Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The struggle over genetically-engineered (GE) maize in Mexico reveals a deep conflict over the criteria used in the governance of agri-food systems. Policy debate on the topic of GE maize has become “scientized,” granting experts a high level of political authority, and narrowing the regulatory domain to matters that can be adjudicated on the basis of scientific information or “managed” by environmental experts. While scientization would seem to narrow opportunities for public participation, this study finds that Mexican activists acting “in defense of maize” engage science in multiple ways, using and producing scientific knowledge as well as treating scientific discussions as a stage for launching complex social critiques. Drawing from research in science and technology studies, this article assesses the impacts and pitfalls of three tactics used by maize activists that respond to the scientization of biotechnology politics: (1) using scientific information as a resource; (2) participating in scientific research; and (3) reframing policy problems as broadly social, rather than as solely scientific or technical. The obstacles that maize activists have faced in carrying out each of these efforts indicate that despite diverse and sophisticated engagements between social movements and the scientific field, scientization remains a significant institutional barrier to democratizing agricultural governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. English translation of the manifesto, “Defender nuestro maíz, cuidar la vida,” available online at http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/Oaxaca%20MANIFIESTO.pdf.

  2. While Quist and Chapela’s findings were awaiting publication in Nature, Chapela shared the findings confidentially with regulatory officials in Mexico. In early September 2001, these officials broke their pledge of confidentiality and made the findings public.

  3. The organizations that signed were Greenpeace Mexico, the National Association of Marketing Organizations of Rural Producers (Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras de Productores del Campo, ANEC), the Center for the Study of Change in the Mexican Countryside (Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano, CECCAM), the National Union of Regional Autonomous Campesino Organizations (Unión Nacional de Organizaciones Regionales Campesinas Autónomas, UNORCA), and Environmental Studies Group (Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, GEA).

  4. The coordinators of the study were the Center for the Study of Change in the Mexican Countryside (Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano, CECCAM), the National Center to Support Indigenous Missions (Centro Nacional de Apoyo a Misiones Indígenas, CENAMI), Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group); the Center for Social Analysis, Information, and Popular Training (Centro de Análisis Social, Información y Formación Popular, CASIFOP); the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca (Unión de Organización de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca, UNOSJO); and the Jaliscan Association for Support to Indigenous Groups (Asociación Jalisciense de Apoyo a Grupos Indígenas, AJAGI).

Abbreviations

ANEC:

Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras de Productores del Campo/National Association of Marketing Organizations of Rural Producers

AJAGI:

Asociación Jalisciense de Apoyo a Grupos Indígenas/Jaliscan Association for Support to Indigenous Groups

CASIFOP:

Centro de Análisis Social, Información y Formación Popular/Center for Social Analysis, Information, and Popular Training

CEC:

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

CECCAM:

Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano/Center for the Study of Change in the Mexican Countryside

CENAMI:

Centro Nacional de Apoyo a Misiones Indígenas/National Center to Support Indigenous Missions

CNCA:

Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes/National Council for Culture and the Arts

GE:

Genetically-engineered

GEA:

Grupo de Estudios Ambientales/Environmental Studies Group

ETC:

Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration

LBOGM:

Ley de Bioseguridad de Organismos Genéticamente Modificados/Biosafety Law for Genetically Modified Organisms

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

PROFEPA:

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente/Federal Prosecutor’s Office for Environmental Protection

UNORCA:

Unión Nacional de Organizaciones Regionales Campesinas Autónomas/National Union of Regional Autonomous Campesino Organizations

UNOSJO:

Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca/Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca

References

  • Abels, G. 2002. Experts, citizens, and Eurocrats: Towards a policy shift in the governance of biopolitics in the EU. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 6. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-019a.htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.

  • AFP y Notimex. 2005. Pide México oficialmente reconocer su cocina como patrimonio universal. La Jornada (Mexico City), 20 September. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/09/20/a03n1gas.php. Accessed 5 June 2007.

  • Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Trans: Ritter, M.). London: Sage (Originally published in 1986).

  • Bellon, M.R., and J. Berthaud. 2006. Traditional Mexican agricultural systems and the potential impacts of transgenic varieties on maize diversity. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, G. 1973. The politics of expertise. London: Glendessary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., and E.J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., S. Zavestoski, S. McCormick, B. Mayer, R. Morello-Frosch, and R.G. Altman. 2004. Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(1): 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R.D. (ed.). 2005. The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 2000. The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 2005. The environmental and post-environmental politics of genetically modified crops and foods. Environmental Politics 14(3): 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christou, P. 2002. Editorial: No credible scientific evidence is presented to support claims that transgenic DNA was introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Transgenic Research 11(1): iii–v.

