just existing is resisting the everyday struggle against the expansion of gm crops in spain

Just existing is resisting: The everyday struggle against the expansion of GM crops in Spain Amaranta Herrero*, Rosa Binimelis† and Fern Wickson‡ * Corresponding author: amaranta.herrero@genok.no GenØk – Centre for Biosafety Siva innovasjonssenter Tromsø P.O Box 6418 9294 Tromsø † Rosa.binimelis@uvic.cat GenØk – Centre for Biosafety Siva innovasjonssenter Tromsø P.O Box 6418 9294 Tromsø and Universitat de Vic (Universitat Central de Catalunya) Càtedra en Agroecologia i Sistemes Alimentaris Catalonia Spain ‡ Fern.wickson@uit.no GenØk – Centre for Biosafety Siva innovasjonssenter Tromsø P.O Box 6418 9294 Tromsø This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record Please cite this article as an ‘Accepted Article’, doi: 10.1111/sour.12166 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Just existing is resisting: The everyday struggle against the expansion of GM crops in Spain Abstract: The attempt to have coexistence between organic, conventional and Genetically Modified (GM) crops has generated unresolved frictions between agri-food models based on different practices, values, worldviews and cultures This paper explores forms of everyday resistance that have emerged against the domineering power and spread of GM maize in Spain, the gateway nation for GM crops in Europe Drawing on multi-sited ethnographic work and interviews, we describe six practices by which social actors throughout the agri-food system are resisting the expansion of GM maize and forming some unlikely alliances We conclude that a myriad of practical resistance actions are taking place, from actors in both alternative and conventional food systems, as they fight for their survival against the political power and uncontrolled biological spread of GM crops These practices challenge the regulatory concept of the possibility of a harmonious coexistence between the systems and highlight how an everyday struggle is required for non-GM maize actors to continue to exist Keywords: coexistence, everyday forms of resistance, GMOs, agricultural biotechnologies, socio-environmental conflict, agri-food system This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page of 37 Introduction Modern agricultural biotechnologies have generated fierce socio-political conflicts around the globe In an attempt to appease these conflicts, Europe has placed significant weight on the concept of ‘coexistence’, i.e simultaneous production of organic, conventional and Genetically Modified (GM) crop systems without economic discrimination from one to the other (European Commission 2003, 2010a, Directive (EU) 2015/412) The nature of GM crops, however, is proving to be seepingly expansive and increasingly oppressive, as the existing socio-political infrastructure and biological agency of the crops facilitates an unintentional spread that contaminates both conventional and organic systems via various pathways (Oehen et al 2007; Ryffel 2014; Snow 2002) The pursuit of what is called agricultural coexistence has therefore created unresolved frictions between stakeholders of different agri-food networks trying to access, gain or keep a market share as well as maintain and advance the possibility of alternative agricultural futures (Binimelis 2008; Levidow and Boschert 2008) Frequently, opposition to GMOs has been clearly visible in the activist actions of environmental and consumer groups working through social movements to try and influence R&D decisions and legislation, or to enhance scientific and regulatory transparency (Heller 2006; Kinchy 2010; Scoones 2008; Schurman 2004) However, if we look at the introduction of GMOs from a system’s perspective (Herrero, Wickson and Binimelis, 2015), we can see that, besides the most visibly rebellious and overtly political actors, many other players have found themselves in a situation of oppression by the expansion of GM crops (in the sense of being subject to burdensome power and constraints by both the intentional and unintentional spread of GMOs) and been forced to (re)act under unfavourable conditions (Binimelis 2008) In light of the increasing demand for non-GM products (Research and Markets 2015) and the desire to keep avenues open for alternative visions of agricultural production and This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page of 37 Sociologia Ruralis consumption, how actors in contexts of so-called coexistence manage to resist GM crop expansion and continue to maintain and promote GM-free spaces, approaches and markets? In this article, we heterodoxically draw on the theory of Scott (1985) to examine a myriad of everyday practices of resistance by which different stakeholders (from both the chemically intensive ‘conventional’ and the organic ‘alternative’ agri-food networks) constrain and challenge the expansion of GM crops in Spain We begin by describing how we interpret the idea of 'everyday forms of resistance', how we relate to its critiques and why we feel that this theory sheds interesting new light on the context of GM crops We then characterise and provide relevant background information on the setting of our study, i.e the context of maize agriculture in Spain Using empirical data gathered through qualitative research methods, we then describe what we see as a range of everyday practices being deployed to avoid GM expansion and sustain other forms of production This also allows us to identify surprising new alliances emerging between organic and conventional stakeholders Finally we conclude with a discussion of the relevance of everyday practices of resistance in GM conflicts and how they demonstrate significant flaws in the regulatory concept of coexistence Infrapolitics against oppressive structures A theoretical understanding of everyday forms of resistance has been developed over the past 30 years, led by