Property Claims in GM and Non-GM crops

Conceptualising the ongoing conflict over GM versus non-GM crops in the frame of property rights one can see that economic valorisation dynamics and aspirations are working on both sides, within two differently evolving agri-food paradigms, with biotechnology companies propagating intellectual property rights on seeds and crops within a productivist strategy, and with retailer chains, NGOs, farmer associations claiming generic names and labels as public property rights on identity preserved crops within a consumerist strategy. The analysis shows that the direction and strength of the dynamics depends much on the physical intricacies and the social relations which are implicated in these two types of intangible property. As the development of the intangible property rights lies at the heart of postindustrial knowledge economies, the study of the GM conflict is also instructive for understanding social change in the agri-food sector and in the society more generally

Germany: Continued 'elite precaution' alongside continued public opposition

Germany is the EU member state with the most difficult marketing situation (besides Austria) as regards genetically modified (gm) crops and food. At the same time, it shows the least administrative effort to respond to the reasons for this situation - public suspicion and protest. Regulators advocate specific precaution-related measures, which, however, do not relate to the primary demands of critics and opponents. The administration's claim to prioritize scientific evidence over politics constructs the administration and the public as two separated worlds without real mediation. This contrasts with the ever growing demands for public participation. Participation in a broader sense, however, is not dependent on formal opportunities. In this conflict, NGOs bring up issues of democracy, transparency and precaution by means of public mobilization. An anticipated consumer boycott and, following from this, a commercial blockage of gm products are the effects of this strategy. These dynamics can be analysed as political tensions brought about by a politico-administrative system which sticks to a legalistic-scientistic approach when dealing with 'modernization risks'. At the level of formal politics, reflexive modernization occurs without 'reflexive politics', that is, without measures to overcome prognostic uncertainty by trust and participation

Germany’s agri-biotechnology policy

In Germany, the precautionary principle (PP) is a well-established legal principle in environmental law, especially for regulating agribiotechnology. This article uses the analytical concept of issue-framing to identify different views of the PP and how they have informed changes in the German regulatory arena. In the 1990s Germany’s genetically modified (GM) crop policy was dominated by a discourse of innovation and international competitiveness, combined with narrow accounts of precaution. In the early 2000s, agro-biotechnology became subject to changes in the risk regulatory system, new agricultural policies and a broader precautionary scope. After the BSE crisis, German policy promoted sustainable agriculture and organic food, combined with the demand for a precautionary consumer policy and ‘consumer choice’. Precaution now encompasses comprehensive mandatory labelling and liability rules to protect non-GM food production from GM ‘contamination’ in fields and across the food chain