Social Equity and the Genetically Engineered Crops Controversy

Crop Production/Industries, Labor and Human Capital, Y80,

Agribusiness Concentration, Intellectual Property, and the Prospects for Rural Economic Benefits from the Emerging Biofuel Economy

United States policy makers are promoting bio-fuels as an economic development opportunity, especially for rural America. A USDA study claims that developments in energy production from biomass could increase profits for agricultural commodity producers. However, as William Heffernan and his colleagues have demonstrated, concentration in the agrifood sector limits the economic benefits going to the commodity producers. Relying on Heffernan’s framework, we compare the distribution of intellectual property of corn and other genetically modified crops with that of the emerging biomass technologies. We find that patent ownership in the emerging biofuel sector is not yet as concentrated as in the agricultural biotechnology sector. However, theories of private ordering predict concentration and our data indicate that concentration is occurring. The results suggest that rural biomass producers are unlikely to gain broad economic benefits from the biofuel economy

Are Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture Compatible?

Agricultural biotechnology has been largely opposed by advocates in the sustainable agriculture movement, despite claims by the technology’s proponents that it holds the promise to deliver both production (economic) and environmental benefits, two legs of the sustainability stool. We argue in this paper that participants in this polarized debate are talking past each other because assumptions about biotechnology and sustainability remain simplistic and poorly defined. Genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crop varieties are the most visible current forms of agricultural biotechnology, and thus the form of biotechnology that many in the sustainability movement react to. However, these crops represent a biotechnology option that has paid insufficient attention to the integrated and systemic requirements of sustainable agriculture. In particular, common definitions of sustainable agriculture reinforce the need to include consideration of socio-economic distributive or equity effects into any assessment of sustainability. However, the frameworks that have been proposed to assess the potential for GE crops to enhance sustainable agriculture generally neglect this essential socio-economic dimension. We present an analysis that augments the sustainability frameworks to include the full suite of environmental, economic and social impacts. A review of the latest science on each impact category reveals that crop biotechnology cannot be fully assessed with respect to fostering a more sustainable agriculture due to key gaps in evidence, especially for socio-economic distributive effects. While the first generation of GE crops generally has made progress in reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint and improving adopting farmers’ economic well-being, we conclude that these early products fall short of the technology’s capacity to promote a more sustainable agriculture because of the failure of those developing and promoting the technology to fully engage all stakeholders and address salient equity issues. To realize the sustainability potential of biotechnology will require fundamental changes in the way public and private research and technology development and commercialization are structured and operated. We identify new approaches in these areas that could make this powerful biological science more compatible with sustainable agriculture

The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability

The development of genetically engineered (GE) crops has focused predominantly on enhancing conventional pest control approaches. Scientific assessments show that these GE crops generally deliver significant economic and some environmental benefits over their conventional crop alternatives. However, emerging evidence indicates that current GE crops will not foster sustainable cropping systems unless the negative environmental and social feedback effects are properly addressed. Moreover, GE crop innovations that promote more sustainable agricultural systems will receive underinvestment by seed and chemical companies that must understandably focus on private returns for major crops. Opportunities to promote crops that convey multi-faceted benefits for the environment and the poor are foundational to a sustainable food system and should not be neglected because they also represent global public goods. In this paper, we develop a set of criteria that can guide the development of GE crops consistent with contemporary sustainable agriculture theory and practice. Based on those principles, we offer policy options and recommendations for reforming public and private R&D and commercialization processes to further the potential contributions of GE crops to sustainable agriculture. Two strategies that would help achieve this goal would be to restore the centrality of the public sector in agricultural R&D and to open the technology development process to more democratic participation by farmers and other stakeholders

Socioeconomic Obstacles to Establishing a Participatory Plant Breeding Program for Organic Growers in the United States

Proponents of participatory plant breeding (PPB) contend that it is more conducive to promoting agricultural biodiversity than conventional plant breeding. The argument is that conventional plant breeding tends to produce crops for homogenous environments, while PPB tends to be directed at meeting the diverse environmental conditions of the farmers participating in a breeding program. Social scientific research is needed to highlight the complex socioeconomic factors that inhibit efforts to initiate PPB programs. To contribute, we offer a case study of a participatory organic seed production project that involved a university breeding program, commercial organic seed dealers, and organic farmers in the Northeastern United States. We demonstrate that, although PPB may indeed promote agricultural biodiversity, several socioeconomic obstacles must be overcome to establish such a program.agricultural biodiversity; socioeconomic context; plant breeding

Local Impacts of Unconventional Gas Development within Pennsylvania\u27s Marcellus Shale Region: Gauging Boomtown Development through the Perspectives of Educational Administrators

Using survey and interview data gathered from educators and educational administrators, we investigate school and community impacts of unconventional gas extraction within Pennsylvania\u27s Marcellus Shale region. Respondents in areas with high levels of drilling are significantly more likely to perceive the effects of local economic gains, but also report increased inequality, heightened vulnerability of disadvantaged community members, and pronounced strains on local infrastructure. As community stakeholders in positions of local leadership, school leaders in areas experiencing Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction often face multiple decision-making dilemmas. These dilemmas occur in the context of incomplete information and rapid, unpredictable community change involving the emergence of both new opportunities and new insecurities

Correction: The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability Sustainability 2011, 3, 847-874

Replace the second sentence in the Introduction on p. 848

Correction: The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability Sustainability 2011, 3 , 847-874

Replace the second sentence in the Introduction on p. 848. [...]n/a