Ecological modernization and the "Gene Revolution": The case study of Bt cotton in India

Capitalism, Nature, Socialism

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 7-31

  Kumbamu, Ashok ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; COTTON; CROP PRODUCTION; DEVELOPING WORLD; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; MODERNIZATION;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM;

EID: 33751188884     PISSN: 10455752     EISSN: 15483290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10455750601004442     Document Type: Article

References (176)

1. Frederick F. Buttel, "Ecological Modernization as Social Theory," Geoforum, 31, 2000, p. 57.
2. I agree with F.H. Buttel who prefers to use the expression "ecological-modernizationist 'thought' or 'perspective,' rather than theory...because of the fact that, at least as far as the literature in English is concerned, ecological modernization is not yet a clearly-codified theory." Ibid., p. 58.
3. Maarten A. Hajer, "Ecological Modernization as Cultural Politics," in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne, (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity, Towards a New Ecology (Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 249.
4. James O'Connor, Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism (New York and London: Guilford Press, 1998), p. 200.
5. Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 64.
6. See Arthur P.J. Mol, Globalization and Environmental Reforms: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2001)
7. Arthur P.J. Mol and David A. Sonnenfeld, (eds.), Ecological Modernization Around the World: Perspectives and Critical Debates (London and Portland: Frank Class, 2000)
8. Gert Spaargaren, Arthur. P.J. Mol and Frederick H. Buttel, (eds.), Environment and Global Modernity (Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000)
9. Lei Zhang, Ecological Industrialization in Chinese Small Towns, PhD Dissertation, Environmental Policy Group (Wageningen: Wageningen University, the Netherlands, 2002).
10. Wendy E. Jepson and Christian Brannstrom, "A Case of Contested Ecological Modernization: The Governance of Genetically Modified Crops in Brazil," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 2005, p. 297.
11. Abdul Qayam and Kiran Sakkhari, "The Bt Gene Fails in India," Seedling, July 2003, p. 13.
12. Dave Toke, "Ecological Modernization and GM Food," Environmental Politics, 11, 3, 2002, p. 145.
13. The first wave of environmental concern originated around the early 1900s. During this phase the focus was on the degradation of natural landscapes caused by rapid industrialization and urbanization rather than raising questions about the foundations of industrialization process itself. Recognizing the limited focus of the first wave, the second wave of environmental concern began in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It focused more on the radical changes that would alter the production process and posited that "the social order was a conditio sine qua non [condition without which not - i.e., indispensable] for an ecologically sound society." Mol, 2001, op. cit., pp. 49-50
14. also see Arthur P.J. Mol, "Ecological Modernization and Industrial Transformations and Environmental Reform," in M. Redclift and G. Woodgate, (eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Cheltenham and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 138-149.
15. Buttel, 2000, op. cit., pp. 59-61
16. Mol, 2001, op. cit., p. 58
17. Spaargaren, Mol, and Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 5.
18. Zhang, op. cit., p. 25.
19. Mol, 2001, op. cit., p. 222.
20. Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 60
21. Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren, "Ecological Modernization and the Environmental State," in A. Mol and F. Buttel, (eds.), The Environmental State Under Pressure (Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2002), p. 36.
22. Arthur P.J. Mol, "The Environmental Movement in an Era of Ecological Modernization," Geoforum, 31, 2000, p. 48.
23. Pieter Leroy and Jan Van Tatenhove, "Political Modernization Theory and Environmental Politics," in G. Spaargaren, Arthur. P.J. Mol and Frederick H. Buttel (eds), Environment and Global Modernity (Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000), p. 195
24. Gert Spaargaren, "Ecological Modernization Theory and the Changing Discourse on Environment and Modernity," in G. Spaargaren, A. Mol and F. Buttel (eds.), ibid. p. 50.
25. Ibid. p. 51
26. Ibid., p. 53.
27. Mol and Spaargaren, 2002, op. cit., p. 38.
28. Arthur P.J. Mol and David A. Sonnenfeld, "Ecological Modernization Around the World: An Introduction," A. Mol and D. Sonnenfeld (eds.), 2000, op. cit., p. 5.
29. Spaargaren, 2000, op. cit., p. 56
30. see also Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 61.
