Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe
Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe
复制标题
共存还是矛盾？
DOI：
10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.001
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
K. Boschert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Levidow;K. Boschert
农业生物技术（agbiotech）已经引起了关于“可持续农业”的更广泛的辩论，特别是在欧洲。农业生物技术最初被推广为一种替代方案，可以避免或解决过去集约农业的问题，但这种说法很快就受到了挑战。农业生物技术扩展了占主导地位的农业-工业范式，而批评者则反对以农业为基础的农村发展范式。在20世纪90年代末关于环境和健康风险的争论中，出现了一个额外的问题-转基因材料将无意中与非转基因作物混合的前景。作为回应，欧盟委员会制定了转基因、常规和有机作物“共存”的政策框架。这项政策的目的是确保农民可以自由选择不同的生产系统，这些系统将同时发展，但关于共存规则的具体建议有利于某些选择而不是其他选择。根据不同的政策议程，这些规则受到了质疑，每一个都促进了他们未来农业的模式。此外，一个欧洲范围的区域当局网络已将“无转基因区”作为绿色、本地化、高质量农业食品生产的区域品牌加以推广，其多样性取决于象征性的、非物质的特征。这一替代方案与全球商品的农业工业生产形成了对立--以欧盟为代表，特别是其内部市场的产品授权程序。“共存”政策的目的是调解转基因作物的政策冲突，但它已成为另一个竞技场的竞争农业系统，这可能不会那么容易在实践中共存。在以农业为基础的农村发展模式获得当地支持的地方，其替代农业与转基因作物相互矛盾，而不是共存。
Agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) has intersected with a wider debate about ‘sustainable agriculture’, especially in Europe. Agbiotech was initially promoted as an alternative which would avoid or remedy past problems of intensive agriculture, but such claims were soon challenged. Agbiotech has extended the dominant agri-industrial paradigm, while critics have counterposed alternatives corresponding to an agrarian-based rural development paradigm. Amid controversy over environmental and health risks in the late 1990s, an extra issue emerged − the prospect that genetically modified (GM) material would become inadvertently mixed with non-GM crops. In response the European Commission developed a policy framework for ‘coexistence’ between GM, conventional and organic crops. This policy has aimed to ensure that farmers can freely choose among different production systems, which would develop side by side, yet specific proposals for coexistence rules favour some choices over others. Such rules have been contested according to different policy agendas, each promoting their model of future agriculture. Moreover, a Europe-wide network of regional authorities has promoted ‘GM-free zones’ as a territorial brand for green, localised, high-quality agri-food production, whose diverse qualities depend upon symbolic, immaterial characteristics. This alternative has been counterposed to the agri-industrial production of global commodities – symbolised by the European Union, especially its product authorisation procedure for the internal market. ‘Coexistence’ policy was intended to mediate policy conflicts over GM crops, yet it has become another arena for contending agricultural systems, which may not so readily co-exist in practice. Wherever an agrarian-based rural development paradigm gains local support, its alternative agricultures are in contradiction rather than coexistence with GM crops.