Research Note a Comparative Study of the Politics of GM Food and Crops
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00471.x |
| Author | Dave Toke |
| Published date | 01 March 2004 |
| Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Research Note |
Research Note
A Comparative Study of the Politics of
GM Food and Crops
Dave Toke
University of Birmingham
Comparative study of GM food and crops may reveal the extent to which systems of scientific
regulatory assessment are related to priorities which are derived through cultural influence rather
than positivistic assessment. Differing regulatory outcomes, and differing priorities for scientific
assessment of agricultural biotechnology, are visible in the UK, the USA and India. Explanations
of these differences can be obtained by investigating the nature of the differing interest groups
whose values underpin different national regulatory paradigms and also by investigating the way
that these interest groups came to have influence.
The aim of this research note is to set out a justification for, the nature and scope
of, and the theoretical approaches appropriate to a comparative study of the poli-
tics of genetically modified (GM) food and crops. The study would be concerned
with comparing and explaining the differences between the political responses
made by the public and policy-makers to the issue of GM food and crops in three
countries: the UK, India and the US. These three are chosen because each has pro-
duced a significantly different political outcome in this policy area.
First, I will briefly set out these differences in outcomes and explain why the study
is important. Then I will discuss the central theoretical themes that should be exam-
ined and how they relate to the study.
Differences in Outcomes
The sale of at least some GM food has been licensed in the US and the UK (under
EU regulations). On the other hand, the sale of GM food in India is still illegal at
the time of writing. However, despite the licensing of some for the UK, GM food
has been withdrawn from sale in supermarkets. The labelling of GM food is manda-
tory in the UK, but not in the US. Indeed, the US government regards GM food
labelling (in the EU) as a protectionist measure and there is a conflict between
the US and the EU over this and other GM food trade issues (Krenzler and
MacGregor, 2000).
Currently, among the three countries, GM food crops are only grown commercially
in the US, although field trials have been organized by government agencies in the
other two. As far as non-food crops are concerned, GM cotton has been grown
commercially in the US since 1996. Commercial licensing of GM cotton in India
© Political Studies Association, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
180
D AV E T O K E
was finally agreed in March 2002 after a long-drawn-out series of political argu-
ments. GM carnations, modified for colour, are the only non-food GM crop grown
commercially in the UK.
The Importance of the Study
The study is important for several reasons. First, the issue of food supply is funda-
mental to the way we live. Food policy has often been an emotive political issue
high up on the political agenda. It is so today, given the arguments it generates
concerning food safety, trade policy, subsidy policy and, in the case of GM crops,
control of patents to produce the crop itself. Second, there are different policy out-
comes in the three countries and this presents us with an excellent opportunity to
deploy various political science theories in an effort to explain these differences.
Although there has been some commentary on policy on GM food in the UK
(ESRC, 1999; Levidow and Carr, 2000; Toke, 2001, 2002, 2003; Toke and Marsh,
2001), there is a lack of comparative studies similar to the one proposed here.
Moreover, with the important exception of the work of Toke (2001, 2002, 2003)
and Toke and Marsh (2001), the GM food literature has concentrated on issues
such as interpretation of ‘risk’ rather than discussing how political outcomes have
occurred. Third, a fuller analysis of the factors underlying the different outcomes
is important if we are to understand the background to what could be a destabi-
lizing trade confrontation between countries that label GM food and those that do
not. Fourth, the considerable opposition in India to GM food and crops, compared
with in the UK and the US, apparently contradicts some stereotypes. In particular,
in the environment-versus-development debate, the southern hemisphere is
usually seen as being more reluctant to give environmental considerations much
attention. Yet India’s attitude appears to pay closer heed to environmentalist
opinion in this case.
Science and Policy
Scientific studies and disputes are usually a central aspect of environmental issues
and this is clearly manifested in the GM food and crops debate. The relationship
between science and policy seems problematic in this study. A simple model, such
as that advocated by analysts such as North (1995), in which scientists come to
universally agreed conclusions that are then put into policy practice, cannot explain
the differences in policy outcomes, that is unless one accepts the contention made
by North and other critics of the environmental movement such as Lomborg (2001)
that environmentalists are prone to exaggeration and a tendency to mobilize irra-
tional fears. Is scientific disagreement with some scientific judgements holding
greater sway in some countries than in others? How can we utilize existing...
To continue reading
Request your trial