31. Arthur P.J. Mol, 2001, op. cit., p. 61.
32. Arthur P.J. Mol, Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2001), p. 61.
33. Ibid., p. 61.
34. Leroy and Tatenhove, 2000, op. cit., p. 188.
35. Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 61.
36. Mol, 2001, op. cit., pp. 61-62.
37. Mol, 2000, op. cit., p. 46.
38. Mol, 2001, op. cit., p. 68.
39. Buttel, 2000, op. cit., pp. 59-61
40. Frederick H. Buttel, "Environmental Sociology and the Explanation of Environmental Reform," Organization & Environment, 16, 3, 2003, pp. 322-327
41. Mol, 2000, op. cit., pp. 46-47
42. Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000, op. cit., pp. 6-7.
43. David Sonnenfeld, "Contradictions of Ecological Modernization: Pulp and Paper Manufacturing in Southeast Asia," in A. Mol and D. Sonnenfeld (eds.), 2000, op. cit., p. 236.
44. David Toke, "Ecological Modernization: A Reformist Review," New Political Economy, 6, 2001, p. 289.
45. Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000, op. cit.
46. Mol, 2001, op. cit.
47. Mol, 2001, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
48. Gordon Conway, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)
49. Ismail Serageldin, "Biotechnology and Food Security in the 21st Century," Science, 285, 5426, 1999, pp. 387-389.
50. Thomas Bernauer, Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), pp. 3-4
51. Govindan Parayil, "The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change," Technology and Culture, 33, 4, 1992, pp. 741-744.
52. Green Revolution technology has been called "package technology," because high-yielding varieties give substantial yields only under certain conditions where the farmer can apply heavy fertilizers, pesticides and, in fact, supply controlled water. Without these "inputs," high-yielding varieties do not produce more than the traditional varieties and can produce less. For example, one comparative field trial showed that in the absence of the application of synthetic fertilizers, Sonara-64 (a high-yielding variety of wheat) produced 2,232 kilograms per hectare compared to 2,355 kilograms per hectare for the indigenous variety, C-306. However, after 100 kg of fertilizers were applied, the yield of the Sonara-64 rose to 4,600 kg., while C-360 yields increased to only 3,689 kg. Similar differences between local and high-yielding varieties of rice with and without fertilizer applications were observed in India. See Keith Griffin, The Political Economy of Agrarian Change: An Essay on the Green Revolution (London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1979), pp. 209-210.
53. See Lester R. Brown, Seeds of Change (London: Pall Mall Press, 1970), p. 16
54. Gabrielle J, Persley and Ismail Serageldin, "Alexandria Renaissance: the New Life Sciences and Society," in I. Serageldin and G.J. Persley (eds.), Biotechnology and Sustainable Development: Voices of the South and North (Wallingford: CABI Publishing, 2003), p. 7
55. Eric B. Ross, The Malthus Factor: Poverty, Politics, and Population in Capitalist Development (London: Zed Books, 1998).
56. Parayil, 1992, op. cit., p. 737.
57. M.S. Swaminathan, "From Green Revolution to Gene Revolution," Plant Biotechnology Institute Bulletin, 2, 2004, p. 4.
58. Brown, 1970, op. cit., p. 6.
59. John Harriss, "Capitalism and Peasant Production: The Green Revolution in India," in T. Shanin (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies: Selected Readings (Oxford and New York: Blackwell, 1987), p. 229.
60. Peter Atkins and Ian Bowler, Food in Society: Economy, Culture, Geography (London: Arnold Publishers, 2001)
61. Harriss, 1987, op. cit., p. 229
62. Ross, 1998, op. cit.
63. Griffin, 1979, op. cit., p. 2.
64. Brown, 1970, op. cit., p. 10.
65. Ibid.
66. Bernhard Glaeser (ed.), The Green Revolution Revisited: Critique and Alternatives (London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987)
67. Shaila Seshia and Ian Scoones, Tracing Policy Connections: The Politics of Knowledge in the Green Revolution and Biotechnology Era in India, Working paper, 188 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2003)
68. M.S. Swaminathan, "Biotechnology and a Better Common Present: A Synthesis," in I.P. Getubig, et al., Biotechnology and Asian Agriculture: Public Policy Implications (Kuala Lumpur: Asian Pacific Development Center, 1991).
