1932

Abstract

The political economy of agricultural biotechnology is addressed in this review through three puzzles. First, why were new crop technologies of the Green Revolution readily accepted, versus today's considerable blockage of genetically engineered crops? Second, why has genetic engineering in medicine and pharmaceuticals been normalized, whereas recombinant DNA technology in agriculture is highly restricted? Finally, why is there greater political acceptance of agricultural biotechnology in some countries versus others, for some crops versus others, and for some crop traits versus others? Explanation requires an extended theoretical framework of regulation that goes beyond a vector sum of weighted material interests. Consideration must also be given to the social construction of risk, political structure, and social psychology. A full political economy of agricultural biotechnology must consider not only costs and benefits to multiple actors in different societies within the classic interest-group and regulator model but also the transnational diffusion of ideologies, with attendant costs to poorer farmers and countries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506
2016-10-05
2024-06-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/8/1/annurev-resource-100815-095506.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agin D. 2006. Junk Science: An Overdue Assessment of Government, Industry and Faith Groups That Twist Science for Their Own Gain New York: St. Martin's [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson K, Jackson LA. 2003. Why Are US and EU policies toward GMOs so different?. AgBioForum 6:395–100 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arts B, Mack S. 2007. NGO strategies and influence in the biosafety arena, 1992–2005. International Politics of Genetically Modified Food R Faulkner 48–64 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  4. Assayag J. 2005. Seeds of wrath: agriculture, biotechnology and globalization. Globalizing India: Perspectives from Below J Assayag, C Fuller 65–88 London: Anthem [Google Scholar]
  5. Bäck H, Debus M, Tolsun J. 2015. Partisanship, ministers, and biotechnology policy review of policy research. Rev. Policy Res. 32:5556–75 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates RH. 1984. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policy Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. 2008. Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. PNAS 105:93640–45 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity New Delhi: Sage [Google Scholar]
  9. Benford RD, Snow DA. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:611–39 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bennet AB, Chi-Ham C, Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D. 2013. Agricultural biotechnology: economics, environment, ethics, and the future. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:249–79 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernauer T, Meins E. 2003. Technological revolution meets policy and the market. Eur. J. Pol. Res. 42:5643–83 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bevan MW, Uauy C. 2013. Genomics reveals new landscapes for crop improvement. Genome Biol. 14:206 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blyth M. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Blyth M. 2003. Structures do not come with an instruction sheet: interests, ideas, and progress in political science. Perspect. Polit. 1:4695–706 [Google Scholar]
  15. Charles D. 2001. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food Cambridge, MA: Perseus [Google Scholar]
  16. Chassy B. 2015. Food safety. Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics and Society RJ Herring 587–614 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Chic. Counc 2009. Renewing American leadership in the fight against global hunger and poverty. Rep., Chic. Counc. Glob. Aff., Chicago. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/gadp_final_report%281%29.pdf [Google Scholar]
  18. Choudhary B, Gaur K. 2008. The development and regulation of Bt brinjal in India (eggplant/aubergine) Brief 38, Int. Serv. Aquis. Agri-Biotech Appl., Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  19. Choudhary B, Nasiruddin KM, Gaur K. 2014. The status of commercialized Bt brinjal in Bangladesh. Brief 47, Int. Serv. Aquis. Agri-Biotech Appl., Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidson SN. 2008. Forbidden fruit: transgenic papaya in Thailand. Plant Physiol. 147:487–93 [Google Scholar]
  21. DeFrancesco L. 2013. How safe does transgenic food need to be?. Nat. Biotechnol. 31:794–802 [Google Scholar]
