Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:20:02.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the GMO debate in Turkey: The Case of Cotton Farming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Cem İskender Aydın ,
Gökhan Ȫzertan  and
Begðm Ȫzkaynak
Cem İskender Aydın
Affiliation:
REEDS/OVSQ, Université Versailles Saint Quentin-en-Yvlines (UVSQ), Rambouillet, France 78120, cem-iskender.aydin@uvsq.fr
Begðm Ȫzkaynak
Affiliation:
Boğaziçi University, Department of Economics, Bebek, İstanbul, Turkey, 34342, begum.ozkaynak@boun.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper frames the GM cotton approval debate in Turkey in the context of a socio-political process in which conflicts must be resolved between competing interests and among people who hold different value systems and have different priorities. Four different cotton farming alternatives— business as usual (BAU), ecological farming (ECO), GM farming (GM), and good agricultural practices (GAP)—are assessed and evaluated via a set of environmental, social, and economic criteria chosen on the basis of an extensive review of the cotton production and genetically modified organism (GMO) literatures, and in-depth interviews with several key stakeholders and experts in Turkey. The results show that when economic concerns are considered primary, GM farming is the preferred practice. In contrast, when only the social dimension is prioritised, the ECO alternative performs best. Finally, when the economic and social dimensions are appraised together, GAP emerges as a compromise solution. This study reveals that the decision to approve GM farming is not only complex but also value-laden and interest-based.

Keywords

Agriculturecottongenetically modified organismssocial multi-criteria evaluationTurkeytechnology adoption
Type
Articles
Information
New Perspectives on Turkey , Volume 49 , Fall 2013 , pp. 5 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © New Perspectives on Turkey 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Philipp, Aerni. “Is Agricultural Biotechnology Part of Sustainable Agriculture?” AgBioforum 13, no. 2 (2010): 158–172.Google Scholar
Halis, Akder. “How To Dilute An Agricultural Reform: Direct Income Subsidy Experience In Turkey (2001¬2008).” In Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank’s Strategy, edited by Karapinar, Baris, Adaman, Fikret, Ozertan, Gökhan, 46–60 (NY: Nova Science Pub. Inc., 2010).Google Scholar
Altieri, Miguel A., and Rosset, Peter. “Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology will not Ensure Food Security, Protect The Environment and Reduce Poverty in the Developing World.” AgBioForum 2, no. 3/4, (1999):155–162.Google Scholar
Donatella, Alessandrini. “CMOs and the Crisis of Objectivity: Nature, Science and the Challenge of Uncertainty.” Social and Legal Studies 19, no. 3 (2010): 3–23.Google Scholar
Kym, Anderson, and Jackson, Lee Ann. “Transgenic Crops, EU Precaution, and Developing Countries.” International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2, no. 1 (2006): 65–80.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Raynaud, Hervé. Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision Making (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Mehmet, Artemel. “Long-Awaited Turkish Biosafety Law Finally Enacted in March 2010.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law of Practice 5, no. 7 (2010): 492–494.Google Scholar
Mehmet, Artemel. “Turkish Legislation on CMOs and the Biosafety Council Takes Effect.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law of Practice 6, no. 3 (2011): 152–154.Google Scholar
Better Cotton Initiative. “Turkey Executive Summary” (2013) http://www.bettercotton.org/files/Regions/Better%20Cotton%20in%20Turkey%20Executive%20Summary%20APPROVED%20FINAL%20Feb%202013_eng_ext.pdf.Google Scholar
Rosa, Binimelis. “Coexistance of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: is an Individual Choice Possible?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21(2008): 437–457.Google Scholar
Rosa, Binimelis, Pengue, Walter, and Monterroso, lliana . “Transgenic Treadmill’: Responses to the Emergence and Spread of Glyphosate-Resistant Johnsongrass in Argentina.” Geoforum 40 (2009): 623–633.Google Scholar
Graham, Brookes, and Barfoot, Peter. “Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Income and Production Effects.” Agbioforum 12, no. 2 (2009): 184–208.Google Scholar
Graham, Brookes. “Global Impact of Biotech Crops: Environmental Effects 1996–2009.” GM Crops 2, no. 1 (2011): 34–48.Google Scholar
Harold, Brookfield, and Stocking, Michael. “Agrodiversity: Definition, Description and Design.” Global Environmental Change 9 (1999): 77–80.Google Scholar