69. Matin Qaim, "Transgenic Crops and Developing Countries," Economic and Political Weekly, August 11, 2001, p. 3065.
70. James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), p. 208
71. see also Griffin, 1979, op. cit., pp. 207, 209.
72. Ibid., p. 213.
73. Theoretically, Green Revolution technology has been considered "scale-neutral," because no economies of scale are involved in it - that is, there is no decline in the cost of production per acre with increased acreage. Therefore, it appears to benefit both small and large farmers alike. But, as critics argue, it was certainly not "resource-neutral," because the farmers who have better access to physical as well as capital resources gained more profit and were in a better position to deal with the risks pertaining to the new technology (Harris, 1987, op. cit., p. 231
74. also see Terence Byres, "'New Technology, Class Formation and Class Action in Indian Countryside," The Journal of Peasant Studies, 8, 4, 1981
75. Terence Byres, "The Political Economy of Technological Innovation in Indian Agriculture," in R.S. Anderson, et al. (eds.), Science, Politics, and the Agricultural Revolution in Asia (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982).
76. Griffin, 1979, op. cit., p. 211.
77. See Andrew Pearse, Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)
78. Biplab Dasgupta, Agrarian Changes and New Technology in India (Geneva: UNRISD, United Nations, 1977)
79. Francine Frankel, India's Green Revolution: Economic Gains and Political Costs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)
80. Griffin, 1979, op. cit.
81. Harriss, 1987, op. cit.,
82. Terence Byres, "The Dialectic of India's Green Revolution," South Asian Review, 5, 2, 1972
83. Byres, 1981, op. cit.
84. Griffin, 1979, op. cit., p. 212.
85. For example, as Vandana Shiva argues, in India more than 200,000 varieties of rice were grown, but the monoculture of the Green Revolution destroyed many species. Only 17,000 now remain, and today, most Indian farmers grow just a few dozen varieties. Indian farmers also lost many varieties of wheat and now only grow a few varieties. See Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge: South End Press, 2000), pp. 80, 84.
86. See Vandana Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics (London: Zed Books, 1991)
87. Vandana Shiva, Monocultures of The Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology (London: Zed Books Ltd, 1993).
88. The usage of the term "Gene Revolution" has become more frequent since the 1990s, but it is difficult to trace the source of the term itself. See Govindan Payaril, "Mapping Technological Trajectories of the Green Revolution and the Gene Revolution from Modernization to Globalization," Research Policy, 32, 2003, pp. 975, 980.
89. The term "doubly green revolution" was coined by Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation. He used the term to refer to increases in production and productivity while conserving the environment by using Gene Revolution technologies. See Conway, 1998, op. cit.
90. Serageldin, 1999, op. cit., p. 387.
91. M.S. Swaminathan coined the term "evergreen revolution" referring to "sustainable advances in crop productivity per unit of land, water and time without associated ecological harm." M.S. Swaminathan, "Food Security and Sustainable Development," Current Science, 81, 8, 2001, p. 949.
92. Also see M.S. Swaminathan, "An Evergreen Revolution," Biologist, 47, 2, 2000, pp. 85-89.
93. M.S. Swaminathan, Sustainable Agriculture: Towards an Evergreen Revolution (New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1996).
94. Cary Fowler and Pat Mooney, The Threatened Gene: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1990), p. 140
95. See Gabrielle J. Persley, Beyond Mendel's Garden: Biotechnology in the Service of World Agriculture (Wallingford, UK: CABI publishing, 1990)
96. Qaim, 2001, op. cit., p. 3065.
97. Fowler and Mooney, 1990, op. cit., p. 141.
98. Qaim, 2001, op. cit., p. 3065.
99. Gyorgy Scrinis, "Colonizing the Seed," Arena Magazine, 36, 1998, p. 37.
100. Shiva, 2000, op. cit., p. 106.
101. Stephen Nottingham, Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering Our Diet (London and New York: Zed Books, 2003), p. 47.
