The Dialectic of Pro-Poor Papaya - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 762

whether GE papaya trees are growing on their land and whether their families are
alreadyeatingGEpapaya.Farmers[are]avictimoftheenvironmentalcrimecommit-
tedbytheDepartmentofAgriculture”(GreenpeaceInternational2004).
Impact on Thai Agriculture and
Biotechnology
Inretrospect,theinterestsofhaifarmerswerecertainlynotasreadilyevidentasrepre-
sented by Greenpeace, however. Although the “contamination” issue led to uncertainty
and confusion among producers, the eventual outcome of the saga was an undeni-
ablerestrictionoffarmers'choiceoverwhetherornottoadopttheGEapproachto
virus-resistance in papaya that had long been successfully deployed in Hawaii. Farmers
who were known to have purchased seed from the research station had their farms vis-
ited and checked for transgenic papaya by government staff mandated to carry out vil-
lage sweeps to eradicate any trees suspected to be virus-resistant.
Anecdotalbutwidespreadreportstoldofnegativeimpactsonfarmers'livelihoods
resulting from these actions. One instance, of farmer Mae Somkhuan from Khon Kaen
province,isdetailedinanearlierpaperbyoneofthecurrentauthors(Davidson2008).
Mae stated that she was visited by Greenpeace activists, who removed sacks of her papaya
aterinformingherthatitcould“contaminate”othertrees.Rumorsspreadaroundthe
village that her papaya could cause sterility, early death, or cancer, and Mae was socially
ostracizedandletinnear-bankruptcyaterhavinginvestedheavilyinalargeloanto
finance her smallholder papaya business. Many other smallholder farmers may have
faced similar challenges, although this has not been documented systematically.
The wider impact of the scandal was to transform the political climate of
Thailand from one that was cautiously supportive of agricultural biotechnology to
oneofoutrighthostility.heministerofagriculture—formerlyasupporterofthe
virus-resistantpapayaproject—orderedthatPrasartsee'sieldtrialbeeradicatedand
the project suspended. Workers cut down all the plant material in the 1.8-hectare plot
and buried it in pits dug onsite. Greenpeace kept up political pressure by stating that
these workers had worn “no protection” in destroying the GE papaya plots, again
implyingthattheyweredealingwithbio-hazardousmaterial(GreenpeaceSoutheast
Asia2006).
Greenpeace also successfully recruited other key stakeholders to take up its campaign
banner. For example, the chairman of the Thai National Human Rights Commission
told the Bangkok Post atapressconferenceinSeptember2004that“itislikelycontami-
nationhasoccurred”inmorethantenprovincesandemphasizedthat“thedangerof
geneticengineeringtechnology...couldcausegravedamagetothecountry'sagricul-
tural sector and biological resources.” Prasartsee, instead of being celebrated for saving
hailand'spapayaindustryasshemighthaveanticipated,wasletfacingdisciplinary