Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The contradictions of the biorevolution for the development of agriculture in the third world: Biotechnology and capitalist interest

  • 67 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

All biotechnology-related promises are based upon its technological potential; yet, many of these promises assure the solution for chronic socio-economic problems in the Third World through a new technological revolution in agriculture. The forecasting is that such a revolution will start delivering its most profound impact early in the 21st century. However, 11 years before the year 2000, a critical analysis of its promises against its current trends indicates that the future use and impact of biotechnology in the Third World rely presently upon crucial contradictions.

As a result of such contradictions—Social Goals vs. Private Gains, Social Problems vs. Technical Solutions, Agricultural vs. Industrial Revolution, Cooperation vs. Competition, and Control over Nature vs. Control Over People—there is a high likelihood that (1) traditional farming will become increasingly obsolete, (2) technological and economic dependence of developing on developed countries will persist and even increase, (3) food and fiber production will be increasingly dislocated from developing to developed countries and from farms to industries, (4) the market for specific tropical products will be destroyed and therefore entire economies may collapse, (5) hunger and poverty will persist and even increase, and (6) social unrest may increase worldwide.

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

References

  1. Abelson, Philip H. (Ed.).Biotechnology & Biological Frontiers. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science (ASSS), 1984.

  2. Adler, Reid G., “Biotechnology as an Intellectual Property,”Science, 224 (27 April), 1984:357–63.

  3. Asinoff, Richard, “Biotechnology: Is it a panacea or a Pandora's box?”In these Times, (December), 1986:56.

  4. Balandrin, M. F.; J. A. Klockes; E. Wurtele; and W. H. Bollinger. “Natural Plant Chemicals: Sources of Industrial and Medicinal Materials,”Science, 228, 1985:1154–60.

  5. Baltimore, David. “Priorities in Biotechnology,” pp. 30–37 in National Research CouncilPriorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development (Proceedings of a Workshop, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, 26–30 July, 1982). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982.

  6. Berlan, Jean-Pierre and Richard C. Lewontin. “Breeders' Rights and Patent Life Forms,”Nature, 322 (28 August), 1986: 785–88.

  7. Bijman, Jos; Kees van den Doel; and Gerd Junne.The Impact of Biotechnology on Living and Working Conditions in Western Europe and the Third World. Research Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Amsterdan, The Netherlands, April 1986.

  8. Bio/Technology. “The Bio/Technology Roundtable on Plant Biotech,” 5(2), February 1987:128, 130–33.

  9. Board on Science and Technology for International Development (BOSTID). “Cotton Fibers Grown Directly from Cells,” 6(1), 1986:12.

  10. Brown, J. Larry. “Hunger in the United States,”Scientific American, 256 (February), 1987:37–41.

  11. Bull, A.; G. Holt; and M. D. Lilly.Biotechnology: International Trends and Perspectives. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 1982.

  12. Busch, Lawrence. “How Are Markets Possible?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 1985.

  13. Busch, Lawrence and William B. Lacy. “Biotechnology and the Restructuring of the World Food Order.” Paper presented at the XI World Congress of Sociology, New Delli, India, August 1986.

  14. BusinessWeek. “How Brazil is Barrelling into the Big Time,” August 11, 1986:38–40.

  15. Buttel, Frederick H. “Biotechnology and Genetic Information: Implications for Rural People and the Institutions that Serve Them,”The Rural Sociologist, 5(2), March 1985:69–78.

  16. Buttel, F. H. and R. Barker. “Emerging Technologies, Public Policy, and Implications for Third World Agriculture: The Case of Biotechnology,”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(2), December 1985:1170–75.

  17. Buttel, Frederick H.; M. Kenney; and J. Kloppenburg. “From Green Revolution to Biorevolution: Some Observations on the Changing Technological Bases of Economic Transformation in the Third World,”Economic Development: and Cultural Change, 34(1), October 1985:31–55.

  18. Clairmonte, F. and J. Cavanaugh. “Destruction of the Sugar Industry,”Economic and Political Weekly, 23, Jan. 4, 1986:18–19.

