October 1st is World Vegetarian Day and the kick-off of Vegetarian Awareness Month!

The North American Vegetarian Society first created World Vegetarian Day in 1977 to ”promote the joy, compassion and life-enhancing possibilities of vegetarianism.”  Exploring vegetarianism has never been easier, with lots of organisations and web sites around to help the curious give it a go. There is incontrovertible evidence about the damage done to our environment and our bodies by high consumption of meat and animal products.

Vegetarian and vegan options abound more than ever in restaurants and supermarkets. Many cuisines that we eat from all around the world have dishes that are vegan and vegetarian without any special effort. And, if you enjoy cooking (either with or without meat substitutes), there are cookbooks and recipe web sites galore.

Non-vegetarian folks could win up to $1,000 (USD) by taking up the challenge to go meat-free this October. Learn how to participate here.

Many developing countries (particularly those in Africa) are being targeted for agricultural investment by donors. This is most famously exemplified by the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations’ initiative Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Critics of AGRA, such as AGRA Watch, point to many problems with AGRA’s approach, particularly in projects that fail to incorporate (or solicit) the needs and ideas of farmers and communities in developing countries. Also troublesome are moves to push farmers in poor countries toward unsustainable petrochemical use and biotechnological approaches in agriculture.

The dominant discourse on the use of biotechnology is essentially a dichotomous one, with most expressions of opinion placing biotech as either the saviour or Satan of modern agriculture. Meanwhile, the debate over how to feed the world rages. Opponents’ objections to the use of biotechnology are varied, with a great deal of emphasis placed either on safety and testing concerns or power and process concerns. Think of it as the evils of Monsanto discourse.  Proponents of biotechnology point to estimates of how much more food will be needed to feed the Earth’s increasing (and increasingly urbanized) population as reason enough to raise crop yields aggressively. (This line of thinking gives short shrift to hunger as a problem of economic distribution, as well as one of scarcity.) In any case, there is much disagreement on whether biotech lives up to its production promises and with what environmental and societal consequences.

I recently attended a presentation of a DVD and book that showcases examples of society-driven instances of biotechnological research. Biotechnology in development: Experiences from the south by Guido Ruivenkamp of Wageningen University posits a different model by drawing on examples of collaborations (in poor countries) between civil society and research institutes. The book attempts to demonstrate “that biotechnology can be developed toward forms that sidestep, go beyond and transform even the current reality of today’s agro-industrial system and its globalized production models.” The projects highlighted use a science-in-society approach to co-create technologies that enhance power and social links in communities, rather than deplete them.

The video highlights projects in India, Cuba, Ecuador, and Ghana – projects that show alternatives to doing biotech research in the interests of multi-national corporations. On the day of the presentation, there was only time to view the video on Ghana. Research is taking place there to enrich a particular type of maize (called obatampa) with micro-nutrients. This maize variety, whose name means “good mother” in the local language, is used in food products that are embedded in the traditional food culture. It is an ingredient in many street foods and in dishes eaten by children, elderly people, and pregnant women. The research on this variety has incorporated input from local farmers. This helps scientists preserve the qualities of the maize seed desired by the farmers.  Inspection and selection of the enriched maize seed is done by women in the area, allowing them to further integrate into the local food economy and have a source of income. This process of incorporating the labour and knowledge of various actors ensures that the resulting seed, borne out of biotechnology, is not the sole property of a biotech company.

Dr. Ruivenkamp took questions after the presentation. An audience member asked how widely the maize seed developed through this collaborative process is used by farmers (as compared to conventional seed). Dr. Ruivenkamp acknowledged that no statistical information on that was available. He explained that the video highlighted an aspirational process, as there are issues implementing the research and its outcomes on a bigger scale. However he stressed that the method for developing this seed represents a third way of thinking about biotechnology: one that hopes to strengthen local food networks and economies.

What are your thoughts on the use of biotechnology in agriculture – especially in developing countries? Do you see this collaborative process as an improvement on standard modes of biotech development? Know of any similar examples?