Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 848

evidence. The challenge, of course, was that much talk of new biotechnology application
in agriculture, by both the science establishment and the corporates alike, is one of pros-
pect and promise. The evidence from the field remains weak, limited, and contradictory
(Glover2010).heargumentpresentedisthat“ifonlycompaniesaregiventhefreedom
tooperate,thenallsortsofpanaceasfortheworld'sillswillbeunleashed.”hisclaimis
countered by the argument that current evidence does not stand up to scrutiny and a
highly precautionary stance must be applied to future options. Wider questions of cor-
porate control, intellectual property, and biosafety were also introduced as arguments
against a simple endorsement of GM crops. A stalemate therefore quickly emerged, with
fundamentally different framings competing with each other.
The sense among Bureau members interviewed was that the GM issue was not the one
to confront; yet, it persisted through the writing and reviewing process with attempts by
different groups to insert elements of their positions. The final global synthesis report
endedupquiteequivocal,andthisisrelectedinthesummary,whichstates:
Aproblem-orientedapproachtobiotechnologyR&Dwouldfocusinvestmenton
local priorities identified through participatory and transparent processes, and favor
multifunctional solutions to local problems. These processes require new kinds of
support for the public to critically engage in assessments of the technical, social,
political, cultural, gender, legal, environmental and economic impacts of modern
biotechnology.16
Interpretationsofthisinaloutcomedifer(inevitably).Someviewthisasafudge,a
failure to address the issues; while others view this is a sensible way forward, one that
settles an unhelpful debate and moves on. Certainly the private sector company repre-
sentatives involved in GM technology found it unacceptable. They angrily abandoned
theprocessinlate2007beforetheconclusion,provokingastormofcontroversyand
leading to much frustration among certain writing teams, who had been subject to
foot-dragging delays over many months.17A representativeofCropLifeInternational,
a biotech industry umbrella body, indicated that this decision was prompted by “the
inabilityofitsmemberstogetindustryperspectivesrelectedinthedratreports.”18Ina
clearly heart-felt opinion piece written for the New Scientist , Syngenta scientist Deborah
Keith explained why she, along with other industry representatives, walked out:
Despiteouractiveparticipation,thedratIAASTDreportdoesnotadequatelyrep-
resent the contributions of plant science to sustainable agriculture. . . . The decision
was not taken lightly, given our commitment to agricultural development and sus-
tainability. But there was blatant disregard for the benefits of existing technologies,
andfortechnology'spotentialtosupportagriculture'sefortstomeetfuturecrop
needs.I thinkthiswasinpartbecausethediferencesbetweenvariousparticipants'
perceptions about these technologies, and the scientific facts, were not maintained
and highlighted. Sadly, social science seems to have taken the place of scientific
analysis.19
Of course this sort of naive appeal to a particular set of “scientific facts” and a dis-
missal of what she calls “social science” has been typical of many interventions by the