  19. Comis, Don and Marcia Woods. “Assembly Line Plants Take Root,”Agricultural Research, 34 (April), 1986:6–11.

  20. Connor, Steve. “Argentinian scandal prompts new gene rules,”New Scientist, 14 April, 1988:18.

  21. DAG Hammarskjold Foundation.The Socioeconomic Impact of New Biotechnologies on Basic Health and Agriculture in the Third World. Proceedings of the 1987 DAG Hammarskjold Foundation Symposium, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–13 March, 1987.

  22. Dembo, David; Clarence Dias; and Ward Morehouse. “Biotechnology and the Third World: Some Social, Economic, Political, and Legal Impacts and Concerns,”Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 11(2), 1985:431–68.

  23. Dias, Clarence. “Saying No to Plant Patenting: The Need for Third World Solidarity.” Paper presented at the Seminar “Third World: Development and Crisis?,” organized by the Consumer Association of Penang, November 1984.

  24. Doyle, Jack.Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics, and the Fate of the World's Food Supply. New York: Viking, 1985.

  25. Fox, Jeffrey L. “Eyeing Biotech's Agricultural Applications,”Bio/Technology, 5(2), February 1987:119.

  26. Friedland, William H.; Amy E. Barton; and Robert J. Thomas.Manufacturing Green Gold: Capital, labor, and technology in the lettuce industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

  27. Habermas, Jurgen.Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.

  28. Heinstein, Peter F. “Future Approaches to the Formation of Secondary Natural Products in Plant Cell Suspension Cultures,”Journal of Natural Products, 48(1), 1985:1–9.

  29. Hobbelink, Henk.New Hope or False Promise? Biotechnology and Third World Agriculture. Brussels: International Coalition for Development Action (ICDA), 1987.

  30. Horkheimer, Max.Eclipse of Reason. New York: Seabury Press, 1974.

  31. Howe, Carolyn. “Farmers' Movements and the Changing Structure of Agriculture,” pp. 104–149 in Eugenes Havens (Ed.)Studies in the Transformation of U. S. Agriculture. Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1986.

  32. Kenney, M. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986.

  33. Kenney, Martin and Roberto A. S. Vellutini. “Biotecnologia, Agricultuza e Dependencia,”Revista Brasileira de Tecnologia, 16(2), Mar.–Apr. 1985:23–6.

  34. Kitchin, William. “Presidential and Legal Aspects of the Development of a Strategic Biotechnological Doctrine,”Politics and the Life Sciences (Commentaries), 2(2), February 1984 167–71.

  35. Kloppenburg, Jack. “The Social Impacts of Biogenetic Technology in Agriculture: Past and Present,” pp. 291–321 in Gigi M. Berardi and Charles C. Geisler (Eds.)The Social Consequences and Challenges of New Agricultural Technologies. Boulder: Westview Press, 1984.

  36. ——.First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492–2000. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

  37. Kloppenburg, Jack and D. L. Kleinman. “Seeds and Sovereignty,”Diversity, 10, 1987a:29–33.

  38. —— “The Plant Germplasm Controversy: Analysing Empirically the Distribution of the World's Plant Genetic Resources,”BioScience, 37(3), March 1987b:190–98.

  39. —— “Seed Wars: Common Heritage, Private Property and Political Strategy,”Socialist Review, 7(5), Sep.–Oct. 1987c:7–41.

  40. Kloppenburg, Jack and Martin Kenney. “Biotechnology, Seeds, and the Restructuring of Agriculture,”The Insurgent Sociologist, 12(3), Summer 1984:3–17.

  41. Latin America Regional Reports—BRAZIL. “Priority for Trade in Capital Goods: Economic Integration with Argentina a Step Nearer,” August 14, 1986a:7.

  42. -- “Ties with Cuba,” November 27, 1986b:8.

  43. Leiss, William.The Domination of Nature. Boston: Beacon Press, 1974.

  44. Mooney, Pat Roy. “The Law of the Seed: Another Development and Plant Genetic Resources,”Development Dialogue, 1–2, 1983.

  45. —— “The Law of the Lamb.”Development Dialogue, 1, 1985:103–8 National Geographic. “Brazil—Moment of Promise and Pain,” 171(3), March 1987:348–85.

