DOCSLIB.ORG

Elusive Publics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elusive Publics Elusive publics Citation for published version (APA): Mitzschke, A. (2018). Elusive publics: understanding techno-scientific controversy and democratic governance in the GM crops debate. Datawyse / Universitaire Pers Maastricht. https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20181220am Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2018 DOI: 10.26481/dis.20181220am Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: www.umlib.nl/taverne-license Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: [email protected] providing details and we will investigate your claim. Download date: 09 Oct. 2021 ELUSIVE PUBLICS – Understanding Techno-Scientific Controversy and Democratic Governance in the GM Crops Debate Andreas Mitzschke Copyright © Andreas Mitzschke, 2018 Printing & Layout: Datawyse Maastricht Cover design: Simon Wölfl The printing of this dissertation has been financially supported by the Netherlands Graduate Research School for Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC). ELUSIVE PUBLICS – Understanding Techno-Scientific Controversy and Democratic Governance in the GM Crops Debate Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Maastricht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof.dr. Rianne M. Letschert, volgens het besluit van het College van Decanen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 20 december 2018, om 12:00 uur door Andreas Mitzschke Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Wiebe E. Bijker Co-promotor: Dr. Anique M. Hommels Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. ir. Harro van Lente (voorzitter, Maastricht University) Prof. dr. Jacqueline E.W. Broerse (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Prof. dr. Cyrus C.M. Mody (Maastricht University) Dr. ir. Govert Valkenburg (Universiteit Leiden) Prof. dr. Sally M.E. Wyatt (Maastricht University) Contents List of Figures 7 List of Tables 7 List of Abbreviations 8 Chapter 1 Introduction – The GM Crops Controversy 11 GM crops & publics 12 The Controversy about GM Crops 15 A Constructivist Approach 22 Publics & Politics 24 Sources & Method 31 The Arenas of the GM Crops Debate 39 A Note on Contextual Specificity 43 Chapter 2 More than Just Rats- Toxicological Risk Assessment Publicly Contested 45 Introduction: a debate about lab rats 46 Issues, Publics, and Boundary Work 49 A New Perspective in Toxicology: Séralini’s long-term feeding study 52 Questioning Séralini: politics, not science? 55 Defending Séralini’s Scientific Integrity: the politics of science 63 Institutions as Arbiters: EFSA and FCT 72 Retraction and Republication: shifting boundaries of science 78 Conclusion: more than just lab rats 84 Chapter 3 Imagining Futures with(out) GM Crops - Normativity, Temporality, and Publics 91 Introduction: visions of our sociotechnical future 92 Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the GM Crops Debate 93 Productivity for Food Security and Competitiveness 99 Environmentalism 106 Complex Ecology 111 Seed Sovereignty 121 Conclusion: sociotechnical imaginaries and publics 134 5 Chapter 4 The Bt-brinjal Consultations - Publics in the Arena of GM crop Policy-Making 139 Introduction: publics of Bt-brinjal? 140 STS and the Study of Public Policy: a case for constructivist analysis 142 From Conventional Policy-Making to Public Engagement 145 Public Participation, Displaced Politics, and Democracy 148 The Bt-brinjal Consultations 151 The CEE Report 157 Constructing Publics: consumers, farmers, citizens 160 Ramesh’s Moratorium Decision: how publics of Bt-brinjal shaped policy 175 Conclusion: the elephant in the room 180 Chapter 5 Conclusion - Elusive Publics 183 Constructing Publics and GM Crops 184 The Role of Science 189 Democratising Techno-Scientific Culture: the paradox of public authority 192 Appendix: List of Interviews 201 Nederlandse Samenvatting 205 English Summary 213 Acknowledgements 221 Valorisation Addendum 225 Bibliography 231 6 List of Figures Figure 1: Laboratory experimentation with new GM crop varieties, Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai (source: author, 2013) 16 Figure 2: Transgenic insertion of gene into host plant cells, Indian government information leaflet (CEE 2010b, p.8) 18 Figure 3: Global area of GM crops (1996-2016), by trait, in million hectares (source, James, 2016, p.93) 20 Figure 4: Heavily policed assembly of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) farmers’ union in Bangalore (source: author, 2012) 28 Figure 5: Display of rats with mammary gland tumours, organs, and cell mutations of laboratory rats (Séralini et. al., 2012, p.6) 60 Figure 6: “At Monsanto, we believe agriculture has the power to lift people out of poverty” (Monsanto, 2012b, p.121) 103 Figure 7: Journalist Devinder Sharma, politician Yogandra Yadav, South Indian Coordination Committee Convener S Kannayan, La Via Campesina activist Ashlesha Khadse, local journalist, and researcher (from left to right) at Amritha Bhoomi (source: author, 2013). 