No alternative? The politics and history of non-GMO certification

Roff, Robin Jane

doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9166-5

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If you and/or your students choose to test GMOs, we encourage you to also include a discussion of mechanistic reasons why specific GMO food could be harmful (e.g., Nordlee et al 1996), protective (e.g., Dowd 2000;Singh and Bhalla 2008;Jean-Yves et al 2017), or neither (e.g., Snell et al 2012) as well as larger questions such as the idea of what is "natural" in the context of transgenics and engineered food (e.g., Dubcovsky and Dvorak 2007;Pace et al 2008;Hehemann et al 2010;Kyndt et al 2015;Soucy et al 2015) and some of the social issues involved (e.g., McGray 2002;Enserink 2008;Stone 2010;Lynas 2013;Fischer et al 2015). This also has implications for the GMO labeling debate (e.g., Roff 2009;Prentice 2018), which is also an appropriate point to discuss in the classroom.…”

Section: Supplemental Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oncofly: A CURE for Cancer

Reed

Couet

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE’s) are emerging as a means to engage large numbers of undergraduate students in meaningful inquiry-based research activities. We describe here a simple laboratory exercise as part of an undergraduate genetics course that illustrates the contributions of oncogenes and tumor suppressors to the formation of neoplasms in an invertebrate model system. In addition, students were challenged to investigate whether flies reared on a diet containing a variety of additives display a higher number of invasive tumors in the larval abdomen.The goal of the exercise was to (i) familiarize students with the multigenic origin of the cancer phenotype, to (ii) introduce some of the fundamental molecular cancer hallmarks, and to (iii) highlight the significance of invertebrate model systems in biomedical research. Furthermore, (iv) students learn to execute a molecular test for transgenic produce and (v) apply statistical tools to test a simple hypothesis.We evaluated student learning and changes in opinions and attitudes relating to environmental versus genetic causes of cancer and several common misconceptions using a questionnaire before and after completing the exercise.Overall, significant improvements in the rate of factually correct responses and reductions in uncertainty were demonstrated. Although resistance to change was apparent in regard to identifying some risk factors, there was clear learning and understanding of the core concepts of carcinogenesis and the utility of basic research with model organisms.

show abstract

Section: Supplemental Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oncofly: A CURE for Cancer

Reed

Couet

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success of the anti-GMO campaign in raising consumer awareness around food labeling, and the state's unwillingness to respond, provided an opportunity for nonstate actors to help fill the void. One of the most prominent nonstate actors involved in GMO labeling is the Non-GMO project and its label, Non-GMO Project Verified, that emerged in the U.S. market in 2010 (Roff, 2008;Bain and Selfa, 2017). The Non-GMO Project (2020) has grown tremendously over the last 10 years, and by 2021, over 3,000 brands and 50,000 products are certified by the Non-GMO Project, worth over $26B in sales.…”

Section: Background: State and Nonstate Governance Of Geaf In The United Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Selfa

Lindberg

Bain

2021

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biotechnologies in agriculture and food are increasingly governed by both state and nonstate actors. In this article, we explore emerging tensions and contestations in the United States over how gene-editing technologies in agriculture and food should be governed and by whom. This article is framed theoretically by the literatures examining the politics of state and nonstate governance of the agrifood and biotechnology sectors. We draw on semistructured interviews with 45 key actors in the United States, including representatives of regulatory agencies, commodity groups, consumer and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), biotechnology and food industry, and scientists. In contrast to assumptions that commodity group and industry actors would share a preference for limited or self-regulation, we find growing contestations, with some calling for novel forms of regulatory oversight. Our findings reveal new tensions, fractures, and realignments between and among government, industry, and NGOs actors over gene-editing governance. These tensions and realignments reflect and respond to demands for broader engagement of publics and greater transparency in the governance of biotechnologies in agriculture and food. We argue that these emerging tensions and realignments between and among state and nonstate actors reflect efforts by these actors to incorporate lessons from the genetically modified organism labeling fight as they seek to (re)shape the governance of gene editing in a manner that reflects their interests.

show abstract

“…Like research on practices of resistance more generally, research on resistance to GMOs has also typically focused on the more visible forms of political action. This includes, for example, work on direct actions against GM crops (Heller ; Hayes ; Seifert ; Seifert ), the campaigns of social movements (Marris ; Schurman ), contestations of the validity of regulatory approvals and the quality of regulatory assessments (Wickson and Wynne ), campaigns for stricter certification and labelling schemes (Kurzer and Cooper ; Roff ) or calls for more transparency regarding field trials (Bonneuil et al . ).…”

Section: Infrapolitics Against Oppressive Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just Existing Is Resisting: The Everyday Struggle against the Expansion of GM Crops in Spain

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The attempt to have coexistence between organic, conventional and genetically modified (GM) crops has generated unresolved frictions between agro-food models based on different practices, values, worldviews and cultures. This article explores forms of everyday resistance that have emerged against the domineering power and spread of GM maize in Spain, the gateway nation for GM crops in Europe. Drawing on multi-sited ethnographic work and interviews, we describe six practices by which social actors throughout the agro-food system are resisting the expansion of GM maize and forming some unlikely alliances. We conclude that a myriad of practical resistance actions are taking place, from actors in both alternative and conventional food systems, as they fight for their survival against the political power and uncontrolled biological spread of GM crops. These practices challenge the regulatory concept of the possibility of a harmonious coexistence between the systems and highlight how an everyday struggle is required for non-GM maize actors to continue to exist.

show abstract

No alternative? The politics and history of non-GMO certification

Abstract: Third

Cited by 12 publications

References 37 publications

Oncofly: A CURE for Cancer

Oncofly: A CURE for Cancer

Governing gene editing in agriculture and food in the United States

Just Existing Is Resisting: The Everyday Struggle against the Expansion of GM Crops in Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About