Dominique, Brossard. “Social Challenges: Public Opinion and Agricultural Biotechnology.” In The Role of Biotechnology in a Sustainable Food Supply, edited by Popp, Jennie S., Jahn, Molly M., Matlock, Marty D., and Kemper, Nathan P., 17–32 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Cohen, Joel I. “Poorer Nations Turn to Publicly Developed GM Crops.” Nature Biotechnology 23, no. 1 (2005): 27–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability, National Research Council. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Cooley, D.R., and Goreham, Gary. “Are Transgenic Organisms Unnatural?” Ethics and the Environment 9, no. 1 (2004): 46–55.Google Scholar
Philip J., Dale, Clarke, Belinda and Fontes, Eliana M.G. “Potential for the Environmental Impact of Transgenic Crops.” Nature Biotechnology 20, no. 6 (2002): 567–574.Google Scholar
Astrid Sara Scatasta, Dannenberg and Sturm, Bodo. “Mandatory versus Voluntary Labeling of Genetically Modified Food: Evidence from an Economic Experiment.” Agricultural Economics 42 (2011): 373–386.Google Scholar
8runa, de Marchi, Funtowicz, Silvio O., Lo Cascio, S., and Munda, Giuseppe. “Combining Participative and Institutional Approaches with Multicriteria Evaluation: An Empirical Study for Water Issues in Troina, Sicily.” Ecological Economics 34 (2000): 267–283.Google Scholar
Yann, Devos, Maeseele, Pieter, Reheul, Dirk, Speybroeck, Linda Van, and Waele, Danny de. “Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility.“ journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2008) :29–61.Google Scholar
Eva and Artemis Karaali, Dobos. “Capacity Building in Agricultural Biotechnology in Turkey.” Food Reviews International 19, no. 4 (2003): 437–46.Google Scholar
Yasemin, Erkut. Turkey Biotechnology Report 2010 (Ankara: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2010).Google Scholar
EU. “Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on Organic Production and Labeling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation.” Official Journal of the European Union ((EEC) No 2092/91 European Commission, Brussels, 2007).Google Scholar
FAO. “The State of Food and Agriculture: Agricultural Biotechnology - Meeting the needs of the poor?” (Rome (2004).Google Scholar
George B., Frisvold, Reeves, Jeanne M., and Tronstad, Russell. “Bt Cotton Adoption in The United States and China: International Trade and Welfare Effects.” AgBioforum 9, no. 2 (2006): 69–78.Google Scholar
Silvio O., Funtowicz, and Ravetz, Jerome R. “The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-Normal Science.” Ecological Economics, 10 (1994): 197–207.Google Scholar
Silvio, Funtowicz, Martinez-Alier, Joan, Munda, Giuseppe, and Ravetz, Jerome. “Information Tools for Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity.” European Environmental Agency, Experts’ Corner, Environmental Issues Series, No. 9 (1999).Google Scholar
Gonzalo, Gamboa and Munda, Giuseppe. “The Problem of Windfarm Location: A Social multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework.” Energy Policy 35 (2007): 1564–1583.Google Scholar
GDO’ya Hayır Platformu, GDOHP. (2012) http://gdohp.blogspot.com.Google Scholar
Graff, Gregory D. and Zilberman, David, “Explaining Europe’s Resistance to Agricultural Biotechnology.” Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California Berkeley ARE Update, Vol. 7 No. 5, (2004):1–4.Google Scholar
Daniel, Gregorowius, Lindemann-Matthies, Petra, and Huppenbauer, Markus, “Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25, no. 3 (2012): 265–293.Google Scholar
Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I., Andersson, R., Betts, R.A., Brovkin, V., et al. “Short Communication: Environmental Consequences of Alternative Practices for Intensifying Crop Production.” Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 88 no. 3 (2002): 279–290.Google Scholar
Clive, James. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 (Ithaca, NY: ISAAA Brief No. 43–2011, 2011).Google Scholar
Clive, James. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012 (Ithaca, NY: ISAAA Brief No. 44–2012, 2012).Google Scholar
Ron, Janssen, and Munda, Giuseppe. “Multi-Criteria Methods for Quantitative, Qualitative and Fuzzy Evaluation Problems” In Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, den Bergh, Jeroen van, ed. 837–852 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999).Google Scholar
Giorgos, Kallis, Videira, Nuno, Antunes, Paula, Guimaràes Pereira, Angela, Spash, Clive L, Coccossis, Harry, Quintana, Serafín Corral, Moral, Leandro del, Hatzilacou, Dionisia Lobo, Gonçalo, Mexa, Alexandra, Paneque, Pilar, Mateos, Belen Pedregal, and Santos, Rui. “Participatory Methods for Water Resource Planning.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, no. 2 (2006): 215–234.Google Scholar
Baris, Karapinar, Adaman, Fikret, and Ozertan, Gökhan. “Conclusions: Beyond the World Bank’s Strategy.” In Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank’s Strategy, edited by Karapinar, Baris, Adaman, Fikret, Ozertan, Gökhan, 377–384 (NY: Nova Science Pub. Inc., 2010).Google Scholar
Baris, Karapinar, and Temmerman, Michelangelo. “Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Promoting New Technologies in Turkish Agriculture.” In Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank’s Strategy, edited by Karapinar, Baris, Adaman, Fikret, Ozertan, Gökhan, 245–266 (NY: Nova Science Pub. Inc., 2010).Google Scholar
