Debates on GM crops in Europe: Implications for international food and agricultural policies Ksenia Gerasimova Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge Abstract Europe is particularly known for its opposition to the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. While the main object of the debate, the GM plants, is a product of scientific research, the debate has gone beyond the discussion of purely scientific topics and turned into 'an ideological debate inseparable from political and economic conflicts, where rational thinking is mixed with irrationality and hysteria' (Cook et al, 2004). While this appears as a regional issue, the European resistance brings implications to international policies on food and agriculture. For example, African leaders are hesitant to allow GM crops in fear of losing access to the European markets. In the early 2000s this fear led the Zambian government to reject GM grain as food aid and deprive the affected population by severe hunger from additional food supply (Brand, 2010). This paper aims to examine the causes of such strong resistance in the region by comparing socio-economic implications resulting from accepting/rejecting GM crops for Europe itself and two other regions, such as Northern America and Africa, and identifying main institutional actors involved. In the case of GM crops' debates, such institutional actors include scientists, European bureaucrats, and NGOs' activists. Such mapping can help to understand more about motivations and lobbying strategy of each of the group involved and of Europe as a region. The hypothesis of this paper that the European NGOs working in environmental issues and social justice form a strong lobby and enjoy close ties with the bureaucrats and thus influence each other will be tested with the social network analysis. Thus, the paper will contribute to understanding of inter- and intra-institutional interactions for food security and agricultural policies. Key words: Africa, Europe, GM Crops, NGOs. Introduction This paper contributes to the ICPP 2015 Panel: “The new policy and politics of food and agriculture”, specifically to its session ‘Food and agriculture policy: A global shift to new ideas and paradigms?’ First, let me remind the definition of agriculture, which is ‘the science or practice of cultivating the soil and rearing animals’ (Barber, 2004, p.26). The word ‘science’ is particularly important to the discussion of agriculture and GM plants. In the 1980s there was ‘a decline in the relative importance of agriculture to the overall economy, as the industrial and service sectors grow even more rapidly, partly through stimulus from a modernising agriculture’, and as a result academics and donors shown less interest in the sector (Timmer, 2006, p.5). However, this trend in perception of agriculture in public policy is getting reversed by the rise of agro-biotechnology. This rise presents both opportunities and challenges for farmers, agro-companies, retailers, consumers and policy-makers in both developing and developed countries. Timmer has laid out this process in what he called three revolutions. These include a genetic revolution, a supermarket revolution and a profitable agriculture revolution (Timmer, 2006). All of them seem to part of wider contemporary processes of globalization. Another global trend is a growing importance of food security. It is expected that by 2050 the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion, and the main increase will occur in developing countries. In order to feed this population which will be rapidly growing, more urban and richer, food production will have to increase by 70 percent (FAO, 2009). Although some counter-argue that there is no need in increasing global yield and what is needed is the redistribution of food (Trueba & MacMillan, 2013). Both arguments, however, indicate the need to transform the current system of agricultural production and food consumption towards more sustainable practices. Food is the most basic human need which needs to be satisfied daily, any delay in its supply can cause political implications, such as food riots. That’s why food policy is always going to be political. It appears that since the 1980s the cases of hunger have become more frequent and more acute. In 2011 around 563 million hungry people live in Asia, and 239 million – in Africa. Another form of hunger is malnutrition. For example, vitamin A deficiency (VAD), one of the largest nutritional burdens in the developing world, particularly affects children and women. It increases child mortality and blindness due to susceptibility to infection (Rein & Herbers, 2006). All that requires both change in food production and distribution as well as necessary policy interventions to all this happen at both national and international level. Recognition of both the changing nature of the contemporary food systems and the role of policy-making brings back political science to the discussion of agriculture and food production (Grant, 2012). This paper looks at one feature of the described processes – genetically modified agriculture and discusses how it is perceived in the European Union’s public domain and what implications results from such perceptions in relation to other regions, particularly Africa. The paper illustrates that in the debates on GM crops, the focus is not on the technology itself, but on its policy-making, and the main presented arguments are the importance of institutional context to the adoption and application of transgenic agriculture and a link between regional choices about the GM technology and international cooperation. The chosen structure of the paper aims to provide necessary background information, illustrate this link and prove the importance of regional contexts. First, it provides a brief history of perceptions of genetically modified crops, trying to understand the institutional context. Then it will review ongoing debates over the use of GMOs in agriculture, particularly those relevant to developing countries, who are arguably might be the main recipients of the technology. Although full application of the methodology of network analysis is difficult to apply due to the nature of available data on NGOs1, the paper will still refer to this method by analysing the links between the NGOs involved in the debate. Social Network Analysis is a research methodology developed for analyzing social networks, originated from sociological and mathematical studies since the mid-1930s, but has wide spread across different disciplines from the early 1990s (Freeman, 2004). According to Davies (2009), SNA is 'a representational technology', meaning that it is not tied to a specific theory of how society or individuals operate. So it can be adapted to a variety of research projects. While the work described in this paper is still in progress, 1 There is no comprehensive database for NGOs participating in the GM debate. Few authors (Ansell et al, 2013; Schurman & Munro, 2010) working on the subject have to create their own database, and so does this paper. See appendix. several case studies of NGOs’ engagement will be used to illustrate the interconnectedness of NGOs operating in different regions, in this instance Europe and Africa. 1. General characteristics of debates over the use of GM crops Genetic modification is a technique where individual genes can be copied and transferred to another living organism to thus incorporate or delete specific characteristics into or from the organism. The development of genetically modified crops consists of several stages: laboratory, greenhouse, field trials, risk assessment tests, farm release and post-marketing surveillance. All these procedures are run by biologists under established regulations, yet the discussion and policy-making for GM crops in agriculture go beyond laboratories and regulatory offices into a wider general public domain. Proponents of GM technology (Moore, 2014, Ammann, 2014) refer to a wide number of studies which show safety of GM food, but there are still very serious concerns from the opponents’ side. The debates over the use of GM varies in scale and regional case studies, but they also seem to have a number of common trends. First, they are the best example of ‘advocacy science’ (Grundmann, 2011), when the science and subjects what were exclusively in the domain of professional scientists become open to a wider audience. Gaudilliere (2006) separates two levels of debates: the scientific debate and the debate which include other scientists outside molecular biology, and other interested parties from 'lay people' (i.e. not scientists). The research by Cook et al showed how scientists tend to distance themselves from public and opponents of GM, the group which would include media and campaigning NGOs (Cook et Al, 2004). In general, it appears that the major debates are taking place between the activists, often among themselves, and scientists. The media then acts as their voice to influence public opinion and use direct and indirect ways to engage with policy decision-makers. Farmers and consumers are often referred as their constituencies who would benefit from results of such lobbying. However, in many cases the same people who represent the scientific community become activists and vice versa. For example, Dr Fagan, a molecular biologist, in 1994 took a stand against genetic engineering, renounced his grants and decided to dedicate his time to anti-GM activism (Fagan, 2007). In the other direction, Mark Lynas, a former Greenpeace activist, left green activism and has joined Cornell University to work alongside the scientists instead (Lynas, 2014). There is also a geographic context: Europe is known for opposing GM crops being grown in the region. That correlates with the fact that Europe is most possibly home to the highest number of anti-GM NGOs and campaigns (Ansel et al, 2013; also see appendix). Another common trend is the argumentation in debates. In some cases, the strategy to win a debate appears to be not through counter-arguing the argument of the other side, but by ‘ad hominem’ accusations of biased interests and undermining the authority of opponents.