131 Figure 8: Assembly of BKU and KRRS farmer leaders at Amritha Bhoomi (source: author, 2013) 132 Figure 9: Decorated tractor at Good Food March, Brussels, September 2012 (source: author, 2012) 133 Figure 10: Minister Ramesh discussing with protestors at a consultation venue (CEE, 2010a, p.13) 155 Figure 11: Attendance at the consultations per venue and by category (CEE, 2010a, p. 12) 156 Figure 12: Farmer Jury assembly in Bhubaneswar, Odisha (author, 2012) 195 List of Tables Table 1: Global area of GM crops (2015/16) by crop, in million hectares (James, 2016, p.90) 19 Table 2: Overview of the sociotechnical imaginaries in the GM crops debate (source: author, 2018) 138 7 List of Abbreviations AAP Aam Aadmi Party ABC Agricultural Biotechnology Council (United Kingdom) ABLE Association of Biotech Led Enterprises ABSP Agriculture Biotechnology Support Project (Cornell University, USAID) ASHA Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture BAC Biotechnology Advisory Council (Belgium) BASF Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik BfR Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) BKS Bharat Krishak Samaj BKU Bhartiya Kisan Union BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Bt Bacillus thuringiensis CBD Convention on Biodiversity (United Nations) CCI Competition Commission of India CEE Centre for Environment Education (Ahmedabad) CEO Corporate Europe Observatory (Brussels) CIFA Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations CICR Central Institute for Cotton Research (Nagpur) COPE Committee on Publication Ethics CRIIGEN Comité de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur le gémnie Génétique (University of Caen) CSA Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Hyderabad) CSE Centre for Science and Environment (New Delhi) DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid DBT Department of Biotechnology (MoST, GoI) ECI Expert Committee I ECII Expert Committee II EFSA European Food Safety Authority (Parma) ENSSER European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility ERA Environmental Risk Assessment ESG Environment Support Group (Bangalore) ETC Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (Toronto) EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation (United Nations) FBAE Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (Bangalore) FCT Food and Chemical Toxicology (Elsevier) FDA Food and Drug Administration (United States) 8 GEAC Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (previously Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, renamed in 2009) GE Genetically Engineered GLP Good Laboratory Practice GM Genetically Modified GMO Genetically Modified Organism GoI Government of India H.NU Hervorming Nederlandse Universiteiten Nu HT Herbicide Tolerance IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICCFM Indian Coordination Committee of Famers Movements ICRA Institute for Cultural Research and Action (Bangalore) IIVR Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (Varanasi) IPM Integrated Pest Management IR Insect Resistance IRRI International Rice Research Institute (Philippines) ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications KRRS Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha Mahyco Maharashtra
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genuity Smartstax Corn: an Amazing Advancement in GE Crop
    Genuity SmartStax corn: An amazing advancement in GE crop 05 May 2010 | News Image not found or type unknown Using GS corn as a platform would be a quicker way of enhancing the number of transgenes in a single crop variety The trademarked Genuity-SmartStax corn (GS corn) containing eight transgenes-six for pest control and two for weed control- developed through collaboration between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, introduced few months ago, is an amazing development in crop genetic engineering (GE). Incorporated into the best of corn varieties, this event is expected to provide the most comprehensive pest and weed control system available, leading to an impressive crop health and increase of whole farm crop yields. The development of Genuity SmartStax corn from the shaky origins of genetic engineering is a fascinating reading. Genuity SmartStax corn GS corn takes care of the major pests, such as the European and southwestern corn borer, northern and western corn rootworm, western bean cutworm, black cutworm, corn earworm, and fall armyworm and also imparts tolerance to both glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides. In addition, the coming together of two giants in the seed industry will encourage other private-private partnerships to further this initiative. Eight transgenes in GS corn Tolerance to aerial pests (three Bt genes): Cry 1A.105 (Monsanto), Cry 2Ab2 (Monsanto) and Cry 1F (Dow). Tolerance to subsoil pests (three Bt genes): Cry 3Bb1 (Monsanto), Cry 34Ab1 (Dow) and Cry 35Ab1 (Dow). Tolerance to herbicides (two genes): Glyphosate (Roundup Ready, Monsanto) and Glufosinate (LibertyLink, Dow, under license from Bayer). Biosecurity evaluation Transgenic crops are evaluated for product efficacy and biosecurity in the laboratory, green house and in the field for over 10 years before commercialization.
