Rachel Schurman and William A. Munro: Fighting for the future of food: activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology

One of the key controversies surrounding the global food system in recent years has been the introduction of novel biotechnologies, particularly genetic engineering. This subject has received a tremendous amount of attention in the popular media, but comparatively little analysis from social scientists. Fortunately, Schurman and Munro have provided a comprehensive, readable, and theoretically informed overview of the contested development and commercialization of transgenic organisms. The authors note that the rapid adoption of these technologies by farmers in the United States and other countries could be viewed as a failure on the part of anti-biotech movements. Schurman and Munro emphasize that a closer analysis, however, reveals numerous ways in which the paths sought by agribusiness have been irrevocably altered as a result of activist resistance. Commercialization has been limited to a much smaller number of transgenic crops, and these are subject to much more government regulation than the industry envisioned, for example. Such impacts are even more impressive in light of how few people were actively engaged in opposition to genetic engineering, as well as their very limited resources. The framework used to explore the course of these conflicts is one of ‘‘lifeworlds,’’ which is defined as the way that culture and social connections shape the understanding and interpretation of phenomena. This is often taken for granted, but may also be explicit. Analysis of the very different lifeworlds of the actors involved in these controversies helps to explain not only why they opposed each other’s actions, but the related dynamics that have unfolded in recent decades. The activists, for instance, by going against the status quo, engaged in a tremendous amount of ‘‘thinking work’’ (53) to develop shared, critical perspectives on these technologies. A predisposition to a critical perspective was in turn, shaped by life histories, and often participation in previous New Social Movements (such as opposition to nuclear technologies, or critiques of development and the Green Revolution). Activists’ values typically centered on concerns that novel biotechnologies could result in negative social and ecological impacts, the loss of democratic control, and alienation. The values of agribusiness actors, and affiliated scientists, in contrast, centered on progress, protection of intellectual property regulations, and freedom from regulations that slowed their economic development. These values were perhaps most strongly held by Monsanto—their employees were viewed as overly competitive and arrogant even by others within the industry. Although the firm’s culture contributed to its near monopoly on genetically engineered traits by the end of the 20th century, it also, ironically, triggered some of the industry’s biggest setbacks. In a chapter focusing on struggles in Western Europe, Schurman and Munro point out that the US-based firm ignored advice from European colleagues to be less aggressive in this region. Monsanto’s culturally insensitive actions were deftly exploited by activists to increase public opposition to genetic engineering, and significantly impeded its commercialization on the continent. These market barriers subsequently contributed to successful challenges in Africa, the subject of another chapter. The third case study, of the United States, suggests that there were fewer victories for the activists in this region than in other parts of the world. But even in the US their ‘‘Frankenframe’’ ultimately filtered into the consciousness of the public and government regulators, and interfered P. H. Howard (&) 316 Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA e-mail: howardp@msu.edu