  22. Drezner DW. 2007. All Politics of Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Ehrlich PR. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine [Google Scholar]
  24. Eur. Comm 2010. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). Rep. 24473, Eur. Comm., Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf [Google Scholar]
  25. Eurobarometer 2010. Biotechnology. Rep. 73.1, TNS Opin. Soc., Eur. Comm., Brussels [Google Scholar]
  26. Evenson RE, Gollin D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300:758–62 [Google Scholar]
  27. Falck-Zapeda JB, Traxler G, Nelson R. 2000. Surplus distribution from the introduction of a biotechnology innovation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 82:360–69 [Google Scholar]
  28. Falkner R. 2006. The European Union as a ‘green normative power’? EU leadership in international biotechnology negotiation CES Work. Pap. 140, Cent. Eur. Stud., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
  29. Fife-Shaw C, Rowe G. 2000. Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations. J. Risk Res. 3:167–79 [Google Scholar]
  30. FOE (Friends Earth Int.) 2001. GMO contamination around the world Rep., Friends Earth Int., Amsterdam [Google Scholar]
  31. Food Safety Magazine 2015. The nexus between food safety and food security Oct./Nov. http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/octobernovember-2015/the-nexus-between-food-safety-and-food-security/ [Google Scholar]
  32. Giddens A. 1999. Risk and responsibility. Mod. Law Rev. 62:11–10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Globescan P. 2011. Sharp drop in American enthusiasm for free market, poll shows News Release, Apr. 6. http://www.globescan.com/news-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2011/94-press-releases-2011/150-sharp-drop-in-american-enthusiasm-for-free-market-poll-shows.html [Google Scholar]
  34. Glover D. 2010. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. J. Peasant Stud. 37:167–90 [Google Scholar]
  35. GMO Compass 2006. Eurobarometer 2006: Europeans still see more risks than benefits. GMO Compass Blog June 22. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/227.eurobarometer_europeans_biotechnology.html [Google Scholar]
  36. Graff GD, Hochman G, Zilberman D. 2009. The political economy of agricultural biotechnology policies. AgBioForum 12:134–46 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gruère GP, Sengupta D. 2011. Bt cotton and farmer suicides: an evidence-based assessment. J. Dev. Stud. 47:2316–37 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gupta A. 2011. An evolving science-society contract in India: the search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance. Food Policy 36:336–41 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gupta AK, Chandak V. 2005. Agricultural biotechnology in India: ethics, business and politics. Int. J. Biotechnol. 7:1–3212–27 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hallman W, Hebden C, Aquino H, Cuite C, Lang J. 2003. Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: a national study of American knowledge and opinion. Rep. RR-1003–004, Food Policy Inst., Cook Coll., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ [Google Scholar]
  41. Herring RJ. 2006. Why did ‘operation cremate Monsanto’ fail? Science and class in India's great terminator-technology hoax. Crit. Asian Stud. 38:4467–93 [Google Scholar]
  42. Herring RJ. 2007. Stealth seeds: biosafety, bioproperty, biopolitics. J. Dev. Stud. 43:1130–57 [Google Scholar]
  43. Herring RJ. 2008. Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests, and collective action frames. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9:458–63 [Google Scholar]
  44. Herring RJ. 2015. State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt brinjal in India. J. Peasant Stud. 42:1159–86 [Google Scholar]
  45. Herring RJ, Kandlikar M. 2009. Illicit seeds: intellectual property and the underground proliferation of agricultural biotechnologies. The Politics of Intellectual Property: Contestation over the Ownership, Use, and Control of Knowledge and Information S Haunss, KC Shadlen 56–79 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
  46. Herring RJ, Rao NC. 2012. On the ‘failure of Bt cotton’: analyzing a decade of experience. Econ. Pol. Wkly 47:1845–54 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hofstede G. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations London: Sage, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  48. James C. 2011. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011. Brief 43, Int. Serv. Aquis. Agri-Biotech Appl., Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  49. James C. 2014. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2014 Brief 49, Int. Serv. Aquis. Agri-Biotech Appl., Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  50. Jasanoff S. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Jayaraman KS. 2001. Illegal Bt cotton in India haunts regulators. Nat. Biotechnol. 19:121090 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jayaraman K. 2010. Bt brinjal splits Indian cabinet. Nat. Biotechnol. 28:296 [Google Scholar]