    [Show full text]
  • Combatting Monsanto
    Picture: Grassroots International Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate La Via Campesina, Friends of the Earth International, Combat Monsanto Technical data name: “Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate” author: Joseph Zacune ([email protected]) with contributions from activists around the world editing: Ronnie Hall ([email protected]) design and layout: Nicolás Medina – REDES-FoE Uruguay March 2012 Combatting Monsanto Grassroots resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate INDEX Executive summary / 2 Company profile - Monsanto / 3 Opposition to Monsanto in Europe / 5 A decade of French resistance to GMOs / 6 Spanish movements against GM crops / 9 German farmers’ movement for GM-free regions / 10 Organising a movement for food sovereignty in Europe / 10 Monsanto, Quit India! / 11 Bt brinjal and biopiracy / 11 Bt cotton dominates cotton sector / 12 Spiralling debt still triggering suicides / 12 Stopping Monsanto’s new public-private partnerships / 13 Resistance to Monsanto in Latin America / 14 Brazilian peasant farmers’ movement against agribusiness / 14 Ten-year moratorium on GM in Peru / 15 Landmark ruling on toxic soy in Argentina / 15 Haitians oppose seed aid / 16 Guatemalan networks warn of new biosafety proposals / 17 Battle-lines drawn in the United States / 17 Stopping the
    [Show full text]
  • The Deadlock in European GM Crop Authorisations As a Wicked Problem by Design
    The Deadlock in European GM Crop Authorisations as a Wicked Problem by Design A need for Repoliticisation of the Decision-making Process Ruth Mampuys The Deadlock in European GM Crop Authorisations as a Wicked Problem by Design A need for Repoliticisation of the Decision-making Process Ruth Mampuys Colofon Sociology, Theory and Methodology | Erasmus School of Law | 2020 Author: Ruth Mampuys Thesis design & layout: Bart Erkamp Cover design: Matteo Bettoni The Deadlock in European GM Crop Authorisations as a Wicked Problem by Design A need for Repoliticisation of the Decision-making Process Thesis To obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam By command of the rector magnificus Prof.dr. F.A. van der Duijn Schouten and in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board. The public defence shall be held on Thursday 28 january 2021 at 15:30 hrs by Ruth Mampuys born in Enschede, the Netherlands Doctoral Committee Promotors: Prof. dr. W. van der Burg Prof. dr. F.W.A. Brom Other members: Prof. dr. A. Arcuri Prof. dr. K. Millar Prof. dr. J.E.J. Prins Copromotor: Dr. L.M. Poort CONTENTS PREFACE 1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 5 CHAPTER 1 Biotechnology governance: why, how and by whom? 9 1. Introduction 11 2. Varying definitions of biotechnology and GMOs 14 3. Recurring themes in discussions about biotechnology 17 3.1 Fundamental moral perspectives 18 3.2 Attitudes on risks/benefits 19 3.3 Broader issues 20 4. Regulatory framework for GMOs in Europe 21 4.1 Prerequisite: an environmental risk and food safety assessment 24 4.2 Regulatory decision-making: Comitology 25 4.3 Decision-making in practice 30 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotech Gallery Gene-Ius Resources Brow Se Select Language ​ ▼
    6/14/2014 Madagascar student prank shows March Against Monsanto has heartless agenda | Genetic Literacy Project Subscribe to Our Daily or Weekly Newsletter Follow Like 2.3k Follow 1,759 follow ers 197 Enter Your Email Address → Search About Human Agriculture Biotech Gallery Gene-ius Resources Brow se Select Language ​ ▼ Biotech Gallery March Against Monsanto Madagascar student prank shows March Against Monsanto has heartless agenda Dustin Eirdosh | June 10, 2014 | Genetic Literacy Project Like 513 Tw eet 89 Share 5 15 426 On May 30, the global group March Against Monsanto (see GLP Facts) held its third coordinated protest in hundreds of Name March Against Monsanto Founded 2013 cities around the world. Hundreds of thousands of people Type Advocacy Organization reportedly participated. But what does this group really Founder(s) Tami Canal Website http://w w w .march- stand for beyond their obvious disdain for one company, against-monsanto.com/ Monsanto, and biotechnology? One student in Madagascar VIEW GLP FACTS embarked on a mission to find out by setting up a fake “Madagascar Against Monsanto” group and posting outrageous pictures and statements, to see if activists would VIEW BIOTECH GALLERY ARCHIVE embrace or reject his bizarre extremism. What happened? *********** Related Articles: Madagascar student prank show s “Sir, I am afraid for my future, afraid because March Against Monsanto has threatened me and my community,” March Against Monsanto has heartless agenda Navid Rakotofala told me amidst a fury of reactions to his unconventional expose prank to explore just how outrageously far “mainstream” anti-GMO activists would go to to spread their message.