102. Scrinis, 1998, op. cit., p. 37.
103. R.B. Barwale, "Bt Cotton: The View from MAHYCO," Current Science, 80, 3, 2001, p. 326.
104. Ibid., p. 326
105. Scrinis, 1998, op. cit., p. 37.
106. Ibid., p. 37.
107. Shiva, 2000, op. cit., p. 107.
108. Scrinis, 1998, op. cit., p. 37
109. Shiva, 2000, op. cit., p. 106.
110. Shiva, 2000, op. cit., p. 107.
111. Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard Lewontin quoted in David Goodman and Michael Redclift, Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology and Culture (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 104
112. Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere and Franck Seuret, Brave New Seeds: The Threat of GM Crops to Farmers (London and New York: Zed Books, 2000), p. 27
113. see also ETC Group, 2002, "Terminate Terminator," online at: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/terminatorbrochure02.pdf.
114. "Terminator Technology" (also called "Suicide Technology") refers to biotechnology tools that alter the seed and prevent it from giving rise to new life in the next generation. In other words, it takes away one of the primary use-values of the seeds - the ability to produce. The ETC Group (formerly RAFI, the Rural Advancement Foundation International) labeled this technological method "Terminator Technology" when a patent right (U.S. Patent Number 5,723,765: Control of Plant Gene Expression) was awarded in March 1998 to Delta and Pine Land Co. in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture. Delta and Pine Land was later purchased by Monsanto.
115. See Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Pat Mooney, "Terminator Technology: The Threat to World Food Security," The Ecologist, 28, 5, 1998, pp. 276-279.
116. De La Perrier and Seuret, 2000, op. cit.
117. Erosion, Technology, and Concentration Group, "Terminator Technology - Five Years Later," ETC Group Communiqué, 79, May/June 2003, pp. 1-10.
118. M.S. Swaminathan, "Farmers' Rights and Plant Genetic Resources," Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 36, 1988, p. 8.
119. Sachin Chaturvedi, Status and Development of Biotechnology in India: An Analytical Overview (New Delhi: Research and Information System for the Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries, Discussion Paper, 28, 2002), pp. 16-17.
120. Carl E. Pray, Bharat Ramaswami and Timothy Kelley, "The Impact of Economic Reforms on R&D by the Indian Seed Industry," Food Policy, 26, 6, 2001, p. 596.
121. Ian Scoones, Regulatory Maneuvers: The Bt Cotton Controversy in India, Working Paper, 197 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2003), p. 10.
122. C.H. Hanumantha Rao, "WTO and Viability of Indian Agriculture," Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 36, Sept. 8, 2001, p. 3455-3458
123. see Bharat Ramaswami, "Understanding the Seed Industry: Contemporary Trends and Analytical Issues," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 3, 2002, pp. 417-429
124. Bhagirath Choudhary and Gaurav Laroia, "Technological Developments and Cotton Production in India and China," Current Science, 80, 9, 2001, pp. 925-927.
125. Scoones, 2003, op. cit., p. 7
126. Bharathan, 2000, op. cit., p. 1068
127. P.K. Ghose, "Bt Cotton: Government Procedures," Current Science, 80, 3, 2001, p. 323.
128. C.R. Bhatia, "Bt Cotton in India," Current Science, 80, 3, 2001, pp. 321-322
129. Ghose, 2001, op. cit., p. 323.
130. Commenting on the partnership with Mahyco, Jack Kennedy (Monsanto's director of Product Development and Applied Genetics) said: "We propose to penetrate the Indian agriculture sector in a big way. Mahyco is a good vehicle." Quoted in Vandana Shiva, "Globalization and the Threat to Seed Security: Case of Transgenic Cotton Trial in India," Economic and Political Weekly, 34, 10, 1999, p. 601.
131. Vandana Shiva, Protect or Plunder?: Understanding Intellectual Property Rights (London and New York: Zed Books, 2001), p. 81.
132. Barwale, 2001, op. cit., p. 325.
133. Ibid., p. 325
134. Joel I. Cohen, "Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries - A Report from the Field," World Development, 32, 9, 2004, p. 1567.
135. Bharathan, 2000, op. cit., p. 1070.
136. De la Perriere and Seuret, 2000, op. cit., p. 63.
137. See http://home.ica.net/~fresch/ndp/monsant3.htm. Accessed on April 19, 2005.
138. Bharathan, 2000, op. cit., p. 1073.
139. Barwale, 2001, op. cit., p. 325
140. Matin Qaim, "Bt Cotton in India: Field Trial Results and Economic Projections," World Development, 31, 12, 2003, p. 2117.
