GMW: Biotech firms promote biotech myths in India - report

[Guest guest]

GMW: Biotech firms promote biotech myths in India - report

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:42:35 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

QUOTE: " It is clear at the moment that larger biotech multinational

companies have been reasonably successful in associating their own narrow

commercial interests with the broader development goals of the Indian

state. It is ironic that they have achieved this at a time when many

other countries, notably the very country they seem to regard as their

greatest competitor, China, has made a relative retreat from its former

unbridled support for the technology. China should offer a salutary

lesson in this regard. The battle to define biotechnology futures and

whom

the technology should serve will not be won easily in India or anywhere

else. "

 

That quote comes at the end of an interesting report, 'Biotech firms,

biotech politics: negotiating GMOs in India' by Dr Peter Newell. Newell

is currently at the Centre for Globalisation and Regionalisation at the

University of Warwick but was previously a Research Fellow at the

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, U.K.

 

The report, published by the Institute of Development Studies, mostly

looks at what Dr Newell terms " the material power wielded by some

biotech firms and the level of access and influence that they are able to

secure through institutional means " . That influence, he says, is neatly

symbolised by leading government officials with Monsanto filofaxes or

Monsanto calendars upon their wall.

 

Of just as much interest to many GM Watch rs is the final

section of the report which considers another " important part of the

story "

of the promotion of biotechnology in India: " the social construction of

the commercial potential of biotechnology. "

 

In essence the report is pointing to how the creation of the right kind

of narratives or story telling - myth making even - can help " to boost

perceptions of the material potential of the sector as well as ensure

high levels of government interest in the industry's activities, key to

sustaining institutional access. "

 

The report suggests industry achieves a virtuous circle. The material

power of the biotech industry helps to secure institutional access and

to " create a conducive environment for the construction of discourses

supportive of biotech development " . At the same time, " the prevalence and

potency of discourses about the centrality of biotechnology to India's

ability to meet broader development goals of growth and food security

creates space for institutional access and helps to encourage investment

in the biotech sector. "

 

What follows comes from the final section of the report. It identifies

key " narratives " used to promote biotech in India as well as those who

help to promote these narratives.

 

Among the key narratives Dr Newell lists is the same kind of " crisis

narrative " that Chataway and Smith in a recent report identify as the

means by which Dr Florence Wambugu has successfully promoted her biotech

banana project. Wambugu they showed did this by:

 

1. claiming the banana as an important crop for food security

 

2. documenting a serious decline in yield

 

3. attributing the decline to infection

 

4. claiming " incredible " successes for her tissue cultured bananas in

resolving these problems.

 

Chataway and Smith showed there was a lack of convincing evidence to

support any of the components of this narrative. What evidence there was

often suggested the direct opposite of what was claimed. Despite which,

Wambugu's narrative had been highly successful in both winning backing

for the project and in making it appear an " incredible " success. (see

'Smoke, Mirrors and Poverty')

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5823

 

In India, Dr Newell identifies as the central mantras of the crisis

narrative: " declining productivity, lack of fertile lands, and rising

costs of inputs " . These are said to " make biotechnology the 'only way'

forward. "

 

Newell also identifies " a set of assumptions that leading firms have

played a key part in constructing and embedding in policy debate " :

 

1. " Pro-poor biotechnology " :

 

This narrative about the potential of biotechnology to meet the needs

of the poor " serves to reassure investors and suspicious publics about

the technology " .

 

The irony is, says Dr Newell, that the very firms that have helped to

promote this narrative have both a limited ability to deliver a pro-poor

biotechnology and a professed reluctance to accept that role.