the political scientist, anthropologist and moral philosopher J M Scott While spending two years in a rural community in Malaysia, Scott became interested in the rarity of rural rebellions and revolutions there and the apparent acquiescence of farmers in situations of oppression Remarkably shifting the dominant analytical lens of that time (i.e the Marxist analysis of hegemony as ideological assimilation), Scott identified and described This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page of 37 what he coined as everyday forms of resistance, or infrapolitics This concept refers to regular, oppositional, and normalised acts developed by individuals or groups in a situation of domination that have the potential 'to mitigate or to deny claims made of that class by superordinate classes or to advance its own claims in relation to these superordinate classes' (Scott 1985, 290) Since the prolific research on social conflicts has been mostly focused on explicit and dramatic political actions driven by organised and well-defined collective actors (e.g rebellions, strikes, demonstrations, or direct actions) (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001; Snow et al 1986), the concept of infrapolitics significantly broadened the spectrum of what had commonly been considered to be a practice of resistance1 The strength of this concept arguably lies in its focus on common practices of everyday life that can work as subversive actions against certain structures of oppression As Vinthagen and Johansson (2013) point out, the term ‘everyday’ here should be understood as referring to acts that are mundane, non-dramatic or ordinary as opposed to extraordinary or spectacular As Scott (1985) notes, unlike other forms of resistance, these ordinary practices are not likely to receive public attention or even be acknowledged by the domineering actors but act as regular ways to challenge and express discontent with the existing social structure and its embedded dominant values Actually, in contexts in which overtly collective organising could entail great costs or be dangerous, everyday forms of resistance may also represent mechanisms to cope with, and to certain extent, confront oppression (Scott 1985) These practices are integrated into the normality of everyday life and, thus, intentionality, political consciousness, or even successful outcomes are not necessarily always implied in the acts themselves (Vinthagen and Johansson 2013) In contrast with more direct, organised and openly confrontational forms of resistance, which aim, among other things, at gaining visibility and recognition for the struggle, everyday forms of resistance are not easily recognised, may not be politically articulated and may aim mostly at tacit, de facto achievements Nevertheless, as some authors have shown (Adnan 2007; Scott 1990), this This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page of 37 Sociologia Ruralis type of resistance can become public and have an effect on more macrostructural dimensions (e.g leading to open rebellions) Scott’s theory has risen to popularity, especially in subaltern, cultural, post-structural and gender studies, and has been used as a starting point to elaborate transformative narratives of resistance (Ewick and Silbey 2003) as well as a tool to further develop the concept of ‘rightful resistance’ (O’Brien 2013) It has also been used to describe constant acts of defiance performed by oppressed people in a panoply of contexts such as workplaces (Anderson 2008), slave plantations (Camp 2004); prisons (Crewe 2007), military state regimes (Malseed 2009) or protected area regulations (Holmes 2007) Furthermore, it has been used to partially understand the shaping of the struggle against contemporary land grabbing processes (McAllister 2015; Martinello 2015) and even to historically reconstruct the role of gossip as a resistance practice in medieval peasantry (Wickham 1998) This wide range of applicability, however, has raised concerns related to a potential trivialisation of the term and romantisation of the ‘oppressed’ (Fletcher 2001) Additional criticisms of the theory have pointed out the need to further develop Scott’s connections between class and nonclass structures of domination as, for instance, in terms of gender (Hart, 1991, Agarwal 1994) or have argued against the static conception of power used within this approach (Fletcher 2001, Johansson and Vinthagen 2016) We agree with Fletcher (2001) that resistance is a dynamic, interactive form of power but not see that the theory of everyday forms of resistance necessarily excludes the adoption of a more relational concept of power (Foucault 1980) Nor we think that a relational view of power excludes the existence of domination Under situations of oppression, actors can still mobilise the resources available to them (e.g through everyday forms of resistance) to exert power and work to challenge and change the status quo While other theories (such as Gramscian counter-hegemony or Foucauldian counter-discourse) could also be relevant for exploring the conflict over GM crops, we feel that extending the theory of everyday practices of resistance into this context This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page of 37 usefully sheds new light on the wide range of actions being mobilised in the dynamic spectrum of social struggle over GMOs In this article we therefore adapt and extend the theory to consider the GM agri-food model as a form of domination sui generis and everyday practices of resistance as mundane counter-power actions that work to challenge existing social structures and dominant values In doing so, we explore how such practices of resistance are currently being deployed in Spain in order to defy or impede the material expansion of GM crops (and therefore the appropriation of spaces, processes and products) and advance the legitimacy