Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 655–663 | Cite as

Silenced voices, vital arguments: smallholder farmers in the Mexican GM maize controversy

Article

Abstract

Smallholder producers are the collective most likely to be affected by the introduction of GMOs globally, yet the least included in public debates and consultation about the development, implementation or regulation of this agricultural biotechnology. Why are the voices and arguments of smallholder farmers being excluded from national and international GM debates and regulation? In this article, we identify barriers which prevent smallholder farmers in Mexico from having a voice in public political, economic, scientific and social fori regarding the GM maize controversy. Through the analysis of empirical data from a case study in Mexico, we identify political, institutional, economic and ontological reasons that lie behind that exclusion. We conclude with an appraisal of smallholder farmers’ perspectives on GM maize and their visions of Mexico’s rural future, within which they demand a meaningful and rightful space.

Keywords

Smallholder farmers Excluded voices GM controversy in Mexico Socio-cultural, political and economic arguments in GM debates Agricultural futures 

References

  1. Alimentación, S. de A. G. D. R. P. y A. 2012. Acuerdo por el que se determinan Centros de Origen y Centros de Diversidad Genética del Maíz. Diario Oficial de la Federación. México. http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5276453&fecha=02/11/2012. (Accessed 1 June 2014).
  2. Alonso, A.M. 2004. Conforming disconformity: ‘mestizaje’, hybridity and the aesthetics of Mexican nationalism. Cultural Anthropology 19(4): 459–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altieri, M. 2002. Comments to Both sides now: Fallacies in the genetic-modification wars, implications for developing countries and anthropological perspectives. Current Anthropology 43(4): 619–620.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez-Morales, A. 2000. Mexico: Ensuring environmental safety while benefiting from biotechnology. In Agricultural biotechnology and the poor, eds. Gabriele J. Persley, and Manuel M. Lantin, 90–96. Washington, DC: Consultative group on International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
  5. Barkin, D. 2002. The reconstruction of modern Mexican peasantry. Journal of Peasant Studies 30(1): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bühler, U. 2012. Participation ‘with justice and dignity’: Beyond the ‘new tyranny’. Peace Studies Journal 1. http://www.peacestudiesjour-nal.org.uk/docs/Participation.pdf. (Accessed 1 June 2014).
  7. Buttel, F.H. 2005. The environmental and post-environmental politics of GM crops and foods. Environmental Politics 14(3): 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carro-Ripalda, S., M. Astier, and P. Artía. 2014. Mexico. In A new approach to governing GM crops: Global lessons from the rising powers, eds. P. Macnaghten, S. Carro-Ripalda, and J. Burity. Durham University Working Paper, Durham, UK. http://bit.ly/1p957cb. (Accessed 1 June 2014).
  9. Chapela, I., and D. Quis. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CONACYT-CONABIO. 1999. Organismos vivos modificados en la agricultura Mexicana. Biotecnología 4(2): 47–60.Google Scholar
  11. Fitting, E. 2006a. The political uses of culture: Maize production and the GM corn debates in Mexico. Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology 48: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitting, E. 2006b. Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitting, E. 2011. The struggle for maize. Campesinos, workers and transgenic corn in the Mexican countryside. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. 1981. The will to knowledge: The history of sexuality, vol. 1. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 1985a. The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality, vol. 2. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. 1985b. The care of the self: The history of sexuality, vol. 3. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Gamio, M. 1992 [1916]. Forjando Patria. Mexico: Porrúa.Google Scholar
  18. Gledhill, J. 1985. The peasantry in history: Some notes on Latin American research. Critique of Anthropology 5(1): 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenpeace Mexico. 2000. Maíz Transgénico: Documentos de campaña. Mexico City: Greenpeace.Google Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. 2007. Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610: 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingold, T. 2006. Walking the plank: Meditations on a process of skill. In Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework, ed. J.R. Dakers, 65–80. New York: Plagrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S. 2000. Commentary: Between risk and precaution: Reassessing the future of GM crops. Journal of Risk Research 3(3): 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kearney, M. 1996. Reconceptualizing the peasantry. Anthropology in global perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. Massieu Trigo, Y. 2009. Cultivos y alimentos transgénicos en México. El debate, los actores y las fuerzas socio-políticas. Argumentos 59: 217–243.Google Scholar
  25. Saldívar, E. 2011. Everyday practices of Indigenismo: An ethnography of anthropology and the state in Mexico. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 16(1): 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soleri, D., D.A. Cleveland, and F.A. Cuevas. 2006. Transgenic crops and crop varietal diversity: The case of maize in Mexico. BioScience 56: 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soleri, D., and D.A. Cleveland. 2006. Transgenic maize and Mexican maize diversity: A risky synergy? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stone, G.D. 2001. Malthus, agribusiness and the death of the peasantry. Current Anthropology 42(4): 575–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stone, G.D. 2002. Both sides now: Fallacies in the genetic-modification wars, implications for developing countries and anthropological perspectives. Current Anthropology 43(4): 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toledo, F., J.L. Chávez Servia, and A. Avila (eds.) 2013. El maíz transgénico (en 15 píldoras). Oaxaca: UCCS.Google Scholar
  31. UN. 2009. Global compact principle 7. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/principle7.html. (Accessed 16 July 2014).
  32. Wynne, B. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4): 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wynne, B. 2003. Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science 33(3): 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wynne, B. 2005. Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture and Society 22(5): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  2. 2.Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía AmbientalUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMoreliaMexico

Personalised recommendations