Abstract
California has been an important site of governance on risks from genetically engineered (GE) organisms. This paper reviews California's efforts to govern the ecological and food safety risks from GE salmon and GE pharmaceutical rice. We explain how a political constellation of actors emerged to pursue precautionary policies, and we discuss the prospects for similar policies elsewhere. We find that regulation of particularly risky objects is possible in some places, particularly where social movement organizations are mobilized and the possible consequences are severe, such as with impacts to wild salmon runs or pharmaceutically contaminated foods. But such regulations may only emerge when they are inconsequential to, or aligned with, the market concerns of dominant economic interests.Key Words: genetically engineered organisms, social movements, biosafety, California.
Highlights
Controversies over genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) illustrate an important role for social movement actors in contemporary battles over risk, power, and governance
This paper explores two instances of sub-national regulation of GEOs in California—salmon and pharmaceutical rice—and explains the emergence of these precautionary policies, prospects for similar policies elsewhere, and what these engagements mean for broader food system change
The Certification Act of 2000 (CRCA) gives the industry unprecedented control over the planting and handling of new rice varieties with "traits of economic significance." Since up to 50% of California rice is exported to countries with strict GEO policies, the industry was concerned that sales to entire markets could be lost
Summary
Controversies over genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) illustrate an important role for social movement actors in contemporary battles over risk, power, and governance. Opponents of GEOs counter with a range of arguments including: (1) harm to human health, ecosystems, and agroecosystems; (2) negative economic impacts on agricultural sectors; (3) risk-benefit asymmetries; (4) concerns about agricultural industrialization and corporate control of the agrifood system; and (5) the need to maintain farmer and consumer choice and "right to know." There is mistrust of the regulatory system (Lockie 2002). The Sacramento Valley where the snow-capped Sierra, Cascade, and Trinity Alp mountain ranges drain into rice country, and the reaches of coast-bound rivers that comprise salmon habitat These productive ecologies and agroecosystems were confronted by emerging GEO innovations during the 2000s, which enrolled various actors from fishermen and farmers to activists and concerned citizens, all voicing concerns about ecological, social, and economic impacts. We suggest why these policies emerged at these particular scales and places, concluding with prospects for replicating California's precautionary GEO policies elsewhere
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