Kamil, Kaygusuz. “Sustainable Energy, Environmental and Agricultural Policies in Turkey.” Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2010): 1075–1084.Google Scholar
Zeynep, Kivilcim. “The Legal Framework for Agrobiotechnology in Turkey: The Challenges to the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle.” In Rethinking Structural Reform in Turkish Agriculture: Beyond the World Bank’s Strategy, edited by Karapinar, Baris, Adaman, Fikret, and Ozertan, Gökhan, 267–282 (NY: Nova Science Pub. Inc., 2010).Google Scholar
Karst, Kooistra and Termorshuizen, Aad. The Sustainability of Cotton: Consequences for Man and the Environment (Wageningen University: Biological Farming Systems, 2006).Google Scholar
König, A., Cockburn, A., Crevel, R.W.R., Debruyne, E., Grafstroem, R., Hammerling, U., Kimber, I., Knudsen, I., Kuiper, H.A., Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M., Penninks, A.H., Poulsen, M., Schauzu, M., Wall, J.M. “Assessment of the Safety of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified (GM) Crops.’ Food and Chemical Toxicology 42 (2004): 1047–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valborg, Kvakkestad, Gillund, Froydis, Kjolberg, Kamilla Anette, and Vatn, Arild. “Scientists’ Perspectives on the Deliberate Release of GM Crops.” Environmental Values 16 (2007): 79–104.Google Scholar
Valborg, Kvakkestad, and Vatn, Arild. “Governing Uncertain and Unknown Effects of Genetically Modified Crops.” Ecological Economics 70 (2011): 524–532.Google Scholar
Rattan, Lai. “Carbon Emission from Farm Operations.” Environment International 30 (2004): 981–990.Google Scholar
Les, Levidow, and Marris, Claire. “Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology.” Science and Public Policy 28, no. 5 (2001): 245–360.Google Scholar
Bao-Rong, Lu, and Snow, Allison A. “Gene Flow from Genetically Modified Rice and Its Environmental Consequences.” Bioscience 55, no. 88 (2005): 669–678.Google Scholar
Claire, Marris. “Public Views on GMOs: Deconstructing the Myths.” EMBO Reports, (2001) 545–548.Google Scholar
Claire, Marris, Wynne, Brian, Simmons, Peter, and , Sue. “Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe” Final Report of the ΡΑΒΕ research project (2001).Google Scholar
Terry, Marsden. “Agri-Food Contestations in Rural Space: GM in Its Regulatory Context.” Geoforum 39, no. 1 (2008): 191–203.Google Scholar
Michael, Mascarenhas, and Busch, Lawrence. “Seeds of Change: Intellectual Property Rights, GeneticallyModified Soybeans and Seed Saving in the United States.” Sociologia Ruralis 46, no. 2 (2006): 122–138.Google Scholar
Martina, Mcgloughlin. “Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Be Important to the Developing World.” Agbioforum 2, no. 3-4(1999): 163–174.Google Scholar
“Minister says no risk as 7 arrested in rice investigation.” Today’s Zaman, April 10, 2013, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-312280-minister-says-no-risk-as-7-arrested-in-rice-investigation.html.Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda. Multicriteria Assessment, in Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics (2003).Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda. “Multi-Criteria Evaluation” In Modeling in Ecological Economics. Proops, John L.R. and Safonov, Paul, eds. 130–152 (Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004a)Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda. “Social multi-Criteria Evaluation: Methodological Foundations and Operational Consequences.” European Journal of Operational Research 158 (2004b): 662–677.Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda. “A Solution for the Discrete multi-Criterion Problem in a Public Policy Framework.” Unpublished Manuscript (2005).Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda. Social multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar
Giuseppe, Munda, and Russi, Daniela . “Social Multicriteria Evaluation of Conflict over Rural Electrification.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26, no. 4 (2008): 712–727.Google Scholar
Milind, Murugkar, Ramaswami, Bharat, and Shelar, Mahesh. “Competition and Monopoly in Indian Cotton Seed Market.” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 37 (2007): 3781–3789.Google Scholar
Gerald C, Nelson, and de Pinto, Alessandro. “GMO Adoption and Nonmarket Effects.” In Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics, edited by Nelson, Gerald C., 15–19 (London: Academic Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Oguz, Ozdemir. “Attitudes of Consumers toward the Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's): The Example of Turkey.” Journal of Food, Agriculture al Environment 7, no. 3-4 (2009): 132–138.Google Scholar
Gökhan, özertan, and Aerni, Philipp. “GM Cotton and Its Possible Contributions to Environmental Sustainability and Rural Development in Turkey.” Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 6, no. 4-5 (2007):552–575.Google Scholar
