Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Geoforum 39 (2008) 145–147

Editorial

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the future of rural spaces

The introduction of genetically modified seeds and cropshas given rise to substantial public debate, with proponentsand opponents taking increasingly fixed positions over theadvantages and disadvantages of GM introduction. Publiccontroversies over the introduction of GMOs in the formof seeds and crops continue to ebb and flow, with an un-easy stand-off between the two sides. Despite the obviousfact that GM crops are, by definition, grown in rural areas,there has been relatively little research work that examinesthe implications of this new technological development forrural spaces. Some commentators have posited an explicittension between the type of high tech, intensive agricultureepitomised by the adoption of GMOs and alternative ruraldevelopment/multifunctional land uses examined in a largerange of studies on organics, short-food chains, qualityfood production etc. (e.g., Buller and Morris, 2004; Mars-den, 2003; Marsden and Sonnino, 2005; Maye et al., 2007;McCarthy, 2005; Renting et al., 2003; Sonnino and Mars-den, 2006). However, an argument could also be made thatGMOs are not inherently inconsistent with the latter formof the rural development model. The session at the RoyalGeographical Society-Institute of British Geographers(RGS-IBG) Conference in 2005, where the six papers inthis special issue were originally presented, sought to ex-plore the impact that GMOs are having on rural spacesand to examine whether the adoption of GM technologyhelps to secure or undermine rural futures.

Biotechnology will have important implications for thefuture of rural places and the debates about GMOs exposeconceptions of what the future should hold. These debates,for example, reveal different constructions of rural sustain-ability, with advocates of GMOs emphasising their poten-tial to improve the economic viability of farms throughcompetitive efficiency, based on an ability to provide stan-dardised food and fibre products at reduced costs and withless risk. An alternative conception, embedded in many ofthe arguments against GMOs, is based on constructions ofrural futures that feature local production systems, ‘cleanand green’ production, and short-food chains. Of concernto the opponents of GMOs is that it may not be possiblefor GM and non-GM futures to coexist in spatial proxim-

0016-7185/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright � 2007 Published by Elsevie

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.06.006

ity, because of the risk of accidental contamination andcross-fertilisation. Moreover, the prospective irreversibilityof agricultural biotechnology means that any decisionshave temporally indefinite consequences. Thus, as we sug-gest in our own paper later in this volume, rural futuresmay be characterised by increased differentiation amongcommodity sectors and between large and small farms, spa-tial differentiation between GM and non-GM areas, andsocial tensions between GM and non-GM producers.

The first two papers of this selection from the RGS-IBGmeeting focus upon the national scale and national policyregimes to regulate GMOs. McAfee in a study of food sov-ereignty and GM maize argues that the mutually con-structed ecological, economic and cultural characteristicsof maize have become central to objections concerningGM crops in Mexico – counter to arguments from transna-tional corporations and US officials based on ‘sound sci-ence’. In Mexico, peasant and indigenous organisationshave used contamination by US-grown transgenic maizeand questions about food sovereignty as a means to expresswider discontent over Mexico’s incorporation into theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) andthe impact this has had on rural spaces within Mexico.McAfee argues that in the global South anti-GM attitudesare often a proxy for concerns over greater trade and agri-cultural liberalisation and national autonomy. Contrary tothe image of rural futures shaped by agro-food globalisa-tion, discourses of food sovereignty posit a future for ruralspaces based on small-scale peasant and indigenous pro-ducers. She suggests that the battle over transgenic cropsis an important part, but just one aspect, of a clash ofcontrasting agricultural paradigms and development path-ways. Cocklin, Dibden and Gibbs study the ways in whichthe regulation and governance of GMOs in Australia andthe United Kingdom (UK) has involved governments atnational and sub-national levels in attempts to mediatethe debates and manage the associated risks associatedwith the introduction of GM crops. While both nation-states have similar systems of governance and regulation,there have been important differences in both the styleand content of the policy debates in the two countries.

r Ltd. All rights reserved.

146 Editorial / Geoforum 39 (2008) 145–147

Both national governments remain committed to a ‘bio-technology future’ as a key part of moves towards develop-ing the knowledge economy, despite opposition from boththeir general publics and particular sub-national areas –notably Wales in the UK and Tasmania in Australia – thatposit rural futures associated with ‘clean and green’ pro-duction. The problem, that makes a resolution difficult toachieve, is that it may not be possible to keep the way openfor both GM and alternative futures. The most likely out-come is that the non-GM producers will suffer and thatbiotechnology will have a key role in defining the futureof rural spaces. Cocklin and colleagues suggest that suchfutures may be characterised by increased differentiationbetween commodity sectors and between large and smallfarms, as well as spatial differentiation between GM andnon-GM areas.

This theme of GM versus non-GM futures is furtherdeveloped in the next two papers by Marsden and by Lev-idow and Boschert, both of which focus on the possibilitiesfor the future of rural spaces. Terry Marsden outlines threecompeting rural development paradigms – agri-industrial,post-productivist and rural development. He argues thatthe entry of GMOs into rural spaces appears to have inten-sified the divisions and contradictions between these ruralparadigms. In particular, GMOs provide a scientific, envi-ronmental and regulatory basis for new rounds of capitalaccumulation, concentration and transnationalisation ofthe agri-industrial system. Marsden suggests that GMcould be seen as a palliative for the problems of the dom-inant agro-industrial model of agri-food development.However, GM also provides the opportunity to create anoppositional base upon which a more sustainable ruraldevelopment paradigm could be constructed. Marsden’snotion of rural spaces becoming a ‘‘regulatory battle-ground’’ is developed further in the paper by Levidowand Boschert, who investigate European Union policyframeworks and the co-existence of GM with both conven-tional and organic crops. They suggest that the question ofco-existence has become a site where Marsden’s contendingpolicy agendas clash, with the neo-liberal agri-industrialparadigm being challenged by an agrarian-based ruraldevelopment paradigm that sees the source of rural com-petitiveness in quality products and organic farming. Intheir terms, rural space has become ‘‘a battlefield of knowl-edge, authority and regulation’’ as legislators, regulatorsand agbiotech promoters and opponents express contestingviews on the potential for co-existence of GM with non-GM conventional and organic crops. Drawing on empiricalwork in the EU, they show how certain regions and nation-states have mounted a challenge to the neo-liberal, agro-industrial paradigm and the difficulties this has raised forEU policy.