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology Benefits for Corn Production
    Agronomic SPOTLIGHT Biotechnology Benefits for Corn Production Many corn products have multiple biotech traits that provide insect protection and herbicide tolerance that promote better plant health, stress tolerance, and yield potential. University of Wisconsin field research trials show that genetically modified corn products (GM) have a number of benefits over conventional corn to help manage downside risk under variable yield conditions and protect yield potential. GM products with insect and herbicide tolerance not only protect corn yield potential, they provide other benefits as well. The large productivity gains in corn production made during the GM corn helped overcome the continuous corn rotation yield last several decades have come primarily from advanced plant penalty that conventional corn experienced during the 2000 breeding techniques and improved corn management of the to 2005 comparison period. crop. Research has determined that about 50% of on-farm yield The University of Wisconsin research shows that farmers gains since 1934 can be attributed to improved management 2 planting GM corn products in a corn-on-corn rotation in 2000 practices. Breeding and management interact as both are had a lower potential risk of low yield (175 bu/acre) than farmers necessary to sustain increased production. Yield stability across using a conventional corn-on-corn rotation (Figure 1). In 2005, a wide range of environments is one of the most important 1 the negative impact of the corn-on-corn rotation was not selection targets for corn breeders. Consequently, improved apparent for GM corn products but was still a problem in stress tolerance for higher planting densities, coupled with conventional corn-on-corn rotation (Figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Bt Corn Produc
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY BOARD OF PESTICIDES CONTROL 28 STATE HOUSE STATION UGUSTA AINE PAUL R. LEPAGE A , M 04333 WALTER E. WHITCOMB GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER To: Board of Pesticides Control Members From: Mary Tomlinson, Pesticides Registrar/Water Quality Specialist RE: Bt Corn Products with Pending Maine Registration Status Date: July 19, 2017 ****************************************************************************** Monsanto Company and Dow AgroSciences LLC have requested registration of several new Bt corn products. The new active ingredient (unique identifier 87411-9) is a dsRNA transcript comprising a DvSnf7 inverted repeat sequence which matches that from the Western corn rootworm. dsRNA transcript comprising a DvSnf7 inverted repeat sequence derived from Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-ZMIR10871) in MON 87411 corn (OECD Unique Identifier MON-87411-9)………………………..≤ 0.00000044%* MON 87411 also contains CP4 EPSPS protein (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) and the genetic material (vector PV-ZMIR10871) necessary for its production in corn event MON 87411…...≤ 0.036%*. The EPSPS protein confers tolerance to glyphosate. Products designed for the propagation of commercial seed have no spatial refuge which is typical of these types of products. SmartStax PRO Enlist requires a 5% non-Bt corn refuge, unless used for seed propagation, and SmartStax PRO Enlist Refuge Advanced contains a 5% interspersed refuge. The 2015 EPA Registration Decision (RED) and USDA Draft Environmental Assessment for Mon 87411 are attached for your review. The question posed to the Board is, are these products substantially different from currently registered Bt corn products? If so, what further review is recommended? The labels for the products under consideration are attached for your review.
