Fighting for the Farm: Rural America Transformed

13. Constructing Genetic Engineering in the Food and Fiber System as a Problem: Urban Social Movement Organizations as Players in Agricultural Discourse

Chapter 13 Constructing Genetic Engineering in the Food and Fiber System as a Problem Urban Social Movement Organizations as Players in Agricultural Discourse Ann Reisner Even using the three previous centuries of agricultural industrialization as a standard, genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture could potentially increase the penetration of capital into food production to an unprecedented degree (e.g., Jacobson, Lefferts, and Garland 1991; Kneen 1999; Lappe and Bailey 1998; Nottingham 1998; Teitel and Wilson 1990). The degree of control that GE technology offers to industry giants, and the friendliness of government to this industrial control, could dramatically change both the structure of the agricultural industry and the individual consumer's relationship to food as a "natural" product. Furthermore, both the new agricultural technologies and the scale ofagricultural enterprises they enable stimulate new actors to enter the political arena that was once largely controlled by production agriculture and associated corporations. These new actors , a coalition of "green," health, and other advocates, are increasingly able to define issues and establish political agendas in ways that many farmers perceive as antithetical to farmers' interests. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debates concerning agriculture and genetic engineering. Techniques to transfer genetic information from one species to another were developed during the 1980s (Wright 1994). Virtually instantly , industry became aware of the possibilities for large profits this new development enabled. The first project to apply genetic engineering commercially, developing bacterial production of human insulin to treat diabetes, was started in 1982; agricultural companies started field testing genetically engineered plant resistance to insects, viruses and bacteria as early as 1985 (Krimsky and Wrubel 1996). Genetic engineering involves taking a gene segment from one living organism (plant, animal, or bacterial) and transferring it to another 230 Ann Reisner organism. Two principal methods are used for the transfer. In the first, the shotgun approach, scientists coat selected genes onto gold pellets which they then fire into a layer of cells from the target organism. In the second, the secret agent approach, laboratory scientists smuggle a piece of genetic material into the target organism's genetic material via a virus. In comparison to the technologically unsophisticated methods of genetic selection through selecting and saving or hybridizing seed, genetic engineering is highly manipulative, expensive, and takes considerable training, skill, and equipment. Genetic engineering also has the capacity for more radical changes than traditional methods of genetic improvement in that scientists using this technique can and do introduce genes from other species, even from other kingdoms. Until the Food and Drug Administration's hearings in 1999, prompted in part by widespread protest at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, GE products largely were introduced into fields and grocery shelves without widespread public comment or debate. The protests of social movement activists in Seattle and elsewhere brought the issue of genetic engineering in food to public attention in the United States. In so doing, social movement organizations (SMOs) added a distinct voice to the public discourse on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture.l The purpose of this chapter is to examine the social movement discourse on genetic engineering and how closely it resembles the discourse(s) ofother major players in the public arena. Social Movement Theory Individuals alone generally have little power over systems that are cruel, indifferent, or otherwise do not responds to their needs, wants, goals, or values. Social movements are one of the few ways that groups that are otherwise blocked, including farmers, can initiate change.2 In organizing and joining social movements, individual actors are able both to pool resources-money and time-in getting their messages to others, and to speak with the more powerful voice of the group. Being able to mobilize large numbers is one of the more potent weapons of mass movements. The second power of movements is definitional, being able to formulate and articulate a vision that fundamentally challenges the dominant worldview. Often, the challenge involves drawing attention to social relations of power that are not seen, or that are viewed as unchangeable or dismissed as unimportant. Typically, social movements offer an alternative definition of these relations as noticeable , changeable, and important. Social movement research, however, has been a back-and-forth swing between content and process since the early days of theorizing Constructing Genetic Engineering 231 on the subject. Much ofthe early work was content based and focused on the triggers leading to social movement emergence. This research was slowly abandoned when researchers found no consistent relationship...