141. See Barwale, 2001, op. cit.
142. Biswajit Dhar, "Regulations, Negotiations and Campaigns: Introducing Biotechnology into India," Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 47, 2001, pp. 19-21
143. Peter Newell, Biotech Firms, Biotech Politics: Negotiating GMOs in India, Working Paper 201 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2003)
144. Liz Orton, GM Crops: Going Against the Grain (London: Action Aid, 2003)
145. Scoones, 2003, op. cit.
146. In the first tier, the Institutional Biosafety Committee assesses the research proposals and decides whether to approve or reject them. In the second tier, the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) permits limited field trials and assesses them for farm health and environmental safety. In the third tier, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) conducts a more detailed environmental impact assessment, recommends multi-location field trials, and then decides whether the variety will be approved for commercial release.
147. Pallava Bagla, "Report Says India Needs Stronger, Independent Regulatory Body," Science, 304, 11, June 2004, p. 1579.
148. Robyn Eckersley, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2004), p. 77.
149. See http://www.makingindiagreen.org/btcotton.htm, accessed on April 2, 2005.
150. For a detailed account of the farmer suicides in India in general, and in Warangal district in particular, see Sunitha Anmangandla, "Rice or Cotton?: Socio-economic Causes and Consequences of the Agricultural Land Use Change in Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, India," MSc thesis, (Enschede, The Netherlands: International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences, 2001)
151. Center for Environmental Studies, Citizens' Report: Gathering Agrarian Crisis - Farmers' Suicides in Warangal District (A.P.) (Warangal: Center for Environmental Studies, 1998)
152. Glenn Davis Stone, "Biotechnology and Suicide in India," Anthropology News, 43, 5, 2002
153. P. Parthasarathy and Shameem, "Suicides of Cotton Farmers in Andhra Pradesh: An Exploratory Study," Economic and Political Weekly, 33, 13, 1998, pp. 720-726
154. E. Revathi, "Farmers' Suicide: Missing Issues," Economic and Political Weekly, 1998, 33, p. 1207
155. Usta Patnaik, Global Capitalism, Deflation and Agrarian Crisis in Developing Countries, Social Policy and Development, Program Paper Number, 15 (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 2003)
156. Vandana Shiva, 1999, op. cit., pp. 601-613.
157. Abdul Qayam and Kiran Sakkhari, "The Bt Gene Fails in India," Seedling, July 2003, p. 13.
158. Ibid., p. 13-17.
159. See Abdul Qayam and Kiran Sakkhari, Did Bt Cotton Fail Again in Andhra Pradesh? (Hyderabad: Deccan Development Society, 2004).
160. See "Bt Cotton Fails Yet Again in India - Farmers Go On Rampage," http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcide/4557, accessed on April 28, 2004.
161. Alan Dove, "Bt Resistance Plan Appraised," Nature Biotechnology, July 17, 1999, pp. 531-532
162. Glenn Davis Stone, "Biotechnology and the Political Ecology of Information in India," Human Organization, 63, 2, 2004, p. 134
163. Fred Gould, "Testing Bt Refuge Strategies in the Field," Nature Biotechnology, March 8, 2000, pp. 266
164. Shiva, 2000, op. cit., p. 107.
165. It should be noted that the definition of literacy in India is very liberal. A person who can read and write with understanding in any language is considered literate. He or she need not have received any formal education. In this context, literacy is not a good indicator to analyze the impact of the information gap between the laboratory and the field.
166. Patnaik, 2003, op. cit., p. 30.
167. Information gathered during the author's pilot field study between May-August 2004 in Warangal district.
168. See "Monsanto's Biggest Lie of the Century," www.ddsindia.com/ press_release1.htm, accessed on April 28, 2005.
169. See note 100.
170. Cohen, 2004, op. cit., p. 1567
171. Scoones, 2003, op. cit., p. 9.
172. Cohen, 2004, op. cit., p. 1567
173. K.S. Jayaraman, "Illicit GM Cotton Sparks Corporate Fury," Nature, 413, 6856, 2001, p. 555.
174. Quoted in Buttel, 2000, op. cit., p. 61.
175. Parayil, 2003, op. cit., p. 984.
176. Quoted in Shripad D. Deo and Louis E. Swanson, "Structure of Agricultural Research in the Third World," in R.C. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer and P.M. Rossett (eds.), Agroecology, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), p. 586.