  • Corburn, J. 2003. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making—improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(4): 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corburn, J. 2005. Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corburn, J. 2007. Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science and Policy 10(2): 150–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couch, S.R., and S. Kroll-Smith. 2000. Environmental movements and expert knowledge: Evidence for a new populism. In Illness and the environment: A reader in contested medicine. New York: New York University Press.

  • Cruz Bárcenas, A. 2005. Fallo en contra de la comida mexicana como patrimonio de la humanidad, La Jornada (Mexico City), 26 November. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/11/26/a10n1gas.php. Accessed 5 June 2007.

  • Dalton, R. 2001. Transgenic corn found growing in Mexico. Nature 413(6854): 337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delborne, J.A. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: Scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4): 509–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driedger, S.M., and J. Eyles. 2001. Organochlorines and breast cancer: The uses of scientific evidence in claimsmaking. Social Science and Medicine 52(10): 1589–1605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., and A. Tucker. 2008. Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review 68(5): 864–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, E.F., E. Jelsoe, and T. Breck. 2001. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elam, M., and M. Bertilsson. 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W.N. 1998. The struggle for water: Politics, rationality, and identity in the American Southwest. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esteva, G., and C. Marielle. 2003. Sin maíz no hay país. Mexico City, Mexico: Museo Nacional de Culturas Populares.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2003a. Nine Mexican States found to be GM contaminated (News release 9 October) at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?id=145. Accessed 28 June 2007.

  • ETC Group. 2003b. Open letter from international civil society organizations on transgenic contamination in the centers of origin and diversity, to the Mexican government and the international community. 19 November. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=139. Accessed 24 June 2007.

  • ETC Group. 2005. The genetic shell game, or now you see it! Now you don’t! (News release 11 August) http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/50/01/etcmaizenrfinal.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2007.

  • Ezcurra, E., and J. Soberón Mainero. 2002. Evidence of gene flow from transgenic maize to local varieties in Mexico. In LMOs and the Environment: Proceedings of an International Conference, ed. OECD, 289–295.

  • Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts and the environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitting, E. 2006. Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., and K. Moore (eds.). 2006. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, R.J. 2001. Zapotec science: Farming and food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González Aguirre, R.L. 2004. La biotecnología agrícola en México: efectos de la propiedad intelectual y la bioseguridad. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

  • Greenpeace Mexico. 2001a. Boletín 0174: México, primer centro de origen de un cultivo contaminado por maíz transgénico; exige Greenpeace aplicar un plan de emergencia. Mexico City, 11 September.

  • Greenpeace Mexico. 2001b. Boletín 0194: Científicos de todo el mundo llaman a tomar medidas para detener la contaminación genética del maíz mexicano. Mexico City, 29 November.

  • Greenpeace Mexico, et al. 2001. Letter to Javier Usabiaga, Victor Lichtinger, Julio Frenk, Reyes Tamez, Francisco Gil, Luis Ernesto Dérbez, and Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, dated 4 October 2001. Mexico City: Archive, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., and R. Falkner. 2006. The influence of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics 6(4): 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 1999. Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science Technology & Human Values 24(4): 451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a rational society; student protest, science, and politics (Trans: Shapiro, J. J.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press (Original published 1968).

  • Hatanaka, M., and L. Busch. 2008. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system: An objective or socially mediated governance mechanism? Sociologia Ruralis 48: 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, C. 2001. From risk to globalization: Discursive shifts in the French debate about GMOs. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15(1): 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, C. 2004. Risky science and savoir-faire: Peasant expertise in the French Debate over genetically modified crops. In The politics of food, ed. B. Lien, and M. Nerlid. New York, NY: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D.J. 2009. The potentials and limitations of civil society research: Getting undone science done. Sociological Inquiry 79(3): 306–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, C. 2006. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006, 35 ed, ISAAA. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

  • Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2005. Judgment under siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific Advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 209–224. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joss, S. 2005. Between policy and politics, or: Whatever do weapons of mass destruction have to do With GM crops? The UK’s GM nation debate as an example of participatory governance. In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 171–187. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khagram, S. 2004. Dams and development: Transnational struggles for water and power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, A.J., and D.L. Kleinman. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33(6): 869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinchy, A.J., D.L. Kleinman, and R. Autry. 2008. Against free markets, against science? Regulating the socio-economic effects of biotechnology. Rural Sociology 73(2): 147–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D.L. (ed.). 2000. Science, technology and democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D.L., and A.J. Kinchy. 2003a. Boundaries in science policy making: Bovine growth hormone in the European Union. The Sociological Quarterly 44(4): 577–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D.L., and A.J. Kinchy. 2003b. Why ban bovine growth hormone? Science, social welfare, and the divergent biotech policy landscapes in Europe and the United States. Science as Culture 12(3): 375–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D.L., and A.J. Kinchy. 2007. Against the neoliberal steamroller? The biosafety protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnologies. Agriculture and Human Values 24(2): 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapp, R.E. 1965. The new priesthood: The scientific elite and the uses of power. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., I. Scoones, and B. Wynne (eds.). 2005. Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. 1998. Democratizing technology—or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technology in Society 20(2): 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. 2001. The GM crops debate: Utilitarian bioethics? Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 12(1(45)): 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L., J. Murphy, and S. Carr. 2007. Recasting “substantial equivalence”—transatlantic governance of GM food. Science Technology and Human Values 32(1): 26–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., and J. Ward. 2005. Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S., and P. Weingart (eds.). 2005a. Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 24. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Maasen, S., and P. Weingart. 2005b. What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 1–20. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massieu Trigo, Y.C., and A. San Vicente Tello. 2006. El proceso de aprobación de la ley de bioseguridad: política a la mexicana e interés nacional. El Cotidiano 21(136): 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, K. 2008. Beyond techno-science: Transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico’s future. Geoforum 39: 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, S. 2007. Democratizing science movements: A new framework for mobilization and contestation. Social Studies of Science 37(4): 609–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. 2006. Powered by the people: Scientific authority in participatory science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 299–323. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morello-Frosch, R., S. Zavestoski, P. Brown, R.G. Altman, S. McCormick, and B. Mayer. 2006. Embodied health movements: Responses to a ‘scientized’ world. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 244–271. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R. (2005). Mexican government studies on transgenes in Mexican maize? AgBioView 1 November. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2435. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.

  • Nadal, A. 2006a. Mexico’s corn-producing sector: A commentary. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadal, A. 2006b. Ventana de oportunidad. La Jornada (Mexico City) 18 October. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/10/18/033a1eco.php. Accessed 6 June 2007.

  • Noble, D. 1977. America by design. New York, NY: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrell, B. (2006). Annual World Water Forum disappointing to indigenous. Indian Country Today 10 April. http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412796. Accessed 3 June 2007.

  • Ortiz-Garcia, S., E. Ezcurra, B. Schoel, F. Acevedo, J. Soberon, and A.A. Snow. 2005. Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 12338–12343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pineyro-Nelson, A., J. Van Heerwaarden, H.R. Perales, et al. 2009. Transgenes in Mexican maize: Molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Molecular Ecology 18: 750–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M.C., and M. Colin. 2008. Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology—what would it really take? Science Communication 30(1): 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, C. S. (2005). Duh… No GM genes in Mexican corn. AgBioView 9 August. http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2398. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.

  • Price, D.K. 1965. The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quist, D., and I.H. Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7(5): 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and technology, the conduct of science series. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2004. Maize and biodiversity: The effects of transgenic maize in Mexico. Montreal, Canada: Communications Department of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.P. 1961. Science and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soleri, D., and D.A. Cleveland. 2006. Transgenic maize and Mexican maize diversity: Risky synergy? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26: 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., D. Hess, S. Breyman, and B. Martin. 2002. Science studies and activism: Possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, S. 1992. Green ambivalence about science: Legal-rational authority and the scientific legitimation of a social movement. The British Journal of Sociology 43(4): 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, C.K. 2001. Genetic modification taints corn in Mexico. The New York Times, October 2, F7.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Daniel Kleinman, Jason Delborne, Janice Fernheimer, and Linnda Caporael for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0525799 and an International Dissertation Research Fellowship from the Social Science Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science and Technology Studies Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th St., Sage Building, 5th Floor, Troy, NY, 12180-3590, USA

    Abby J. Kinchy

Authors
  1. Abby J. Kinchy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abby J. Kinchy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kinchy, A.J. Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize. Agric Hum Values 27, 505–517 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9253-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9253-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation