Toward a Political Economy of Opinion Formation on Genetically Modified Foods

Author(s): Peter M. Rosset

Source: Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 22-25
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/649624
Accessed: 19/10/2010 11:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Anthropological Association and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Medical Anthropology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
22
PETERM. ROSSET
Toward a Political Economy of Opinion
Formation on Genetically Modified Foods
"Ifthequestionis havewe learnedany-
thinginrecentmonthsin thesociology,
themediaorientation,yes we have
learnedsomething."
-Robert B. Shapiro,Monsanto
CEO, The Web of Self-Interest
TheNew YorkTimes,12 November 1999
n developing a "consideredsociol-
ogy" of public beliefs aboutgeneti-
cally modified(GM)foods (Murcott,
this issue), thereis a crying need for an
approach rooted firmly in political
economy.While it is certainlytempting
to make the goal of such a sociology to
go beyond "simple 'pro' and 'anti'
alignments,"it may be more useful to
understandwhy the public debate and
people's beliefs areindeedso polarized.
Although, in this issue, Murcott pre-
sents us with an interestingdiscussion
of professional/expertand lay/popular
knowledge and opinions, I prefera call
to researchersto ask whatpoliticaleco-
nomic forces have shapedboth and di-
vided each into highly conflictive
opposinggroups?
I have my own hypotheses, of
course, though space does not permita
thorough analysis here. But I think
thereareat least threekey variables:(1)
the complex web of self-interestin the
highly interconnectedand increasingly
concentrated agrifood industry in-
volved in the GM food commodity
chain, (2) the astronomicalamountin-
vested both by individualcompaniesin
their own advertisingand public rela-
tions campaigns and in industry-wide
PR consortia,and (3) the power of the
GM food issue to speed the agglutina-
MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY
tion of what I have called "a new inter-
national food movement" (Rosset
2000a).
A brief review of a recent GM food
scare in the United States serves to
highlight the natureof self-interest in
whatmight be called the "anatomyof a
gene spill."On Monday,September18,
2000, a coalition of biotech critics an-
nounced laboratorytests detecting the
presence of GM corn, of a variety not
approved for human consumption, in
Taco Bell brandtaco shells. The Star-
Link corn varietyin questionproduces
a Bt insecticide protein called Cry9C,
which is a potentialhumanfood aller-
gen because it is not broken down by
digestiveprocesses.Laterthe same day,
Aventis CropScience,the biotech giant
that producesStarLinkseeds, respond-
ed with a press release challenging the
credibilityof Genetic ID, the indepen-
dentlaboratorythathad foundthe illicit
presence of the variety. On September
22, Kraft,which sells the taco shells un-
der the Taco Bell brand,issued a press
release announcingtheir recall, while
tryingto shift blame to lax government
regulations that permit corn not ap-
proved for human consumption to be
grown for animal feed, despite inade-
quate safeguardsto prevent their mix-
ing in the food supply(Rosset 2000b).
In studyingthis case, I am struckby
the dense networkof transnationalcor-
porations(TNC) involved and the rela-
tionshipsamong them. At the centerof
COMMENTARIES 23

attentionwas a food processor (Kraft) theirconsortiaare devoting to molding

owned by a tobacco company (Phillip public perceptionsof GM food, but we
Morris), paying a licensing fee to the can be surethey areenormous.Accord-
world's largest fast food corporation ing to one industry press release, "A
(TriconGlobal, which owns Taco Bell, multi-year, industry-led public infor-
KFC, and Pizza Hut), itself a spin-off mation programbegins today to share
from PepsiCo, which boughtthe actual informationabout agriculturalbiotech-
taco shells from a Mexican direct sub- nology in the UnitedStatesandCanada.
sidiary of Pepsi (Sabritas), which The program,sponsoredby the Council
bought the flour from the company for BiotechnologyInformation,will in-
(Gruma)that producesover half of the clude a web site, toll-free consumer
tortillas consumed in the world and is number,informationmaterialsandtele-
partially owned by America's largest vision and print advertising" (BIO
grain processor (Archer Daniels Mid- 2000). The council includes Aventis
land). Gruma,in turn, bought the corn CropScience, BASF, Dow Chemical,
fromfarmerswho boughtthe seed from DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca,
a biotech conglomerate(Aventis Crop- and the Biotechnology Industry Or-
Science) formed by the merger of two ganization.According to the St. Louis
chemical companies (AgrEvo and Post Dispatch (2000), while only one
Rh6ne-Poulenc),one of which (AgrEvo) of several such efforts, the council has
was itself the product of the previous U.S. $250 million in resources to use
merger of the Hoechst and Schering over five years.
pharmaceutical and pesticide giants Membersof various probiotechalli-
(Rosset 2000b). ances are financing "scientific" re-
This corporateagglomerationimme-
search, organizing forums, lobbying
diately began damage controldesigned
to place the blame on anyonebut itself: legislators,regulators,andfarmorgani-
on consumerand environmentalgroups, zations,andretainingmajorpublicrela-
on lax governmentregulatorsor regula- tions firms (Barboza 1999). As Mon-
tions that are too strict, and so on santo's CEO noted in the quote that
(Rosset 2000b; see Miller 2000 for an opened this piece, the private sector is
example). In doing so, ample use was constructingits own sociology of pub-
made of the growing pubic relationsin- lic beliefs and adjustingits tactics as a
result. Currentstrategyemphasizesus-
dustryspecializing in selling GM food
to the public, that is, dedicatedto shap-ing "credible" scientists, academics,
ing public beliefs. This raises questionsandfarmersto put forthproindustrypo-
about the new kinds of monopolistic sitions, instead of company spokes-
and oligopolistic relationshipsand be- people who, it turns out, the public
haviorthathave arisenandtheirsignifi- doesn't believe (Barboza1999; see Al-
cancein thisdebate(see Krebs 1999 and tieri and Rosset 1999a, 1999b and
Heffernan1999), as well as the role of McGloughlin 1999 to see how this
the PR industry. might play out). It is indeed hardtoday
to find probiotechscientistswho do not
The Public Relations Machinery receive some sort of industryfunding
(Science Friday 2000). The way in
It may neverbe possible for us to de- whichthe privatesectoris using its con-
terminethe full extent of the resources siderablefinancialresourcesto act on its
that individual biotech companies and "consideredsociology" absolutelymust
24 MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY

