Genetically modified (GM) crops
A similar and overlapping set of mobilizations has occurred especially from the mid1990s around genetically modified (GM) crops in different parts of the world. These
have revolved variously around environmental concerns with crop genetic diversity
and ‘superweeds’, human health issues, as well as a wider debate about corporate
control of seeds and farming futures (Schurman, 2004). Alliances have formed
between diverse groups, each framing the issue in a different way. A hybrid network
of different actors has created something akin to a movement, but with hugely varied
characteristics. Contrary to the claims of some that this was all an orchestrated
conspiracy by powerful European environmentalists, the evidence shows a
variegated response, all rooted in local concerns and contexts. By and large, the lead
actors have been relatively rich, educated and middle class, claiming support in
different forms from farmers’ organizations and movements, including La Via
Campesina. However, perhaps in contrast to the bottom-up peasants’ movements
of food sovereignty, the anti-GM campaigns have been characterized by a set of
relatively elite alliances, with transnational characteristics, yet local roots.
Taking what Marc Edelman calls a ‘messy, close up view of collective action’
(Edelman, 2001, p286) we can get an insight into the texture of such a movement,
its tactics and strategies, successes and failures, and draw out some broader lessons
for mobilizing for green transformations more generally. In a comparative study
of anti-GM activism in Brazil, India and South Africa, Scoones (2008, p339)
concludes:
They galvanize selective and strategic alliances among different and diverse
groups around a variety of issues. Some would dismiss these as incoherent
and poorly substantiated, but together they often add up to an alternative
perspective on agrarian futures to the standard neoliberal line, even if some -
times poorly articulated and partially contradictory. Such positions are the result
of complex, hybrid coalitions of interests and ideas, and, as discussed, do not
represent a particular, defined set of (class) interests. With their global
connections and elite, educated, urban leaderships, they can be seen as often
very detached from rural realities and agrarian struggles. But the resonances
and connections are definitely there . . . and the strength of their appeal, and
the political force that they potentially have, lies in the way such connections
– between local, national and global issues; rural and urban; producer and
consumer; elite and poor – are constructed and mobilized.
Comparing countries and regions where GM activism has emerged highlights
the importance of contrasting political cultures (Jasanoff, 2005). Such cultures suggest
different options and open up different spaces for debate. Thus, in some settings
close alliances between movements and political parties were possible, allowing for
a penetration of political and bureaucratic structures to effect change. In other
contexts the legal system created space for protest. The media is also an important
Mobilizing for green transformations 125
A similar and overlapping set of mobilizations has occurred especially from the mid1990s around genetically modified (GM) crops in different parts of the world. These
have revolved variously around environmental concerns with crop genetic diversity
and ‘superweeds’, human health issues, as well as a wider debate about corporate
control of seeds and farming futures (Schurman, 2004). Alliances have formed
between diverse groups, each framing the issue in a different way. A hybrid network
of different actors has created something akin to a movement, but with hugely varied
characteristics. Contrary to the claims of some that this was all an orchestrated
conspiracy by powerful European environmentalists, the evidence shows a
variegated response, all rooted in local concerns and contexts. By and large, the lead
actors have been relatively rich, educated and middle class, claiming support in
different forms from farmers’ organizations and movements, including La Via
Campesina. However, perhaps in contrast to the bottom-up peasants’ movements
of food sovereignty, the anti-GM campaigns have been characterized by a set of
relatively elite alliances, with transnational characteristics, yet local roots.
Taking what Marc Edelman calls a ‘messy, close up view of collective action’
(Edelman, 2001, p286) we can get an insight into the texture of such a movement,
its tactics and strategies, successes and failures, and draw out some broader lessons
for mobilizing for green transformations more generally. In a comparative study
of anti-GM activism in Brazil, India and South Africa, Scoones (2008, p339)
concludes:
They galvanize selective and strategic alliances among different and diverse
groups around a variety of issues. Some would dismiss these as incoherent
and poorly substantiated, but together they often add up to an alternative
perspective on agrarian futures to the standard neoliberal line, even if some -
times poorly articulated and partially contradictory. Such positions are the result
of complex, hybrid coalitions of interests and ideas, and, as discussed, do not
represent a particular, defined set of (class) interests. With their global
connections and elite, educated, urban leaderships, they can be seen as often
very detached from rural realities and agrarian struggles. But the resonances
and connections are definitely there . . . and the strength of their appeal, and
the political force that they potentially have, lies in the way such connections
– between local, national and global issues; rural and urban; producer and
consumer; elite and poor – are constructed and mobilized.
Comparing countries and regions where GM activism has emerged highlights
the importance of contrasting political cultures (Jasanoff, 2005). Such cultures suggest
different options and open up different spaces for debate. Thus, in some settings
close alliances between movements and political parties were possible, allowing for
a penetration of political and bureaucratic structures to effect change. In other
contexts the legal system created space for protest. The media is also an important
Mobilizing for green transformations 125