    [Show full text]
  • The March Against Monsanto by JERRY BRULE on May 25, Eugene Joined Hundreds of Cities World- Dressed in Black with Yellow Stripes to Represent Bees
    Volume 2, Number 4 July - August 2013 The March against Monsanto BY JERRY BRULE On May 25, Eugene joined hundreds of cities world- dressed in black with yellow stripes to represent bees. wide in protesting Monsanto, pesticides, and genetically Others wore beekeeping outfi ts. Phillip Jones from Or- modifi ed organisms (GMOs). An exuberant rally of be- egon Sustainable Beekeepers spoke to the crowd about tween fi fteen hundred and two thousand people took place the decline in the number of bees due to pesticides. He at the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza. The Raging Gran- said that many European nations have banned a class of nies warmed up the crowd with inspirational songs and pesticide called neonicotinoids, which are suspected of were followed by several speakers. Melissa Wischerath, a causing colony collapse. Jones said that, here in the United managing attorney and cofounder of the Sustainable Law States, lawmakers were not only unwilling to ban the use of Center, told the crowd about Oregon Senate Bill 633, which these pesticides, they also approved the use of an additional insecticide. Due to lack of bees, the almond crop may not be pollinated this year. After the rally, the long line of marchers, accompa- nied by the music of Samba Ja, traveled on sidewalks and through traffi c lights with the aid of the Eugene Police. They crossed the Ferry Street Bridge both ways and ended up at the Campbell Center where there was additional en- tertainment and several other speakers. As Fergus Mclean said, “The gathering at the Campbell Center was nearly PHOTO BY JERRY BRULE idyllic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Genetically Modified Organisms (Gmos)
    Journal Pre-proof Monetizing Disinformation in the Attention Economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Camille D. Ryan, Andrew Schaul, Ryan Butner, John Swarthout PII: S0263-2373(19)30144-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.11.002 Reference: EMJ 1962 To appear in: European Management Journal Received Date: 04 April 2019 Accepted Date: 29 November 2019 Please cite this article as: Camille D. Ryan, Andrew Schaul, Ryan Butner, John Swarthout, Monetizing Disinformation in the Attention Economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), European Management Journal (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.11.002 This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier. Journal Pre-proof Monetizing Disinformation in the Attention Economy: the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) European Management Journal Special Issue “The Dark Side of Social Media” 1 Authors: Camille D. Ryan , Andrew Schaul, Ryan Butner, and John Swarthout Camille D. Ryan Monsanto Company 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO, USA 63017 [email protected] Andrew Schaul Bayer Crop Science 800 N.
    [Show full text]
  • Smartstax®) B.T
    BIOPESTICIDES REGISTRATION ACTION DOCUMENT MON 89034 x TC1507 x MON 88017 x DAS-59122-7 (SmartStax®) B.t. Corn Seed Blend U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) November 29, 2011 Update MON 89034 x TC1507 x MON 88017 x DAS-59122-7 (SmartStax®) B.t. Corn Seed Blend Page 2 of 42 Biopesticides Registration Action Document TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND ……………………………….………………………………… 3 II. SCIENCE ASSESSMENT ………………………………………………………. 4 III. REGULATORY RATIONALE…………………………………….………….. 25 IV. TERMS AND CONDITIONS……………………………………………..……. 27 This update includes a new expiration date and additional terms and conditions. MON 89034 x TC1507 x MON 88017 x DAS-59122-7 (SmartStax®) B.t. Corn Seed Blend Page 3 of 42 Biopesticides Registration Action Document I. BACKGROUND Active Ingredients: Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.l05 protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production in corn event MON 89034 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production in corn event MON 89034 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PHP8999) for its production in corn event TCI507 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bbl protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR39) for its production in com event MON 88017 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PHP17662) for its production in corn event DAS-59122-7 Bacillus thuringiensis
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Frankenbeer: a Holistic Analysis on International Labeling and Beverage Laws Through the Lens of the Ongoing Controversy of Genetically Modified Organisms
