On 26 September Diego Enrique Silva Garzon defended his PhD thesis in Anthropology and Sociology of Development, titled “Protecting the Vital: Analysing the Relationship Between Agricultural Biosafety and the Commodification of Genetically Modified Cotton Seeds in Colombia”, at the Graduate Institute. Assistant Professor Filipe Calvão presided the committee, which included the thesis codirectors, Professor Shalini Randeria and Professor Elena Lazos Chavero, from the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and Dr Carlo Caduff, Senior Lecturer at King’s College London. Diego Silva’s research analyses the effects of the regulations that govern the safety of genetically modified seeds in practice, as there is always a big gap between the ways in which regulations are designed at the international level, translated at the national level, and applied at the local level.
Why did you decide to study agricultural biosafety regulations?
In 2011 the Colombian plant safety and biosafety institution confiscated thousands of tons of rice and cotton seeds from Colombia farmers and local seed producers. The directives of this state institution justified the confiscations through a recently introduced seed regulation arguing that the confiscated seeds were not safe for human consumption. A debate emerged in the country about the extent and purpose of the national plant safety and biosafety regulations, which for some actors seemed to protect, not the health of Colombians or the integrity of the environment, but the intellectual property rights of multinational seed companies. As I explored these discussions, I realised that the effects of plant safety and biosafety regulations were not only very complex but that what is deemed safe or not for our environment and health is an important site of political contestation between many actors with different interests. In this context, it became interesting for me to analyse how seed regulations are designed, interpreted and mobilised by different actors in practice.
Where did you carry out your project and among which actors?
Some of the seeds confiscated in 2011 were cotton seeds, produced by two local companies, that had been allegedly “contaminated” with components from genetically modified (GM) cotton that the companies had no permission to commercialise. I decided to focus on this case and travel to the sites where these confiscations took place and where cotton is produced in Colombia. In these localities I followed the work of cotton associations, cotton technical assistants, teams of multinational seed companies, and cotton farmers. I also interviewed plant scientists, environmentalist activists, promoters of genetically modified organisms, and policymakers in Bogota. Overall, I carried out fieldwork for one year in localities as varied as agricultural research centres, government offices, cotton associations, cotton fields, non-governmental organisations and agro-ecology schools.
Can you describe your thesis and its major findings?
The thesis explores the way in which the safety of genetically modified crops is discussed in expert groups and mediatised debates. Although the actors involved – scientists, environmentalist activists, farmers and GM crops’ promoters – usually have very different views on the topic, their discussions seemed to revolve around a common set of risks that this type of seeds can potentially pose to the environment and human health. Therefore, I analysed the way in which Colombian policymakers addressed, or avoided to address, these risks. For me it was important to highlight that the selection of certain risks – through certain techniques that made these risks worth addressing – implied ignoring other risks that those techniques could not visualise. I also highlight that the way in which experts address selected risks often determines and attributes the responsibility for controlling those risks, and distributes vulnerability to those risks, unevenly. However, the main contribution of the thesis lays elsewhere. It arises from analysing the effects of risk management interventions, or, in other words, the effects of the measures that are adopted to prevent the risks of genetically modified seeds from happening. I question the presumed functionality of biosafety as I found that this regulatory framework, which is supposed to protect biodiversity from GM seeds, ends up becoming part of their production process, and protecting multinational seed companies’ property rights. For example, through biosafety regulations farmers’ rights over GM seeds are limited and through biosafety practices farmers are made to carry out crop management practices that protect the special qualities of genetically modified seeds, not the environment or human health. This has fascinating theoretical implications for the literature on biosecurity and commodification.
Going beyond theory, what are the policy implications of your research?
The thesis is a testimony of the importance of the anthropological method for policy design, of the necessity for policymakers and critics to pay attention to the way in which policies are interpreted and mobilised by different actors. My prime example is the refugia practice: a crop management practice that is implemented to slow down the process by which certain insects become resistant to insecticidal genetically modified seeds. Without this practice, these seeds would eventually lose their power to resist insects, which is their special quality and for which their suppliers charge a premium price. This practice and its costs are implemented and assumed by farmers under narratives of solidarity that make them responsible for protection of the environment as a public good, but the practice seems more directed at protecting the business of multinational seed companies. A critical approach to these narratives, such as the one I adopt in my thesis, could lead to an alternative distribution of the benefits and costs of biosafety practices. The thesis presents different examples similar to this of the way in which actors such as farmers and multinational seed companies interpret the law to their convenience and sometimes argue with some success for the inclusion of their interpretation into the official framework. One could claim that such translations and argumentations deform the original purpose of the policy and that unintended effects appear as externalities. But I argue against this idea as I think that these transformations are what shape regulations: law and policy are but words if not informed by their practical effects. Ignoring the shaping of policy in practice leads to consequences that are overlooked in the policymaking process and that give way for powerful actors to impose their interpretations.
How will you remember your doctoral experience?
The PhD was as rewarding as it was challenging. As I was coming from a completely different disciplinary background (economics), the first years required a lot of commitment and humility. As a second-generation Anthropology and Sociology (ANSO) PhD student I had to adapt to the organisational weaknesses of an emerging department, that came at great personal cost for some of my colleagues who came to carry out PhD studies and had to go back home after completing a master’s degree. I am however very happy to have been part of an on-going process of institutional building that has brought the department to a place with great prospects for the future. An additional stress that most PhD students face at the Institute and that I could not escape had to do with funding. I was fortunate enough to work as a teaching assistant at the ANSO Department but the instability of our working contracts and the need to carry our fieldwork in Colombia to complete my project were a constant cause of anxiety and obliged me to look for funds elsewhere. After a semester almost entirely dedicated to this objective I obtained the Doc.CH (HSS) grant from the SNSF, which gave me the time and resources to bring my project to fruition. On a more positive side, being part of an institution such as the Institute gave me the possibility to develop academic networks in Switzerland and in Europe, and my PhD work allowed me to attend international conferences in the United States, Latin America and Europe. The life of an Institute PhD student can be lonely until one learns how to manage it. It is a marathon where not necessarily the brightest arrived to the end, but the most persistent.
What are you doing now?
I am working as a postdoctoral researcher at the Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy for the project “Bringing the Seed War to the Courtroom: Legal Activism and the Governance of Plant Genetic Resources in Brazil and India”.
Full citation of the PhD thesis: Silva Garzon, Diego Enrique. “Protecting the Vital: Analysing the Relationship between Agriculture Biosafety and the Commodification of Genetically Modified Cotton Seeds in Colombia.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2017.
Illustration: A cotton flower from a genetically modified insecticidal cotton plant known as BT cotton. It contains genetic traits from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, which allows it to produce proteins that are toxic to some lepidopteran insects. However, the technology is not perfect, as evidenced by the presence of the Spodoptera worm that can be seen in the flower. Ambalema, Tolima, Colombia. April 2014. Photograph by Diego Enrique Silva Garzon.