Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been at the centre of passionate debates in recent years, about their safety, their political economic impact and arguably as a litmus test for broader discourses about development. In India, this debate, focusing on Bt cotton, and more recently on Bt eggplant (brinjal), has been particularly vociferous. This article adds context to the debate by showing how rival perspectives on the role of GMOs in economic development have found differing channels of influence and support, many of them transnational in nature. Drawing on interviews with participants in India, from all sides of the argument—non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research, private and governmental sectors—this article argues that a ‘third’ perspective on the introduction of GMOs, that of ‘equitable development’, has been eclipsed by the transnational resources and media presence of both ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ stances. This article therefore aims to link the study of transnational advocacy with the political economy of development, a link which has not been apparent in much recent literature on advocacy networks.
AssadiM. H. (1997). Peasant movement in Karnataka: 1980–1994. New Delhi: Shipra Publications.
2.
BernsteinH. (2014). Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: A skeptical view. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1031–1063.
3.
BorrasS. (2008). La via campesina and its global campaign for agrarian reform. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2), 258–289.
4.
DesmaraisA. (2007). La via campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. London: Pluto Press.
5.
EntineJ. (Ed.). (2006). Let them eat precaution: How politics is undermining the genetic revolution in agriculture. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
6.
European Commission (EC). (2010). A decade of EU funded GMO research, 2001–2010. Luxembourg: Public Office of the European Union.
7.
FeatherstoneD. (2008). Resistance, space and political identities: The making of counter-global networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
GruereG.SenguptaD. (2011). Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: An evidence based assessment. Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), 316–337.
9.
GuptaD. (2004). How rural is rural India? Rethinking options for farming and farmers. In RayShovan (Ed.), Handbook of agriculture in India (pp. 207–231). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
10.
HeinsV. (2008). Nongovernmental organizations in international society: Struggles over recognition. New York, NY: Palgrave.
11.
HerringR. J. (2005). Miracle seeds, suicide seeds, and the poor: GMOs, NGOs, farmers and the state. In RayRakaKatzensteinMary (Eds), Social movements in India (pp. 203–233). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
12.
HerringR. J. (2014). State science, risk and agricultural biotechnology: Bt cotton to Bt brinjal in India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(1), 159–186.
13.
HerringR. J.RaoC. (2012). On the failure of Bt cotton: Analyzing a decade of experience. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(18), 45–54.
14.
HIVOS. (2008). Annual report for the years 2006 and 2007. Bangalore: HIVOS.
15.
HossainF.PrayC. E.LuY.HuangJ.FanC.HuR. (2004). GM cotton and farmers’ health in China: An econometric analysis of the relationship between pesticide poisoning and GM cotton use in China. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 10(3), 307–314.
16.
JodhkaS. S. (2007). Who will speak for the village? Agrarian change and marginalizing ruralities in contemporary India (Occasional Paper Series). India: University of Pune.
17.
JoshiS. (2010). Down to earth. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
18.
KloppenburgJ. R. (2004). First to seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
19.
KohliA. (2012). Poverty amid plenty in the new India. London: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KurugantiK. (2006). Biosafety and beyond: GM crops in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(40), 4245–4249.
21.
LiptonMichael. (1977). Why poor people stay poor: Urban bias and world development. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
LiptonMichael. (2007). Plant breeding and poverty: Can transgenic seeds replicate the ‘Green Revolution’ as a source of gains for the poor?Journal of Development Studies, 43(1), 31–62.
23.
MadsenS. T. (2001). The view from Vevey. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(39), 3733–3743.
McMichaelP. (2008). Peasants make their own history, but not just as they please. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2), 205–228.
26.
MenskiM. (2005). Reterritorialising transnational corporate hegemony: The geopolitics of agribiotechnology and the regulatory role of the state in India (PhD Thesis). University of London: University of London Library, Senate House.
27.
Motta R. (2014). Social disputes over GMOs: An overview. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1360–1376.
28.
NaikG.QaimM.SubramaniamA.ZilbermanD. (2005). Bt cotton controversy: Some paradoxes explained. Economic and Political Weekly, 14(15), 1514–1517.
29.
NandaM. (2003). Prophets facing backward: Postmodern critiques of science and Hindu nationalism in India. New York, NY: Rutgers University Press.
30.
NewellP. (2007). Biotech firms, biotech politics: Negotiating GMOs in India. Journal of Environment and Development, 16(2), 183–206.
31.
OmvedtG. (1995). ‘We want the return for our sweat’: The new peasant movement in India and the formation of a national agricultural policy. In BrassTom (Ed.), New farmers’ movements in India (pp. 126–165). London: Frank Cass.
32.
Oxfam Great Britain. (1999). Genetically modified crops, world trade and food security (Position Paper). Oxford: Oxfam Great Britain.
33.
PaiS. (2010). Farmers’ movements. In JayalN.MehtaP. (Eds), The Oxford companion to politics in India (pp. 391–408). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
PattendenJ. (2005). Trickle-down solidarity, globalisation and dynamics of social transformation in a South Indian village. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(19), 1975–1985.
35.
PearsonM. (2006). ‘Science’, representation and resistance: The Bt cotton debate in Andhra Pradesh, India. The Geographical Journal, 172(4), 306–317.
36.
PeckJ.TheodoreN.BrennerN. (2012). Neoliberalism resurgent? Market rule after the Great Recession. South Atlantic Quarterly, 111(2), 265–288.
37.
PurkayasthaP.RathS. (2010). Bt brinjal: Need to refocus the debate. Economic and Political Weekly, 65(20), 42–48.
38.
RamannaA. (2006). India’s policy on genetically modified crops. Asia Research Centre Working Paper 15, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 4January2014, from www.lse.ac.uk/collections/asiaResearchCentre
39.
RoyD. (2010). Of choices and dilemmas: Bt cotton and self-identified organic cotton farmers in Gujarat. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 12(1), 51–79.
40.
RoyT.BorowiakC. (2003). Against eco-feminism: Agrarian populism and the splintered subject in rural India. Alternatives, 28(1), 5701–5089.
41.
SahaiS. (1997). The bogus debate on bioethics. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 30(1), 24–28.
42.
SahaiS. (2004). Genetically modified crops in India: Some issues-II. New Delhi: Gene Campaign.
43.
SchurmanR.MunroW. (2010). Fighting for the future of food: Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
44.
ScoonesI. (2006). Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: The case of biotechnology in India. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
45.
SenA. (2013). An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. New York, NY: Princeton University Press.
46.
ShahA.Harris-WhiteB. (2011). Resurrecting scholarship on agrarian transformations. Economic and Political Weekly,46(39), 13–18.
47.
ShahE. (2005). Local and global elites join hands: Development and diffusion of Bt cotton technology in Gujarat. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(43),4629–4640.
48.
ShahE. (2011). ‘Science’ in the risk politics of Bt brinjal. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(31), 31–39.
49.
ShrivastavaA.KothariA. (2012). Churning the earth: The making of global India. New Delhi: Penguin.
50.
SmithJ. (2008). Social movements for global democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
51.
StoneG. (2007). Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology, 48(1), 67–103.
52.
VakulabharanamV.MoitiramS. (2011). Political economy of rural distress in India since the 1990’s. In RuparaliaS.ReddyS. (Eds), Understanding India’s new political economy: A great transformation? (pp. 101–127). London: Routledge.