be examinedin detail in any more aca- In order to understand, then, public

demic "consideredsociology." beliefs about GM foods, we must inte-
grate questions of economic concentra-
tion, strategies of and investments in
A New InternationalFood Movement public relations, and social movement
formation and impact. Polarization of
The other side of the polarization beliefs, I believe, is strongly driven by
equationsurelylies in the way the issue industry PR on the one hand, and by the
of GM food has served to catalyze the issue itself becoming a historic catalyst
discontentof diverse sectorsof national of social movement formation on the
and internationalcivil societies around other.
food issues. At the startof the millen-
nium, food, like no otherissue, has the References Cited
ability to draw together actors who,
ratherthan stand together in the past, Altieri,Miguel A., andPeterRosset
have more often than not been at each 1999a Ten Reasons Why Biotechnol-
other's throats.At the WorldTradeOr- ogy Will Not Ensure Food Security,
Protect the Environmentand Reduce
ganization (WTO) protests in Seattle,
we saw American farmers marching Povertyin the Developing World.Ag-
BioForum2(3-4):155-162. Electronic
with Third World farmers, who they
document, http://www.agbioforum.
once saw as competitorsbut now see as
org/vol2no34/altieri.htm.
companionsin struggle.Said one Wis- 1999b Strengtheningthe Case for Why
consin farmer,"TheWTO fight in Seat- BiotechnologyWill Not HelptheDevel-
tle woke a lot of Americanfarmersup oping World:Response to McGlough-
to the fact that their fight isn't with lin. AgBioForum 2(3-4): 226-236.
farmersin Franceor India.The fight's Electronic document, http://www.
with agribusinessand the whole corpo- agbioforum.org/vol2no34/altierireply.
rate vision of forcing small farmersoff htm.
the land" (Rosset 2000a:136). Ameri- Barboza,David
can farmersalso marchedwith environ- 1999 Biotech CompaniesTake on Crit-
ics of Gene-AlteredFood. New York
mentalists,in the past set against each Times,November12.
otherby the productionistmyth of food
BiotechnologyIndustryOrganization
andjobs versus the environment.Their 2000 Public Information Program on
common anger over GM crops brought Biotechnology Begins April 3. Wash-
these strange bedfellows together, ington,DC; Pressrelease,April3.
farmersbecause they can't sell theiral- Heffernan,William
tered grain and feel that industrysold 1999 Consolidation in the Food and
them a bill of goods, and environmen- AgricultureSystem:Reportto the Na-
talistsbecauseof the risksthese new or- tional FarmersUnion. Columbia:Uni-
ganisms present. Consumer groups versityof Missouri.
marchedon GM food issues as well- Krebs,A. V.
1999 CorporateAgribusiness:Economic
while other food and agriculture"fel-
Concentrationis Thy Name. The Agri-
low travelers"in protestof a food sys- business ExaminerNo. 55, November
tem that is increasingly perceived as 17, 1999. Electronicdocument,http://
meeting few people's needs included www.eal.com/CARP/agbiz/agex-55.html.
farmworkers,landlesspeasants'groups, McGloughlin,Martina
andwelfarerightsorganizationsprotest- 1999 Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology
ing cutbacksin food stamps. Will Be Importantto the Developing
COMMENTARIES
World. AgBioForum2(3-4):163-174.
Electronic document, http://www.
agbioforum.org/vol2no34/mcgloughli.
htm.
Miller,HenryI.
2000 A Much Higher Standard for
Gene-Spliced Foods. San Diego Un-
ion-Tribune,October5.
Rosset, Peter
2000a A New Food Movement Comes
of Age in Seattle. In Globalize This!
The Battle Against the World Trade
Organization and Corporate Rule. St. Louis Post Dispatch
Kevin Danaher and Roger Burbach,
eds. Pp. 135- 140. Monroe,ME:Com-
mon CouragePress.
2000b Anatomyof a Gene Spill:Do We
Really Need Genetically Engineered
CHAIA HET,I,ER
From Risk to Globalization: Discursive Shifts
in the French Debate about GMOs
nne Murcott calls for a "consid-
ered sociology" of GM foods
that recognizes the political
economy of their production, consump-
tion, and public reception. Elaborating
on this, I propose an inquiry into the po-
litical economy of discourses surround-
ing GM foods: discourses emerging out
of an economistic risk-benefit frame-
work that is reproduced and normalized
by such powerful institutions as bio-
technology corporations, public rela-
tions firms, risk institutes, and national
and international science regulatory
bodies.
My research concerns the French de-
bate over GM foods and explores the
role of powerful institutions in produc-
ing normative risk framings that often
clash with competing framings pre-
sented by various sectors of civil soci-
25
Food? Institutefor Food and Develop-
ment Policy, Food FirstBackgrounder
vol. 6, no. 4. Electronic document,
http://www.foodfirst.org.
Science Friday
2000 Promise and Pitfalls of Using
GeneticallyModified Crops in Devel-
oping Countries. Washington, DC:
NationalPublic Radio, April 14. Elec-
tronicdocument,http://www.foodfirst.
org/media/interviews/2000/scifri4-00.
html.
2000 Biotech Rivals Team Up in Effort
to Sell Altered Food. St. Louis Post
Dispatch,April4.
ety (Heller and Escobar in press).1 The
risk rationality that dominates discus-
sions about GM foods is a product of
riskification: the social production of
beliefs, practices, and discourses that
recast "natural" and institution-driven
dangers as a set of statistically calcula-
ble, insurable harms assumed necessary
for social progress. Through riskifica-
tion, actors come to regard categories of
self, nature, and society as fields of po-
tential liabilities and benefits to be un-
derstood through cost benefit analysis.
Stepping outside the parameters of a
"risk rationality," particular publics
within French society have framed sci-
ence questions within a "rationality of
sociality" that evaluates them in rela-
tion to potential impact on social fab-
rics, meanings, and quality of life
(rather than on potential risks/benefits).