Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of "contaminated" Mexican maize

Agriculture and Human Values

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 505-517

  Kinchy, Abby J ^a  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Culture; Expertise; Maize; Mexico; Scientization; Social movements

Indexed keywords

ZEA MAYS;

EID: 78650019208     PISSN: 0889048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10460-009-9253-2     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Abels, G. 2002. Experts, citizens, and Eurocrats: Towards a policy shift in the governance of biopolitics in the EU. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 6. http://eiop. or. at/eiop/texte/2002-019a. htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.
2. AFP y Notimex. 2005. Pide México oficialmente reconocer su cocina como patrimonio universal. La Jornada (Mexico City), 20 September. http://www. jornada. unam. mx/2005/09/20/a03n1gas. php. Accessed 5 June 2007.
3. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Trans: Ritter, M.). London: Sage (Originally published in 1986).
4. Bellon, M. R., and J. Berthaud. 2006. Traditional Mexican agricultural systems and the potential impacts of transgenic varieties on maize diversity. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 3-14.
5. Benveniste, G. 1973. The politics of expertise. London: Glendessary Press.
6. Brown, P., and E. J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7. Brown, P., S. Zavestoski, S. McCormick, B. Mayer, R. Morello-Frosch, and R. G. Altman. 2004. Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(1): 50-80.
8. Bullard, R. D. (ed.). 2005. The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
9. Busch, L. 2000. The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 273-283.
10. Buttel, F. H. 2005. The environmental and post-environmental politics of genetically modified crops and foods. Environmental Politics 14(3): 309-323.
11. Christou, P. 2002. Editorial: No credible scientific evidence is presented to support claims that transgenic DNA was introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Transgenic Research 11(1): iii-v.
12. Corburn, J. 2003. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making-improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22(4): 420-433.
13. Corburn, J. 2005. Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Corburn, J. 2007. Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science and Policy 10(2): 150-161.
15. Couch, S. R., and S. Kroll-Smith. 2000. Environmental movements and expert knowledge: Evidence for a new populism. In Illness and the environment: A reader in contested medicine. New York: New York University Press.
16. Cruz Bárcenas, A. 2005. Fallo en contra de la comida mexicana como patrimonio de la humanidad, La Jornada (Mexico City), 26 November. http://www. jornada. unam. mx/2005/11/26/a10n1gas. php. Accessed 5 June 2007.
17. Dalton, R. 2001. Transgenic corn found growing in Mexico. Nature 413(6854): 337.
18. Delborne, J. A. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: Scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4): 509-541.
19. Driedger, S. M., and J. Eyles. 2001. Organochlorines and breast cancer: The uses of scientific evidence in claimsmaking. Social Science and Medicine 52(10): 1589-1605.
20. Dryzek, J. S., and A. Tucker. 2008. Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review 68(5): 864-876.
21. Einsiedel, E. F., E. Jelsoe, and T. Breck. 2001. Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 83-98.
22. Elam, M., and M. Bertilsson. 2003. Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6(2): 233-251.
23. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24. Espeland, W. N. 1998. The struggle for water: Politics, rationality, and identity in the American Southwest. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
25. Esteva, G., and C. Marielle. 2003. Sin maíz no hay país. Mexico City, Mexico: Museo Nacional de Culturas Populares.
26. ETC Group. 2003a. Nine Mexican States found to be GM contaminated (News release 9 October) at http://www. etcgroup. org/en/materials/publications. html?id=145. Accessed 28 June 2007.
27. ETC Group. 2003b. Open letter from international civil society organizations on transgenic contamination in the centers of origin and diversity, to the Mexican government and the international community. 19 November. http://www. etcgroup. org/en/materials/publications. html?pub_id=139. Accessed 24 June 2007.
28. ETC Group. 2005. The genetic shell game, or now you see it! Now you don't! (News release 11 August) http://www. etcgroup. org/upload/publication/50/01/etcmaizenrfinal. pdf. Accessed 28 June 2007.
29. Ezcurra, E., and J. Soberón Mainero. 2002. Evidence of gene flow from transgenic maize to local varieties in Mexico. In LMOs and the Environment: Proceedings of an International Conference, ed. OECD, 289-295.
30. Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts and the environment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31. Fitting, E. 2006. Importing corn, exporting labor: The neoliberal corn regime, GMOs, and the erosion of Mexican biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 15-26.
32. Frickel, S., and K. Moore (eds.). 2006. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
33. González, R. J. 2001. Zapotec science: Farming and food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca. Austin: University of Texas Press.
34. González Aguirre, R. L. 2004. La biotecnología agrícola en México: efectos de la propiedad intelectual y la bioseguridad. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
35. Greenpeace Mexico. 2001a. Boletín 0174: México, primer centro de origen de un cultivo contaminado por maíz transgénico; exige Greenpeace aplicar un plan de emergencia. Mexico City, 11 September.
36. Greenpeace Mexico. 2001b. Boletín 0194: Científicos de todo el mundo llaman a tomar medidas para detener la contaminación genética del maíz mexicano. Mexico City, 29 November.
37. Greenpeace Mexico, et al. 2001. Letter to Javier Usabiaga, Victor Lichtinger, Julio Frenk, Reyes Tamez, Francisco Gil, Luis Ernesto Dérbez, and Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, dated 4 October 2001. Mexico City: Archive, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales.
38. Gupta, A., and R. Falkner. 2006. The influence of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics 6(4): 23-55.
39. Guston, D. H. 1999. Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science Technology & Human Values 24(4): 451-482.
40. Habermas, J. 1970. Toward a rational society; student protest, science, and politics (Trans: Shapiro, J. J.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press (Original published 1968).
41. Hatanaka, M., and L. Busch. 2008. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system: An objective or socially mediated governance mechanism? Sociologia Ruralis 48: 73-91.
42. Heller, C. 2001. From risk to globalization: Discursive shifts in the French debate about GMOs. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15(1): 25-28.
43. Heller, C. 2004. Risky science and savoir-faire: Peasant expertise in the French Debate over genetically modified crops. In The politics of food, ed. B. Lien, and M. Nerlid. New York, NY: Berg.
44. Hess, D. J. 2009. The potentials and limitations of civil society research: Getting undone science done. Sociological Inquiry 79(3): 306-327.
45. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
46. James, C. 2006. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006, 35 ed, ISAAA. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
47. Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Judgment under siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific Advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 209-224. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
49. Joss, S. 2005. Between policy and politics, or: Whatever do weapons of mass destruction have to do With GM crops? The UK's GM nation debate as an example of participatory governance. In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 171-187. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
50. Khagram, S. 2004. Dams and development: Transnational struggles for water and power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
51. Kinchy, A. J., and D. L. Kleinman. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33(6): 869-896.
52. Kinchy, A. J., D. L. Kleinman, and R. Autry. 2008. Against free markets, against science? Regulating the socio-economic effects of biotechnology. Rural Sociology 73(2): 147-179.
53. Kleinman, D. L. (ed.). 2000. Science, technology and democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
54. Kleinman, D. L., and A. J. Kinchy. 2003a. Boundaries in science policy making: Bovine growth hormone in the European Union. The Sociological Quarterly 44(4): 577-595.
55. Kleinman, D. L., and A. J. Kinchy. 2003b. Why ban bovine growth hormone? Science, social welfare, and the divergent biotech policy landscapes in Europe and the United States. Science as Culture 12(3): 375-414.
56. Kleinman, D. L., and A. J. Kinchy. 2007. Against the neoliberal steamroller? The biosafety protocol and the social regulation of agricultural biotechnologies. Agriculture and Human Values 24(2): 195-206.
57. Lapp, R. E. 1965. The new priesthood: The scientific elite and the uses of power. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
58. Leach, M., I. Scoones, and B. Wynne (eds.). 2005. Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