of alternative value systems and structures for agri-food regimes Performing this work is important because in the struggle against GMOs, we see resistance taking place in different forms, intensities and political scales, depending on the context, the social actors involved and their windows of political opportunity Like research on practices of resistance more generally, research on resistance to GMOs has also typically focused on the more visible forms of political action This includes, for example, work on direct actions against GM crops (Hayes 2007; Heller 2001, 2006; Seifert 2009; Seifert 2013), the campaigns of social movements (Marris 2000; Schurman 2004), contestations of the validity of regulatory approvals and the quality of regulatory assessments (Wickson and Wynne 2012), campaigns for stricter certification and labelling schemes (Kurzer and Cooper 2007; Roff 2009) or calls for more transparency regarding field trials (Bonneuil et al 2008) Although these visible and direct protests are a major driver for social change, they not comprise all the practices of resistance that we have observed taking place in GMO-related conflicts In this paper we therefore specifically use the theory of everyday forms of resistance as a way to add nuance and complexity to our understanding of the diversity of today’s struggle to constrain the spread of GMOs and the power of their influence and embedded values over agri-food systems This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page of 37 Sociologia Ruralis The dominating nature of GM crops Scholars have often described the clash of visions, values, or paradigms enacted by different forms of agriculture (Beus and Dunlap 1990; Wickson, Binimelis and Herrero 2016) However, the dividing line between divergent models is often less than clear, with organic farming increasingly adopting more conventional models and conventional farming becoming more occupied with environmental issues (Guthman 2004) Traditionally, the antagonism has been between ideal types of conventional and organic farming but the emergence of biotechnology has opened new sources of contestation As certain GM crops have spread to become predominant in particular forms of agriculture (e.g maize, soy, cotton and oilseed rape) they displace not only organic but also conventional forms of production The struggle against the expansion and spread of biotechnological crops has therefore mobilised a wide range of actors across both organic and conventional agri-food systems who are now engaging in new forms of resistance The politics of biotechnology has been described as a kind of ‘bio-hegemony’ (Newell, 2009, Motta 2014, Schnurr 2013), in which an “alignment of material, institutional and discursive power in a way which sustains a coalition of forces which benefit from the prevailing model of agricultural development” (Newell, 2009:38) While we agree that institutional and discursive power plays a major role in shaping a system of domination based on the use of modern agricultural biotechnologies, in this paper we also specifically highlight and elaborate on the material dimension of power This includes both the physical infrastructures of agricultural systems and the biological agency of plants These material aspects facilitate an uncontrolled and unintended spread of GM crops, which contaminates other forms of production, burdens them with unjust costs and forces them to struggle for their survival This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page of 37 GM crops have been legally designated as significantly different entities from the crops used in conventional and organic agri-food networks (e.g via the patents awarded to them as human inventions, the creation of dedicated regulatory systems and compulsory labeling schemes) GM crops are, however, not easily contained and regularly spread into other crop types and agri-food networks through the unintentional admixture of seed or grain or through genetic crossing via pollen flow Although, the potential for contamination can differ according to biological aspects of the crop itself and/or the socio-political context of its cultivation, processing and consumption, where it occurs, it poses a significant challenge to the ability of alternative models to persist The uncontrolled spread and contamination can have a huge impact on alternative agri-food systems For example, given that organic maize can be sold for up to double the price of GM or conventional maize a huge loss can occur if crops become contaminated The spread can also reduce the local supply of non-GM conventional crops where such a distinction has developed due to consumer desires and concerns In fact, in certain agricultural areas, the unintentional and uncontrolled spread of GMOs, can also appropriate not just markets but also shared agrarian infrastructures, such as silos or dryers (Oehen et al 2007; Binimelis 2008) Even when containment measures are put in place (such as proposed spatial distances between GM and non-GM crops), these are often not necessarily adequate or successful and contaminated parties can still suffer significant costs (Binimelis 2008; Cox 2008) The social, economic and ecological costs associated with attempting to maintain the separation between GM, conventional and organic agri-food systems are currently borne by those who can be contaminated (non-GM actors) rather than those that can contaminate (those developing or growing GM) Certainly, a significant degree of infrastructure and logistical arrangements are required for allowing, restricting, organising and managing the This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page of 37 Sociologia Ruralis mobility of things and people in agri-food systems As Neilson (2012) notes, logistics should be understood as power - and, hence, political - since they play a major role in structuring and transforming reality