Julian Raymond, Park, McFarlane, Ian, Phipps, Richard Hartley, and Ceddia, Graziano. “The Role of Transgenic Crops in Sustainable Development.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 9 (2011): 2–21.Google Scholar
Persley, Gabrielle J., and Siedow, James N. “Applications of Biotechnology to Crops: Benefits and Risks.” In Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology, edited by Ruse, Michael, and Castle, David. 221–233 (New York: Prometheus Books, 2002).Google Scholar
Matin, Qaim. “Agricultural Biotechnology Adoption in Developing Countries.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2005): 1317–1324.Google Scholar
Matin, Qaim, and Traxler, Greg. “Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina: Farm Level and Aggregate Welfare Effects.” Agricultural Economics 32, no. 1 (2005): 73–86.Google Scholar
Zeyuan, Qiu. “Using Multi-Criteria Decision Models to Assess the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Farming Decisions in an Agricultural Watershed.” Review of Agricultural Economics 27, no. 2 (2005): 229–244.Google Scholar
Jörg, Romeis, Bartsch, Detlef, Bigler, Franz, Candolfi, Marco P., Gielkens, Marco M.C., Hartley, Susan E., Hellmich, Richard L., Huesing, Joseph E., Jepson, Paul C., Layton, Raymond, Quemada, Hector, Raybould, Alan, Rose, Robyn I., Schiemann, Joachim, Sears, Mark K., Shelton, Anthony M., Sweet, Jeremy, Vaituzis, Zigfridas, and Wolt, Jeffrey D. “Assessment of Risk of Insect-Resistant Transgenic Crops to Nontarget Arthropods.” Nature Biotechnology 26, no. 2 (2008): 203–208.Google Scholar
Salgado, P. Paneque, Quintana, S. Corral, Guimaràes Pereira, Â., Ituarte, L. del Moral, and Mateos, B. Pedregal. “Participative multi-Criteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Water Governance Alternatives: A Case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga).” Ecological Economics 6, no. 4 (2006): 990–1005.Google Scholar
David, Schubert. “A Different Perspective on GM Food.” Nature Biotechnology 20 (2002): 969.Google Scholar
Anna, Scolobig, Broto, Vanesa Castán, and Zabala, Aiora. “Integrating Multiple Perspectives in Social Multicriteria Evaluation of Flood-Mitigation Alternatives: The Case of Malborghetto-Valbruna.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26 (2008): 1143–1161.Google Scholar
SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annexes (Montreal: SCBD, 2000)Google Scholar
Vandana, Shiva. “GMOs: A Miracle?” In Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics, edited by Nelson, Gerald C., 191–203 (London: Academic Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Sirtioglu. “2012 Turkey Cotton and Products Annual.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report (2013).Google Scholar
Snow, Allison A., Andow, D.A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E.M., Power, A., Tiedje, J.M., and Wolfenbarger, L.L. “Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment: Current Status and Recommendations.” Ecological Applications 15, no. 2 (2005): 377–404.Google Scholar
Jitendra, Srivastava, Smith, Nigel J.H., and Forno, Douglas. Biodiversity and Agriculture: Implications for Conservation and Development (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1996).Google Scholar
Andy, Stirling. “Why All the Fuss about GM Food? Other Innovations are Available” Guardian, June 28, 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2013/jun/28/gm-food.Google Scholar
Andrew, Stirling, and Mayer, Sue. “A Precautionary Approach to Technology Appraisal? - A multi-Criteria Mapping of Genetic Modification in UK Agriculture.” TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 3, no. 9 (2000): 39–51 Google Scholar
Arjunan, Subramanian, and Qaim, Matin. “The Impact of Bt Cotton on Poor Households in Rural India.” Journal of Development Studies 46, no. 2 (2010): 295–311.Google Scholar
Belt Henk, Van den, and Gremmen, Bart. “Between Precautionary Principle and “Sound Science”: Distributing the Burdens of Proof.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, no. 1 (2002): 103–122.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Yilmaz, and Ozkan, Burhan. “Econometric Analysis of Land Tenure Systems in Cotton Production in Turkey.” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 6, no. 6 (2004): 1023–1025.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Mike J., Sweet, Jeremy, and Poppy, Guy M. “Risk Assessment of GM Plants: Avoiding Gridlock?” Trends in Plant Science 8, no. 5 (2003): 208–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfenbarger, L. LaReesa, and Phifer, P.R. “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants.” Science 290, no. 5499 (2000): 2088–2093.Google Scholar
David, Zilberman, Ameden, Holly, and Qaim, Matin. “The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Yields, Risks, and Biodiversity in Low-Income Countries.” Journal of Development Studies 43, no. 1 (2007):37–41 Google Scholar