Two papers by Hall and Russell both focus specificallyupon the impacts (potential and real) upon rural communi-ties and, especially, farmers. Hall argues that farmers arethe one stakeholder group who have been largely absentfrom the pro- and anti-GM debate. Accordingly, she

focuses on Scottish farmers’ attitudes to, and perceptionsof, GM crops using Q methodology. Her research revealsthat farmers are concerned about a range of issues thatmight arise from the introduction of GM crops and havea good awareness of the potential benefits and risks. Shegroups farmers into three main groups: ‘benefit believers’,‘risk perceivers’ and ‘fatalists’. However, few of her farm-ing respondents had a clear commitment to being eitherpro- or anti-GM, rather they felt that they would be drivenin their decision making by the demands of the market andthe reaction of the public. In contrast to the rest of the pa-pers, Russell, in a study of GM cotton use in New SouthWales, Australia, considers the potential of GM technol-ogy to contribute towards more sustainable agricultureand the complicated social effects involved. Russell sug-gests that GM technologies have the capacity to contributeto transformations that are beneficial by virtue of their bio-logical embeddedness. The actual outcomes are a productof the ‘mutual shaping’ of the technology and its context,as well as the type of GM technology involved. In the caseof Bt cotton, there have been environmental benefits andless chemical use whereas, for Roundup Ready cotton,farmers have not escaped the ‘agro-chemical treadmill’,even though there have been benefits in simplified weedmanagement regimes and improved soil and water conser-vation strategies. However, Russell argues that overall thedominance of a neo-liberal agenda and global industrialinterests limit the possibilities for beneficial transforma-tions and thus help to polarise further the GM debate.

A common theme running through this set of papers isthat the role of culture in determining attitudes to GM iscrucial, even though official debates are often couched inthe language of ‘sound GM science’. Thus, whether it isMcAfee’s argument that we need to consider the impor-tance of maize to peasant and national identities, Cocklin,Dibden and Gibbs’s outline of the differences between Aus-tralian and UK regulatory systems, or Levidow and Buc-hert’s analysis of different national and sub-nationalresponses to the co-existence debate, it is evident that thefuture of rural spaces has as much to do with differing cul-tural responses to GMOs and possible rural futures as ithas to do with economic and technical arguments. Under-standing the foundations of the debate is important, be-cause the necessary decisions about GM technology placeus at an important crossroads in respect of rural futures.Thus, we can anticipate one future in which productionsystems (crops and management approaches) are increas-ingly differentiated spatially, which may preserve the choicefor producers to be GM or non-GM. An alternative futureenvisages the prospect that this choice may be precluded.As we have suggested above, it is reasonably likely thatGM and non-GM production systems will not be able tocoexist over any length of time. The risk in this situationis born by/displaced to those who would prefer non-GMproduction. There are attendant implications for consum-ers, for whom the choice would also be removed. Anunderlying tension for many farmers is that GM choices

Editorial / Geoforum 39 (2008) 145–147 147

constitute a perceived decision about their sustainability.To some, their future is constructed around a vision ofthe better yields, lower costs and reduced risks that theyassociate with GM technology. It is a future that is typi-cally associated with bulk production for undifferentiatedmarkets. Other producers conceive of a future that featuresniche production and market differentiation, with the ap-peal to consumers expressed in the appellations of ‘cleanand green’ and ‘GM-free’. Whether and in what form wecan have rural futures that provide space for both visionsis an intriguing question, which presents both significantimplications for society at large and interesting challengesfor science and agricultural policy.

References

Buller, H., Morris, C., 2004. Growing goods: the market, the state andsustainable food production. Environment and Planning A 36, 1065–1084.

Marsden, T., 2003. The Condition of Rural Sustainability. Royal VanGorcum, Assen.

Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2005. Rural development and agri-foodgovernance in Europe: tracing the development of alternatives. In:Higgins, V., Lawrence, G. (Eds.), Agricultural Governance: Global-ization and the New Politics of Regulation. Routledge, Abingdon, pp.50–68.

Maye, D., Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (Eds.), 2007. Alternative FoodGeographies: Representation and Practice. Elsevier, Oxford.

McCarthy, J., 2005. Rural geography: Multifunctional rural geographies –reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography 29, 773–782.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative foodnetworks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in ruraldevelopment. Environment and Planning A 35, 393–411.

Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., 2006. Beyond the divide: rethinking relation-ships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe.Journal of Economic Geography 6, 181–199.

David GibbsDepartment of Geography,

University of Hull,

Hull, HU67RX,

United Kingdom

Chris CocklinFaculty of Science, Engineering and IT,

James Cook University,

Townsville,

QLD 4811,

Australia

Jacqui DibdenSchool of Geography and Environmental Science,

P.O. Box 11A,

Monash University,Victoria 3800,

Australia