducing them into the reproductive cycle of another, thereby confounding what is seen to be the "purity" of a natural type. The concept of "genetic pollution"-an idea that figures prominently in the anti-GM literature-is grounded in such an interpretative framework. A public-interest story published in the Progressive by Ben Lilliston outlines what such a notion of "contamination" entails: "Susan Fitzgerald and her husband operate a 1,800 acre farm outside Hancock, Minnesota. Last year, Fitzgerald's 100 acres of organic corn showed evidence of genetic contamination as did her neighbor's organic corn crop. The pollen had traveled more than 120 feet from another neighbor's farm. Instead of selling her organic corn crop for approximately $4.00 a bushel, she had to sell her crop on the open market for $1.67" (2001: 26; italics added). Lilliston's article goes on to discuss a common concern about GMOs: that genes from a genetically modified organism can be carried to places where they are not supposed to go (see also Pollan 2001). The concept of genetic pollution implies an essentialist view of the world. It assumes that life forms fall into naturally occurring types and that it is only within these types (and not between them) that genetic material should be exchanged.

In the minds of many Europeans and North Americans, crossing species boundaries is not only intuitively "wrong," but potentially dangerous as well, insomuch as it "interferes with nature" (Lofstedt 2003). In 2002, the United States Food and Drug Administration commissioned a team of interdisciplinary researchers to examine the safety of applying biotechnology to animal products used for food. After considering the issue, the commission reported that although it had some reservations about the safety of food derived from gene-altered animals, its principal worry when it came to GMOs lay elsewhere. As reported in the New York Times: "The 12-member committee of scientists, doctors and other experts said its biggest concern about the new technology was the potential of certain genetically engineered organisms to escape and reproduce in the natural environment. Modified insects, fish, shellfish and other animals could easily escape and threaten their natural counterparts.... The panel said gene-altered salmon given the ability to grow at an accelerated rate might compete more successfully for food and mates than natural varieties, causing wild salmon to die out" (Leary 2002). GMOs were created in the laboratory and through intentional human effort; this apparently means that they are no longer "natural." These organisms have been transformed, rendered "unnatural," by the conditions under which they were brought into existence. It follows that GMOs pose a threat to their "wild" counterparts. Should these organisms interbreed with ones that have not been so modified, they will taint what is otherwise a "natural" type. Ironically, the end result of this process of interbreeding will be extinction.

Central to the notion of the "unintended consequence" is a perception of evolution run amok. Moving genes between organisms, it is felt, will lead to evolutionary Armageddon. In the words of Cavanah (2002), a process of "(un)natural selection will take over," giving rise to a world populated by nightmarish organisms and open to life-threatening possibilities. Herbicide-resistant crops will lead to the production of "super-weeds" that human beings will be unable to control in the long run (Goodyear-Smith 2001; Kenward 1994). Pest-resistant crops will enter the food chain and wreak havoc on organisms they were not intended to harm (Knestout 2000; Niles 2001). New diseases will be born, and old ones will mutate and develop resistance to antibiotics that were previously effective (Bremmer 1998). Ultimately at risk, we are told, is the biodiversity of the planet, and with it the economies of human beings the world over. In describing the discovery of pest-resistant corn varieties in Mexico, journalist Michael Pollan writes:

The country where corn was probably first domesticated, Mexico, is today the source of the crop's greatest genetic diversity. Now that diversity could well be threatened.... The presence of transgenes in what some experts call "the cradle of corn" represents a threat to the crop's biodiversity. Should the traits introduced into Mexican fields confer an evolutionary biological advantage (for insect resistance, say) on certain plants, their offspring could crowd out older varieties, leading to the extinction of genes we may some day need. For whenever a good crop suffers a catastrophic failure-as when blight destroyed the potato crop in Ireland-breeders return to that crop's center of diversity to find genes for resistance. Next time around, the genes may be nowhere to be found. (Pollan 2001: 74)

The symbolism manifest in current demonstrations against GMOs is illustrative of the aforementioned themes. It has become commonplace for opponents of biotechnology to label GM crops "Frankenfoods," evoking Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, in which life is created in the laboratory, only to be set loose on society with disastrous consequences. A similar message underlies the gift of a three-sleeved T-shirt presented to Prime Minister Tony Blair upon his return from a state visit to Barbados in August 2003. Manufactured in Wales by the Cardigan Bay company, "the T-shirt was intended as a tongue-in-cheek critique on the spread of GM in [Britain] against the wishes of the people" (Brindley 2003). Ninety additional garments were made and sent to leaders and policy makers the world over. In the words of Davie Hieatt, one of the company's cofounders: "Part of our company's aim is to make people think about the world we live in and we are trying, in our own little way, to get the issues debated.... There are always unintended consequences of the things we do and in 10 or 20 years, no doubt we will find out what they are" (quoted in Brindley 2003).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Biology Unmoored by Sandra C. Bamford Copyright © 2007 by The Regents of the University of California. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.