Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v64y2021ics0160791x20312586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Feminist Ethics of Care framework a useful lens for GM crop risk appraisal in the global south?

Author

Listed:
  • Whittingham, Jennifer
  • Wynberg, Rachel
Abstract
The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops is assumed to be a benign regulatory tool due to its perceived objectivity and freedom from the morals and values that pervade society. Yet, against the current backdrop of ecological, social and political volatility, issues that cannot be resolved using the existing framework in South Africa are consistently emerging. This paper calls for a reformation of regulatory procedures by exploring the potential of Feminist Care Ethics to illuminate an alternative approach to the assessment of GM crops. While fresh thinking is welcome into the entangled field of biotechnology governance, there remains little understanding of how to accommodate such approaches in the context of the Global South. Twenty three interviews with participants from governmental, non-governmental and academic bodies were carried out in order to explore the potential of a Feminist Ethic of Care as an alternative framework. By examining the current appraisal procedures and tracing their evolution, problems with the current system were illuminated. To assess the suitability of the care ethic framework and ensure reflexivity, a hybrid approach to thematic analysis was applied. Using themes derived from feminist literature such as relationships, context, power, narrative and emotion, new ‘ways of seeing’ risk emerged and illuminated salient issues that are habitually ignored by the current science-based risk approach to assessment. The current approach was found to be flawed, stemming from a neoliberal, productivist perception of our socio-ecological environment. Feminist perspectives instead ask us to broaden the framing of risk, to consider different knowledges, to re-imagine ourselves as social, rather than economic beings, to tap into the capacity of socio-ecological relations and to recognize and dismantle power structures. The research concludes that although the care ethics themes offer a new approach to GM crop regulation, meaningful change will not arise from simply adding these elements to the current system. Rather, a call must be made for a re-imagining, and redesigning, both institutionally and politically-economically.

Suggested Citation

  • Whittingham, Jennifer & Wynberg, Rachel, 2021. "Is the Feminist Ethics of Care framework a useful lens for GM crop risk appraisal in the global south?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:64:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x20312586
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X20312586
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101455?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosa Binimelis & Anne Ingeborg Myhr, 2016. "Inclusion and Implementation of Socio-Economic Considerations in GMO Regulations: Needs and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    3. Linde Inghelbrecht & Gert Goeminne & Guido Huylenbroeck & Joost Dessein, 2017. "When technology is more than instrumental: How ethical concerns in EU agriculture co-evolve with the development of GM crops," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 543-557, September.
    4. Andrew Stirling, 1998. "Risk at a turning point?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 97-109, April.
    5. Amaranta Herrero & Fern Wickson & Rosa Binimelis, 2015. "Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-24, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.
    2. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.
    3. Pierre Marie Stassart & Maarten Crivits & Julie Hermesse & Louis Tessier & Julie Van Damme & Joost Dessein, 2018. "The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    6. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    7. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    8. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    9. Alireza Taghdisian & Sandra G. F. Bukkens & Mario Giampietro, 2022. "A Societal Metabolism Approach to Effectively Analyze the Water–Energy–Food Nexus in an Agricultural Transboundary River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-25, July.
    10. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    11. Namrata Chindarkar & R. Quentin Grafton, 2019. "India's depleting groundwater: When science meets policy," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 108-124, January.
    12. Kvakkestad, Valborg & Vatn, Arild, 2011. "Governing uncertain and unknown effects of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 524-532, January.
    13. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    15. Weber, Heloise & Weber, Martin, 2020. "When means of implementation meet Ecological Modernization Theory: A critical frame for thinking about the Sustainable Development Goals initiative," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Nolting, Lars & Praktiknjo, Aaron, 2022. "The complexity dilemma – Insights from security of electricity supply assessments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    17. Edwina Barvosa, 2015. "Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 497-507, December.
    18. Emery Roe, 2016. "Policy messes and their management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 351-372, December.
    19. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    20. Annalisa Ferrari & Piergiuseppe Morone & Valentina E. Tartiu, 2016. "Tackling Uncertainty through Business Plan Analysis—A Case Study on Citrus Waste Valorisation in the South of Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:64:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x20312586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.