4.2 Article

The troubled relationship between GMOs and beekeeping: an exploration of socioeconomic impacts in Spain and Uruguay

Journal

AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
Volume 43, Issue 5, Pages 546-578

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2018.1514678

Keywords

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); beekeeping; European honey directive; Spain; Uruguay

Funding

  1. Norges Forskningsradet [231146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There has been a persistent conflict over agricultural biotechnology, and existing governance institutions relying on traditional processes of scientific risk assessment have failed to address the sociopolitical dimensions of this disagreement. Although there are demands to incorporate socioeconomic impact (SEI) assessment into regulatory deliberations, these often neglect to look beyond the technology in isolation to also include the networks of relations agricultural biotechnologies require and create. This paper argues that understanding the impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivation requires attentiveness to the operational context of the technology as well as a wide range of actors and potential pathways of harm. In order to do this and contribute new empirical research, this paper adopts a system-based perspective and focuses on socioeconomic impacts for a particular actor that is both critically important and highly vulnerable for sustainable agri-food systems: beekeepers. The paper explores the European Court of Justice ruling on the contamination of beehive products with GMOs. It then describes consequent legislative developments and the socioeconomic impacts observed in the wake of this in both Spain and Uruguay. The paper documents the distributive injustice being experienced by beekeepers and highlights the significance of assessing socioeconomic considerations from a systems-based understanding of agriculture and biotechnologies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available