 

2.From IT to BT:

 

India's success in the field of information technology (IT) is

presented as a replicable model for the successful development of

biotechnology

in India. Newell writes that the assumptions underlying the comparison

" are in many cases ill-founded as Scoones (2002) points out, but their

status as 'givens' in policy debates that gain reinforcement through

constant repetition and uncritical acceptance is unquestionable. "

 

3. The " myth of the biotech superpower " , China:

 

" One recurrent feature of this general narrative about the enormous

potential of agricultural biotechnology and the urgency with which it is

to be tapped is the 'myth of the biotech superpower', China. " The

analysis underpinning this myth is " weak on detail " , says Newell

 

Despite which, of course, China is used by biotech lobbyists throughout

Asia to try and spur on governments to introduce pro-biotech policies

in fear of missing the biotech bus or train as it pulls out of the

station. Outside of India, India is often added to China to create an

image

of 2 Asian giants striding forward leaving the rest of Asia behind. At

one time Indonesia was also woven into this narrative but had to be

dropped after the disaster there with Monsanto's GM cotton that led to

the

company's withdrawal.

 

Notable actors in disseminating these biotech myths in India include

newspapers like the Economic Times which provide uncritical coverage of

pro-biotech hype from the following sources:

 

1. leading industry bodies " whose statements are taken as an adequate

statement of truth in the debate in much of the mainstream media " .

 

2. leading pro-biotech NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) such as C.S. Prakash

(of AgBioWorld fame)

 

3. bodies such as the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and

Education, which aim to generate beneficial publicity about the

benefits of

biotechnology for Indian agriculture.

 

India's policy makers and much of its media are clearly just as

susceptible to being hoodwinked by biotech industry hype as farmers in

their

villages faced with company posters proclaiming the miracle of Bt cotton

via pictures of smiling " farmers " endorsing the technology with tales

of quadrupled yields and new tractors purchased. (See THE MARKETING OF

BT COTTON IN INDIA: AGGRESSIVE, UNSCRUPULOUS AND FALSE)

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741

 

India's policy makers, media and farmers are not particularly different

in this regard to many others around the globe in both the developing

and the developed worlds.

 

For more on biotech's deceptive narratives see: 'Biotech investment

busy going nowhere'

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4134

---

Biotech firms, biotech politics: negotiating GMOs in India

by Peter Newell

Institute of Development Studies Working Paper 20

September 2003

http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp201.pdf

 

Despite the limited ability of firms to deliver a pro-poor

biotechnology under existing circumstances and their professed

reluctance to accept

this role, which they see as primarily a public sector responsibility,

the case for biotechnology development in a country like India is

premised on a set of assumptions that leading firms have played a key

part

in constructing and embedding in policy debate. Key government officials

repeat back the central mantras of declining productivity, lack of

fertile lands, and rising costs of inputs that are said to make

biotechnology the " only way " forward. Though it remains removed from

the reality

of lack of progress and poor incentive structures for industry to

perform the role set for it, the narrative about the potential of

biotechnology to meet the needs of the poor serves to reassure

investors and

suspicious publics about the technology. Important for our purposes here,

however, is the way in which these projections, assumptions and myths are

internalised and carried forward in policy discourse by influential

players within key government departments.

 

Many media commentators and industry representatives discuss the

potential of biotechnology in light of the success achieved by the

information technology industry in India. The slogan " from IT to BT "

slips easily

from the mouths of advocates of the technology, as if IT provides a

replicable model for the successful development of biotechnology in

India.

Such assumptions are in many cases ill-founded as Scoones (2002) points

out, but their status as " givens " in policy debates that gain

reinforcement through constant repetition and uncritical acceptance is

unquestionable. Biotech companies gain materially from such an

association with

the IT " success " story. The Minister of Finance has granted biotech

companies the same entitlements as the other " sunrise " industries such as

IT, including tax holidays and exemptions from customs duty, for

example. There are many contestable assumptions behind media-led social

constructions of the seamless continuity from the IT to BT revolutions

around the level of skills required to sustain the shift and about the

types

of government intervention that are necessary to support these new

market players, but such details are overlooked in the rush to sell India

as a prime biotech location for investors.