  53. Juma C. 2016. Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Kathage J, Qaim M. 2012. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. PNAS 109:2911652–56 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kloor K. 2014. The GMO-suicide myth. Issues Sci. Tech. 30:65–70 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kloppenburg JR. 2004. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Kloppenburg JR, Kleinman DL. l987. Seed wars: common heritage, private property, and political strategy. Soc. Rev. 95:7–41 [Google Scholar]
  58. Klumper W, Qaim M. 2014. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS ONE 9:11e111629 [Google Scholar]
  59. Knight FH. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Google Scholar]
  60. Kolady D, Herring RJ. 2014. Regulation of genetically engineered crops in India: implications of uncertainty for social welfare, competition and innovation. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 62:4471–90 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kolady DE, Lesser W. 2008. Potential welfare benefits from the public-private partnerships: a case of GE eggplant in India. J. Food Agric. Environ. 6:3/4333–40 [Google Scholar]
  62. Krishna VV, Qaim M. 2007. Estimating the adoption of Bt eggplant in India: Who benefits from public–private partnership?. Food Policy 32:523–43 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lewontin RC. 2001. Genes in the food!. New York Review of Books June 21. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/06/21/genes-in-the-food/ [Google Scholar]
  64. Levidow L, Bijman J. 2002. Farm inputs under pressure from European food industry. Food Policy 27:131–45 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lipton M. 1977. Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  66. Lybbert TJ. 2003. Humanitarian use technology transfer: issues and approaches. J. Food Agric. Environ. 1:3–495–99 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lynas M. 2013. Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 Presented at Oxf. Farm. Conf., Jan. 3, Oxford, UK. http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ [Google Scholar]
  68. Lynch D, Vogel D. 2001. The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: a case-study of contemporary European regulatory politics Rep., Counc. Foreign Relat., New York. http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688 [Google Scholar]
  69. Marris C. 2001. Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep. 2:7545–48 [Google Scholar]
  70. McCarthy E, Maltas A, Bay M, Ruiz-Calzado J. 2007. Litigation culture versus enforcement culture. Antitrust Rev. Am. 2007:38–42 [Google Scholar]
  71. Meherunnahar M, Paul DNR. 2009. Bt brinjal: introducing genetically modified brinjal (eggplant/aubergine) in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Dev. Res. Work. Pap. 9, Bangladesh Dev. Res. Cent., Falls Church, VA [Google Scholar]
  72. Mellon M. 2001. Does the world need GM foods? GM food safety Q&A. Scientific American Dec. 1 64–65 [Google Scholar]
  73. MOEF (Minist. Env. For.) 2009. Report of the Expert Committee (EC-11) on Bt brinjal event EE-1 Rep. to Genet. Eng. Approv. Comm., Minist. Environ. For., Gov. India, New Delhi. http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20Bt%20brinjal_2.pdf [Google Scholar]
  74. MOEF (Min. Env. For.) 2010. Decision on commercialisation of Bt-brinjal Rep., Min. Env. For., New Delhi. http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/minister_REPORT.pdf [Google Scholar]
  75. Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D. 2013. An overview of the last 10 years of GE crop safety research. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 34:77–88 [Google Scholar]
  76. Novy A, Ledermann S, Pray C, Nagarajan L. 2011. Balancing agricultural development resources: Are GM and organic agriculture in opposition in Africa?. AgBioForum 14:3142–57 [Google Scholar]
  77. NSF (Natl. Sci. Found.) 2012. Science and engineering indicators: 2012 Natl. Sci. Found., Washington, DC. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seing12/, Table 7–13 [Google Scholar]
  78. Oates WE, Portney PR. 2003. The political economy of environmental policy. Handb. Environ. Econ. 1:325–54 [Google Scholar]
