Since the 1970s, and up until today, there exist two highly contrastive and different narratives concerning the emergence and particularly the ‘utility’ of genetically modified organisms or food (GMO/GMF), and more important the implications of this technology in view of power and governance issues on the international level. The following is a summary of key ideas prevalent in the literature on this topic (literature list at the bottom).
Power and Governance
When looking at the issue of GMOs from the perspective of international relations and governance, the literature suggests that the contrastive positions (pro or con GMOs) on the issue find their country wise equivalence in two countries, namely the US and the EU. At the same time, other potential host countries, i.e. the developing world that might be greatly affected by the impact of introducing GMOs into their environments remain largely excluded from the debate and power struggle over this issue.
Accordingly, the power struggle over proliferation or prevention of GMOs is strongly driven by actors such as the EU consumers, the European Commission (environmental department), US corporations, US Government, as well as the EU’s and US’ converging interests as main exporters (e.g.TRIPS). The obvious misrepresentation of certain interests, or better: the underpinning North-South divide and Corporation-Farmer divide is perspective- and system- related. It is to be found with regard to actual R&D activities in the field of agricultural knowledge for development and stretches as far as concerning bargaining power domestically, within the WTO (on issues of IPR, UPOV and/or sui generis systems) or the establishment of alternative institutional governance systems.
It seems that the power struggle as well as the representational divide, all of these phenomena hint at the complex of problems that intrinsically accompany the governing structures of genetically modified seeds and agricultural biotechnology. – Which raises the question, at what point the interests of farmers are accounted for in this governance structure?
“Food fights” and “IPR battles”
After Borlaug and his colleagues, the proliferation of GMOs is a “moral obligation” towards poor farmers. According to this line of argumentation, GMOs in form of genetically modified cash crops do not only bring wealth to the farmers in poor countries but also are an adequate agricultural instrument to eliminate hunger and starvation in poor countries. Based on this assumption, Paarlberg describes a “global food fight” that takes place between the US (corporate power) and the EU (environmentalists, consumers), whereas the preventive attitude of the EU in view of GMOs clearly is interpreted as an act of ignorance that goes directly against the interests of poor farmers. While the exclusion of poor farmers’ interests in the power struggle over governing seeds and agricultural biotechnology might be a correct assessment of the situation, Paarlberg’s conclusion that the interest of the poor farmer per se is the introduction of GMOs is simply false and only founded on his own scientific belief system.
While Borlaug et al. tell the story that the EU is preventing wealth and poverty reduction of poor farmers by preventing the proliferations of GMOs, Falkner on the contrary interprets the “global food fight” as the attempt of the US to force its interests on to poor farmers that (would) have to suffer from it. For Falkner, the prevention of the proliferation of GMOs is a success story, being the result of international cooperation of the EU and developing countries directed against the hegemon in the international system, i.e. the US. He points at the fact that from the beginning, developing countries were sceptical of GMOs, demanding regulations and liabilities as regards risk and (social) costs related to the introduction of this technology into socio-economic environment of their countries.
Complementary to Falkner’s argumentation concerning the composition and implication of the “global food fight”, yet from a different perspective, does de la Pierrere detect an IPR battle underpinning the global food fight in the area of GMOs. This battle is fought between (poor) communities whose interests are institutionally represented by the biodiversity convention (CBD) versus corporate power whose interests are institutionally represented by WTO (TRIPS or UPOV regimes). De la Perriere’s focus on the regimes themselves and respective country preferences, allows for a detection of powerful actors as well as interest as this focus makes it possible to circumvent the normative dispute over solutions that prevails in the other readings. Moreover, his assessment shows losers and winners of each regime, generated by the specific regime’s different inherent implications regarding profit and power distribution & allocation. Accordingly, the convention (on biodiversity) focuses on sovereignty, the equitable sharing of profits, the contribution of communities to diversity, the immanent value of traditional knowledge as well as communal knowledge systems; TRIPS/UPOV, on the other hand, implies reduction of genetic variety, the empowerment of the breeder (corporation) over the farmer, the clear separation of farming and breeding that yields a complete commodification of agricultural activity, and the related loss of traditional knowledge and practices on the local level for the benefit of, the dependence on, and the usurpation (of this knowledge) by actors in the global realm.
Outlook
It seems that the power distribution within the international governance system (WTO over CBD) so far clearly favors pro-GMO countries , and especially the US who pushes towards tearing down any barriers to trade in GMO. By limiting the issue of GMO to an issue of trade liberalization, these countries have the systemic and defining advantage that the international system still works best in the economic realm (WTO). This clearly reveals the underpinning problem that existing international economic governance structures are so far not equally met by powerful political governance structures that validate normative discourse on an issue such as GMO on an equal footing and have far reaching regulatory consequences that would allow for diversity by either excluding an issue from the economic realm, or by creating alternative governance structures.
Literature
Norman Borlaug, “Biotech Can Feed 8 Billion”, in New Perspectives Quarterly, 24 (4), 2004, pp.97-102.
Robert Paarlberg, “The Global Food Fight”, Foreign Affairs, vol.79, no.3 (May-June 2000), pp.24-38.
Robert Ali Brac de la Perriere and Franck Seuret, “The Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights”, in R. A. Brac de la Perriere and F. Seuret, Brave New Seeds (Zed: London, 2000), pp.89-112.
Robert Falkner, “International Cooperation against the Hegemon: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, in The International Politics of Genetically Modified Food: Diplomacy, Trade and Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp.15-33.