 

Despite more critical coverage in papers such as The Hindu or the

Indian Express, key daily national papers such as the Economic Times

play an

important role in this process, a newspaper which Sharma describes as

" the mouthpiece of industry " . Both Time magazine India and Economic

Times adopt a broadly pro-biotech line, but it is the ET which is taken

most seriously by government. In terms of magazines and weekly journals,

India Today is seen as more pro-government and less critical, but with a

huge circulation it is taken seriously by politicians. Business World

and Business Line also play an important role within the biotech sector

in promoting the attractiveness of investing in the sector and lending

support to claims regarding its growth potential. Economic Times

reported that the bioinformatics sector in India is registering per annum

growth of 90 per cent. Similarly, Kiran Muzumdar-Shaw is quoted as

suggesting that the biotech business in India will reach $1.5 billion

by 2007

and The Financial Express cites back the same figure uncritically,

gleaned from a CII report on the subject.

 

These magazines and newspapers have played a key role in terms of

selling the potential of Indian firms to global audiences, faithfully and

regularly reporting statements from leading pro-biotech NRIs

(Non-Resident Indians) such as C.S. Prakash, endorsing the

government's approval of

Bt cotton for example. The views of bodies such as the Foundation for

Biotechnology Awareness and Education, which aims to generate beneficial

publicity about the benefits of biotechnology for Indian agriculture,

are frequently reported. The opinions of leading industry bodies are

taken as an adequate statement of truth in the debate in much of the

mainstream media. In a story on the problems associated with India's

patent

legislation, Business Standard concludes; 'India requires a strong

patent regime to encourage research and development. Intellectual

property

rights must be used to build an asset base'. The same publication also

attributes the success of Bangalore in attracting biotech investors to

the " single clearance for investors " , endorsing the calls of industry

associations for such clearance at national level. Sector specific

magazines such as Chemical Weekly also play an important role in

hyping the

sector's success. The magazine ran a story claiming, for example, that

the Indian biotech sector is on the " fast track to catch up with

western countries " and is " on the threshold of a big revolution " .

 

One recurrent feature of this general narrative about the enormous

potential of agricultural biotechnology and the urgency with which it

is to

be tapped is the " myth of the biotech superpower " , China. The analysis

underpinning this narrative is weak on detail, importantly regarding

the extent to which there is scope to apply in India the Chinese model of

agribiotech development. Key differences that are often glossed over in

the rush to present China as a viable model for India to follow

include; the different capacities for public sector research, the

contrasting

role of civil society in contesting the benefits of the technology and

the divergent degrees of dependence on external market acceptance as

opposed to producing for domestic consumption. Nevertheless, the success

of biotech developments to date in China is a common point of reference

for government officials who readily cite the savings in pesticide use,

the absence of detrimental environmental affects and the positive

benefits accruing to smaller farmers reported in studies from China.

Slow-downs in the process are regarded as missed opportunities to

catch-up

with China. P.K. Ghosh, former advisor to DBT and member secretary of the

RCGM committee, regrets that when Monsanto and Mahyco proposed cotton

back in 1993, a decision was stalled which meant that India " lost the

bus " that would have allowed them to surpass China's technological

supremacy in this area. Industry groups such as CII also create this

sense of

a zero-sum competition between India and China, where potential

investors are " waiting and watching " to see which signals the

government sends

out about its likely stance on approvals for LMOs, in order to create

pressure on government officials to hasten the approval process.

 

5 Conclusion

 

…It is clear though that through a combination of material influence,

in most cases high levels of institutional access, and in a context in

which claims about the benefits of biotechnology are echoed and repeated

in influential media, industry, some firms more than others, has played

an important role in the evolving regulatory regime. Reasons for this

include the expertise and economic weight of these actors and the fact

they are providing a technology which ostensibly has the potential to

directly address many of the most pressing problems India faces… the DBT

[Department of Biotechnology] finds support for its pro-biotech

position from the drivers of the technology, the major biotech firms

themselves.

 

…It is clear at the moment that larger biotech multinational companies

have been reasonably successful in associating their own narrow

commercial interests with the broader development goals of the Indian

state.

It is ironic that they have achieved this at a time when many other

countries, notably the very country they seem to regard as their greatest

competitor, China, has made a relative retreat from its former unbridled

support for the technology. China should offer a salutary lesson in

this regard. The battle to define biotechnology futures and whom the

technology should serve will not be won easily in India or anywhere

else. It

will be waged for many more years, subject to ongoing contestation by

each of the actors discussed in this paper.

 

 

 

-------------------