59. Levidow, L. 1998. Democratizing technology-or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Technology in Society 20(2): 211-226.
60. Levidow, L. 2001. The GM crops debate: Utilitarian bioethics? Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 12(1(45)): 44-55.
61. Levidow, L., J. Murphy, and S. Carr. 2007. Recasting "substantial equivalence"-transatlantic governance of GM food. Science Technology and Human Values 32(1): 26-64.
62. Leydesdorff, L., and J. Ward. 2005. Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science 14(4): 353-372.
63. Maasen, S., and P. Weingart (eds.). 2005a. Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 24. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
64. Maasen, S., and P. Weingart. 2005b. What's new in scientific advice to politics? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. S. Maasen, and P. Weingart, 1-20. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
65. Massieu Trigo, Y. C., and A. San Vicente Tello. 2006. El proceso de aprobación de la ley de bioseguridad: política a la mexicana e interés nacional. El Cotidiano 21(136): 39-51.
66. McAfee, K. 2008. Beyond techno-science: Transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico's future. Geoforum 39: 148-160.
67. McCormick, S. 2007. Democratizing science movements: A new framework for mobilization and contestation. Social Studies of Science 37(4): 609-623.
68. Moore, K. 2006. Powered by the people: Scientific authority in participatory science. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 299-323. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
69. Morello-Frosch, R., S. Zavestoski, P. Brown, R. G. Altman, S. McCormick, and B. Mayer. 2006. Embodied health movements: Responses to a 'scientized' world. In The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, ed. S. Frickel, and K. Moore, 244-271. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
70. Morton, R. (2005). Mexican government studies on transgenes in Mexican maize? AgBioView 1 November. http://www. agbioworld. org/newsletter_wm/index. php?caseid=archive& newsid=2435. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.
71. Nadal, A. 2006a. Mexico's corn-producing sector: A commentary. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 33-36.
72. Nadal, A. 2006b. Ventana de oportunidad. La Jornada (Mexico City) 18 October. http://www. jornada. unam. mx/2006/10/18/033a1eco. php. Accessed 6 June 2007.
73. Noble, D. 1977. America by design. New York, NY: Knopf.
74. Norrell, B. (2006). Annual World Water Forum disappointing to indigenous. Indian Country Today 10 April. http://www. indiancountry. com/content. cfm?id=1096412796. Accessed 3 June 2007.
75. Ortiz-Garcia, S., E. Ezcurra, B. Schoel, F. Acevedo, J. Soberon, and A. A. Snow. 2005. Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003-2004). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 12338-12343.
76. Pineyro-Nelson, A., J. van Heerwaarden, H. R. Perales, et al. 2009. Transgenes in Mexican maize: Molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Molecular Ecology 18: 750-761.
77. Powell, M. C., and M. Colin. 2008. Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology-what would it really take? Science Communication 30(1): 126-136.
78. Prakash, C. S. (2005). Duh... No GM genes in Mexican corn. AgBioView 9 August. http://www. agbioworld. org/newsletter_wm/index. php?caseid=archive& newsid=2398. Accessed 14 Oct 2008.
79. Price, D. K. 1965. The scientific estate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80. Quist, D., and I. H. Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414: 541-543.
81. Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7(5): 385-403.
82. Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and technology, the conduct of science series. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
83. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2004. Maize and biodiversity: The effects of transgenic maize in Mexico. Montreal, Canada: Communications Department of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
84. Snow, C. P. 1961. Science and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
85. Soleri, D., and D. A. Cleveland. 2006. Transgenic maize and Mexican maize diversity: Risky synergy? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 27-31.
86. Weingart, P. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26: 151-161.
87. Woodhouse, E., D. Hess, S. Breyman, and B. Martin. 2002. Science studies and activism: Possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 297-319.
88. Yearley, S. 1992. Green ambivalence about science: Legal-rational authority and the scientific legitimation of a social movement. The British Journal of Sociology 43(4): 511-532.
89. Yoon, C. K. 2001. Genetic modification taints corn in Mexico. The New York Times, October 2, F7.