  79. Paarlberg RL. 2001. The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Paarlberg RL. 2008. Starved for Science: Keeping Biotechnology Out of Africa Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Paddock W, Paddock P. 1967. Famine 1967! America's Decision: Who Will Survive? Boston: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
  82. Pingali PL. 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. PNAS 109:3112302–8 [Google Scholar]
  83. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Schiøler E. 2000. Seeds of Contention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy over GM Crops Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Pray CE, Bengali P, Ramaswami B. 2005. The cost of biosafety regulations: the Indian experience. Q. J. Int. Agric. 44:3267–89 [Google Scholar]
  85. Pray CE, Juang J, Hu R, Wang Q, Ramaswami B, Bengali P. 2006. Benefits and costs of biosafety regulation in India and China. Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy RE Just, JM Alston, D Zilberman 481–508 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  86. Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M. 2003. The trust gap hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal. 23:4751–66 [Google Scholar]
  87. Pringle P. 2005. Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto—The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  88. Qaim M. 2009. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1:665–93 [Google Scholar]
  89. Ramaswami B, Pray CE, Lalitha N. 2012. The spread of illegal transgenic cotton varieties in India: biosafety regulation, monopoly, and enforcement. World Dev. 40:1177–88 [Google Scholar]
  90. Rao CK. 2010. Moratorium on Bt brinjal Bangalore, India: Found. Biotechnol. Aware. [Google Scholar]
  91. Rao NC. 2013. Bt cotton yields and performance: data and methodological issues. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 48:3366–69 [Google Scholar]
  92. Rao NC, Dev M. 2010. Biotechnology in Indian Agriculture: Potential, Performance and Concerns New Delhi: Acad. Found. [Google Scholar]
  93. Sato K. 2015. Cultural practices of food safety: genetically modified food in Japan, France, and the United States. Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics and Society RJ Herring 562–86 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  94. Schurman R. 2004. Fighting “Frankenfoods”: industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe. Soc. Probl. 51:2243–68 [Google Scholar]
  95. Schurman RA, Kelso DDT. 2003. Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  96. Schurman R, Munro WA. 2006. Ideas, thinkers and social networks: the process of grievance construction in the anti-genetic engineering movement. Theory Soc. 35:1–38 [Google Scholar]
  97. Schurman RA, Munro WA. 2010. Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists Versus Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Scoones I. 2008. Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil. J. Agrar. Change 8:2–3315–44 [Google Scholar]
  99. Shah E. 2011. ‘Science’ in the risk politics of Bt brinjal. Econ. Pol. Wkly 46:3131–38 [Google Scholar]
  100. Stone GD. 2012. Constructing facts: Bt cotton narratives in India. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 47:3861–70 [Google Scholar]
  101. Subramanian A, Qaim M. 2009. Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: the case of Bt cotton in India. World Dev. 37:1256–67 [Google Scholar]
  102. Torgersen H. 2000. Lessons of the Past of Biotech in Europe Vienna: Inst. Technol. Assess., Austrian Acad. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  103. Tsebelis G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. UNICEF (UN Child. Emerg. Fund) 2004. 5th report on the world nutrition situation Rep., UN Child. Emerg. Fund., New York. http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/resources/files/rwns5.pdf [Google Scholar]
  105. USDA (US Dep. Agric.) 2013. Food dollar series Compr. Annu. Expend. Database, Washington, DC, updated May 3, 2016. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-dollar-series.aspx [Google Scholar]
  106. Vigani M, Olper A. 2013. GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43:32–43 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wesseler J, Kalaitzandonakes N. 2011. Present and future EU GMO policy. EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas A Oskam, Gt Meesters, H Silvis 403–13 Wageningen, Neth.: Wageningen Acad. [Google Scholar]
  108. Wolf C. 1979. A theory of non-market failure: framework for implementation analysis. J. Law Econ. 22:1107–39 [Google Scholar]
  109. Zilberman D, Ameden H, Qaim M. 2007. The impact of agricultural biotechnology on yields, risks, and biodiversity in low-income countries. J. Dev. Stud. 43:63–78 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error