social opposition to genetic modification has led to hyperregulation, which has raised the cost of bringing GM crops to market. Currently, only multinationals and large entities, public or private, can afford to comply with these rules.14 This has prompted criticism that this promotes the global trade phenomenon and the neoliberalism of the food security solution, bringing profit to conglomerates at the detriment of small-scale, localised agricultural institutions. The problem-solving agenda would call for distinguishing between the endogenous risks of the technology from those related to the implementation of the technology in different socio-political contexts. The bulk of research suggests that GM crops are genetically stable and the consumption of GM crops poses no risk to human safety.15
is born of the idea of the absolute right of each affected region to determine its own food system. The goal to transform the food system must look beyond simply making more food or make it more accessible. Essentially this can be framed as a power issue. GM technology advocacy is not necessarily about whether or not people or societies should use it to the detriment of other aspects of human security. Instead, it is the recognition that there should be greater body of research and resources for the development and informed regulation of the technology which recognises the right of societies to access the knowledge and resources. This allows them to exercise their choice to maximize the potential benefits that can be realized in the implementation of these new technologies.
TOWARDS A PRACTICAL SOLUTION – A DIRECTION, NOT A GOAL
The economic, political and social debates on the potential negative impacts of GM technology do not reflect the scientific and technological viability of the technology to increasing food security. Many of the solutions to contemporary social problems must recognise that inaction and delay are as much a threat to the livelihoods of humankind as the risks associated with artificially altering genomes in food grown for human consumption. The absence of global biotechnology legal frameworks in relation to GM crops is thus a major hindrance to the success of the movement and contributing to global food security. GM is not a technological panacea for meeting the varied and complex challenges of food security.16 However, biotechnological advancement should not be excluded a priori on socially constructed ethical or moral grounds without legitimate scientific basis. In light of the severity of the food crisis issue, it is necessary for privileged developed nations to meet their ethical obligations and be be open to undertaking further research into biotechnology, for the benefit of the global community. Delay and inaction caused by holding on to romantic notions and ethical and moralistic ideals are luxuries that even the developed nations can no longer afford. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
13.
14. 15.
16.
World Health Organisation, Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology, Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation, Geneva (1991) C.F. Jordan, “Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger”, June 2002 BioScience Vol. 52 No. 6. P. McMichael and M. Schneider, “Food Security Politics and the Millennium Development Goals” (2011), Third World Quarterly, Vol 32, No 1, 119. P Pinstrup-Anderson, “Food Security: definition and measurement” (2009) 1 Food Security 5. D. Rotman, “Biotech crops will have an essential role in ensuring that there’s enough to eat” (2013) viewed at http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596 on 5 July 2014. The critical approach to human security issues encourages analysis of the structural and root causes of insecurity, including question power relations and existing social norms. Norwegian Gene Technology Act 1993; EC Directive 90/220/EEC. S. Chaturvedi, “Approval of GM Crops- Socio-economic Considerations in Developing Countries’ (2012) Vol XLVII No 23. Economic & Political Weekly 53. K. Rosendal, “GMO Assessment in Norway: Societal Utility and Sustainable Development” (2009) 10(9) EMBO Reports 939. C.F. Jordan, “Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger”, June 2002 BioScience Vol. 52 No. 6 523 at 526. The problem solving approach to human security aims to improve human welfare within the context of existing policy and social frameworks. M. Van Montagu, “Can a Hungry World Say No to GM Crops and Still Have Food Security?” Forbes India (online), 7 January 2014 on < http://forbesindia.com/article/ the-big-questions-for-2014/can-a-hungry-world-say-no-to-gm-crops-and-still-have-foodsecurity/36833/1> M.T.S Porto and B. Urick, “Can Genetically Modified (GM) crops help to improve food security in India?” (2013), Oxford India Policy Blog (online), 8 April 2013 on < http:// policyblog.oxfordindiasociety.org.uk/2013/04/08/can-genetically-modified-gm-crops-helpto-improve-food-security-in-india/> DEFRA “UK Food Security Assessment: Our Approach” (2009) available at http://archive. defra.gov.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/food-assess-approach-0908.pdf accessed on 5 July 2014. M.T.S Porto and B. Urick, “Can Genetically Modified (GM) crops help to improve food security in India?” (2013), Oxford India Policy Blog (online), 8 April 2013 on < http:// policyblog.oxfordindiasociety.org.uk/2013/04/08/can-genetically-modified-gm-crops-helpto-improve-food-security-in-india/> DEFRA “UK Food Security Assessment: Our Approach” (2009) available at http://archive. defra.gov.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/food-assess-approach-0908.pdf accessed on 5 July 2014.
21 FOOD FIGHT
Currently, the GM movement is predominately associated with the neoliberal mainstream, private enterprise dominated structures of agri-business. This, however, is not a characteristic of the fundamental technological and scientific movement. This is an intrinsic element that engenders the existing food crisis in which food access and utilisation is a greater threat to food security than food availability. Many criticisms of the GM business are therefore criticisms of an existing system of economic and political discourse rather than a legitimate body of research. This apparently suggests that biotechnological advancements are the root causes of these problems; or that they do not provide a viable solution. There is recognition that there is a need to radically reform the system of food distribution and provision at international, national, local and individual levels. This can only be achieved through stable and consistent legal mechanisms, applied internationally. The value of GM is that it has the potential to be a tool through which existing food rubric can be radically reformed. It allows a mitigation of the natural drawbacks that cause the systemic problems that permeate the existing agricultural and food market in existence. For this reason it can potentially shift the existing paradigms expectations that are the inherent reasons for the failure of current policies and procedures that aim to alleviate the food crisis. Food availability and production has never been the true problem and it never will be the only dimension that we must address with a great sense of urgency. The biotechnological advances must come with accompanying legal and political reforms that will promote the safe utilisation of these new technologies. The resistant political factions of the global North must subvert their misconception of reform as being a choice, instigated by comparative privileges enjoyed by these societies. Instead, they must recognise that their combined scientific capacities could foster increased food and thus human security. A great global social cost is wrought by their arguably the baseless moralistic resistance to the benefits potentially brought through shared technological change. In recognition of the need for a radical change in the food system comes the newest major tenet in the food security movement – Food Sovereignty. Food Sovereignty
CONCLUSION