  46. National Research Council.Priorities in Biotechnology Research for International Development. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, 26–30 July 1982. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982.

  47. ——Agricultural Biotechnology: Strategies for National Competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987.

  48. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).Commercial Biotechnology An International Analysis. OTA-BA-218. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

  49. ——Innovative Biological Technologies for Lesser Developed Countries. Proceedings of a Workshop. OTA-BP-F-29. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1985.

  50. O Globo (Brazil). “As Promessas da Biotecnologia,” 24 July (Thursday), 1986.

  51. Olson, Steve.Biotechnology: An Industry Comes of Age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.

  52. Rural Advancement Fund International (RAFI). “The First in a Two-Part Series on Agricultural Inputs and Plant Breeding,” November, 1987a.

  53. -- “The Second in a Two-Part Series on Agricultural Inputs and Plant Breeding,” December, 1987b.

  54. Rogoff, M. and S. Rawlin. “Food Security: A Technological Alternative,”BioScience, 37(11), December 1987:800–807.

  55. Sawyer, William D.Biotechnology in the Americas: Prospects for Developing Countries. Proceedings of a Symposium, San Jose, Costa Rica, 3–6 May 1983. Washington, D.C.: Interciencia Association, 1984.

  56. Shand, Hope. “The Socio-Economic Impact of Biotechnology on Agriculture in the Third World.” Paper presented at the Symposium “Agricultural Bioethics,” Iowa State University, Nov. 4, 1987.

  57. Souza Silva, Jose.The Contradictions of Biotechnology for Agriculture in the Third World. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, 1988.

  58. Staba, John. “Milestones in Plant tissue Culture Systems for the Production of Secondary Products,”Journal of Natural Products, 48(2), 1985:203–9.

  59. Stanley, D. W. “Chemical and Structural Determinants of Texture of Fabricated Foods,”Food Technology, March 1986:65–68, 76.

  60. Swaminathan, M. S. “Biotechnology Research and Third World Agriculture,”Science, 218 (3 December), 1982:967–72.

  61. -- “Tissue Culture and Agriculture,”ATAS Bulletin, Nov. 1984.

  62. Sylvester, E. J. and L. C. Klotz.The Gene Age: Genetic Engineering and the Next Industrial Revolution. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983.

  63. Tsai, D. H. and J. E. Kinsella. “Initiation and Growth of Callus and Cell Suspensions of Theobroma Cacao L,”Annals of Botany, 48, 1981:459–557.

  64. U. S. Government Interagency Working Group on Competitive and Transfer Aspects of Biotechnology.Biobusiness World Data Base Report. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.

  65. Zilinskas, Raymond. “The International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology: A New International Scientific Organization,”Technology in Society, 9, 1987:47–61.

Download references

Additional information

J. Souza Silva is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at University of Kentucky. After working 5 years as an extension agent and 5 years as an agricultural researcher in Brazil, he decided to shift from Agronomy to Sociology. His Master's Thesis stressed the contradictions of biotechnology for agriculture in the Third World and his Ph.D. dissertation will examine the changing nature of the struggle for access and control over the world plant genetic resources from colonial times to the year 2000. He works for the Brazilian Public Agricultural Research Enterprise (EMBRAPA), at the Agricultural Research Center for the Semi-Arid Tropic (CPATSA), Petrolina (Pernambuco), Brazil.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 50th Anniversary of the Rural Sociological Society, Madison, Wisconsin, 12–15 August 1987. In its present version, it emphasizes the capitalist rationale behind the promised biotechnical revolution and its implications for Third World agriculture and society. Readers interested in further empirical evidence and bibliographical references on given issues addressed here are encouraged to read my Master's Thesis (Souza Silva 1988). This version has profited by comments from Jeffrey Burkhardt and Paul Thompson, and James Christenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silva, J.S. The contradictions of the biorevolution for the development of agriculture in the third world: Biotechnology and capitalist interest. Agric Hum Values 5, 61–70 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217660

Download citation

Keywords

  • 21st Century
  • Veterinary Medicine
  • Critical Analysis
  • Current Trend
  • Profound Impact