    THE RISE OF FRANKENBEER: A HOLISTIC ANALYSIS ON INTERNATIONAL LABELING AND BEVERAGE LAWS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE ONGOING CONTROVERSY OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS HarrisonJoss* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 132 II. THE INCEPTION OF THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF GMOs IN THE UNITED STATES ....... 136 III. THE DEBATE SURROUNDING THE ADVENT OF GMOs AND BIOTECHNOLOGY .......................................... 138 A. Arguments Furtheredby Proponents of GMOs and Biotechnology. ........................... ...... 138 B. Current Opponent Views on the Use of GMOs..... ..... 139 C. BurgeoningLitigation Over the Use of GMOs and the OngoingDebate ......................... ...... 140 III. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES To GMOs AND BIOTECHNOLOGY.... 141 A. A BrieffHistory of the InternationalCommunity's Reaction to the Introduction and Trade of GMOs and the Underlying DistrustofSuch Products.................... ....... 141 B. The World Trade Organizationand Attempted Resolution of InternationalTrade Debates Surrounding GMOs.............. 143 IV. UNITED STATES VERSUS EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHIES FOR ACCEPTANCE, SAFETY, AND LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS....................................... 144 A. The Importance ofLabels on Food Products ...... ...... 144 B. U.S. Standardsfor Risk Assessment in the Regulation of GMOs ............................... ....... 145 C. European Union Safety Philosophiesfor Regulating the Approval of GMOs ....................... ...... 147 D. European Union GMO
    [Show full text]
  • Farmers and Residents of This Midwestern City
    nIGHttIme On Now until November 9, AerAtIon 2013 Know when it removes or adds moisture » PAGE 11 ©2013 UFA Co-operative Ltd. All rights reserved. UFA.com Publications Mail Agreement # 40069240 Volume 10, number 22 o c t ober 28, 2013 rancher’s undEr wAtchful EyEs beef plant set to reopen under new management Industry leaders say they are optimistic the new Harmony Beef plant will not just increase kill capacity but offer access to premium niche market man of alberta Cattle feeders’ By Jennifer Blair association. “although it won’t af staff / red deer solve all the ills in the indus- try, it’s a really good step in ich Vesta is about to buy that direction.” himself another beef plant. Western stock Growers’ associa- R the former president tion president aaron Brower also of JBs’s U.s. beef division spent hailed the deal. the ’90s buying slaughterhouses “It’s been a long time com- to grow capacity at his com- ing,” he said. “I think it’s going pany, Packerland Packing, and to be an advantage for the whole now he’s set his sights on the industry here.” deserted rancher’s Beef plant east of Balzac. “It’s an excellent plant,” he said of the $40-million facility, set to be “I think it will do us renamed Harmony Beef. “as I’ve looked at plants across the nation more good open and and North america, there’s not a killing cattle than it did lot of plants that match up to this one in terms of food safety, work shut.” safety, and HaCCP plans.” the deal with the plant’s current owner, sunterra farms, is expected BreNt CHaffee to close Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • The Industrial Food Chain's Recipe for a Box Lunch
    The Industrial Food Chain’s Recipe for a Box Lunch Who’s going to eat whose lunch … the Hardware Grunts or the Software Gurus? The Battle for the control of agricultural inputs is just beginning. Time for a “Kickboxer” Campaign? Briefing Note, May 31st, 2016 Bayer’s $62 billion bid for Monsanto, as of this writing, has been rejected, but both parties say they are continuing to negotiate. That the “Joy of Six” agricultural input companies may soon become a ménage à trois has been a matter of speculation in ETC Group since mid-2014. If (and it is a big “if”) the Seven Players Reduced to Four? marriages of Dow with DuPont, The biggest agrochemical makers if the ChemChina with Syngenta, and deals for through Crop Protection Seeds Bayer with Monsanto are 25 consummated, the only wallflower left on the dance floor, 20 BASF, will either have to hook up or give up. Agriculture is, 15 relatively speaking, small potatoes for the German chemical $ billion 10 giant, but, still, it brought home $7.2 billion in crop chemical sales 5 in 2014 and commands a hefty 11.5% of the global pesticide 0 market. Although BASF invests in Bayer & DuPont & Dow ChemChina & BASF Monsanto Chemical Syngenta plant breeding and breeding technologies, it doesn’t directly sell seeds. Instead, the company Based on 2015 revenue, Monsanto figures for fiscal year through collaborates on R&D all along the Aug. 2015. Source: Company reports, Bloomberg food chain – with Monsanto (developing GMO traits), with Yara (producing ammonia for fertilizers), with synbio company Evolva (developing biosynthetic pesticides), with Cargill (developing oils high in omega-3), with Deere & Co.
    [Show full text]