They are also a key element for building the networks within which social relations unfold In countries in which there is a distinction in labeling for GM and nonGM materials, the potential for unwanted admixture of grain and the difficulty and high costs associated with its separation means that agrarian infrastructures are required to manage GM crops in practice, including dedicated machinery, storage, transport and processing facilities If existing infrastructure is used to handle GM crops in an area, then non-GM producers will face difficulties finding non-GM infrastructure nearby and will be forced to take on additional costs and burdens Furthermore, control of the biological agency of the plants to minimise the potential for cross-pollination (such as delayed sowing times, separation distances or buffer crops) are typically enacted by those actors that can become contaminated rather than those with the potential to contaminate This sees GM crops exhibit a domineering and oppressive nature not only through mechanisms of bio-hegemony, but also through the material (biological and infrastructural) realities that enable them to spread and contaminate other agri-food systems, imposing additional burdensome control measures on those specifically seeking to remain GM-free and survive Methodology The empirical material that informs the following analysis is drawn from a multi-sited ethnographic study (Marcus 1995) focused on a comparative analysis of agri-food systems in Spain The project this research was conducted within had a starting interest in understanding the relevant actants, practices and socio-ecological structures involved in various nodes of different agri-food systems, namely conventional, GM and organic systems This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 23 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Although this lowering of the threshold for acceptable contamination is a practice of resistance and works to stimulate and support the ongoing existence of other practices concomitantly, it increases the burden borne by non-GM actors and thereby in some way enhances the oppressive power of the GM agri-food system Ironically, it has also created a situation in which private companies certifying non-GM conventional maize operate with a lower threshold of GM contamination than public bodies for organic certification are able to Claiming higher status This is a practice performed by both organic and conventional farmers (and intensively backed up by some farmer cooperatives) who refuse to sow GM maize It consists of claiming and promoting non-GM maize as having a higher status On the one hand this comes about through the idea of organic maize being more sustainable and/or ethical On the other hand it is also appearing in conventional maize being given the new label of 'maize for human consumption' This is to separate it from GM maize, which is mainly used for animal feed and characterised as ‘insecticide maize’ not fit for human consumption In the latter case, the term is used to raise questions about whether GM maize should be eaten by people or non-human animals As the vice president of a farmer cooperative producing nonGM maize that is especially keen on promoting the further development of organic production stated: We decided to name this conventional maize as ‘maize for human consumption’ because GM maize is an insecticide maize which is releasing a toxin during its whole vital cycle [ ] An insecticide maize should never go to human consumption, or to animal consumption [ ] In the struggle against GMOs, one of the main ‘enemies’ is animal feed companies, where most GM maize goes [ ] They are capable, as we repeatedly have seen, of making animal feed with meat 23 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 24 of 37 for ruminants, as happened with mad cow disease, or search subproducts from anywhere, and the GM maize is part of that world which provides a maize that is toxic by nature and it is included in their formulas because it is cheaper In the use of this approach of claiming higher status, there is a strong emphasis placed on ethical and sustainability criteria (e.g related to the use of GM maize for animal production and questioning the ethical/sustainability challenges related to this) It is difficult to know how effective this practice is in terms of challenging the expansion of GM crops although it certainly connects with the values consumers award to alternative forms of production While this approach offers no significant protection against GM contamination, it does generate support at the consumer end of the production chain, and fight for the value of an ongoing existence for alternatives It may be argued that this is not hidden, as other practices of everyday resistance may be, however, it is less directly political than other practices such as protests or campaigning and specifically works to influence the everyday actions of actors such as consumers While organic farmers have always used this approach to gain market share and support for their agri-food system, it is interesting that conventional farms and cooperatives in Spain are now also mobilising this practice through the term 'maize for human consumption' This acts as a tool to both promote non-GM maize and open spaces to discuss the problems and potential flaws associated with GM agri-food systems more broadly Just existing is resisting The repertoire of practices we have described involves practical ways actors from across the agri-food system in Spain are challenging the expansion of GM crops Understanding the existence of these everyday forms of resistance broadens the view from the more visible and extraordinary oppositional acts against GMOs and offers a more nuanced picture of the 24 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 25 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis types of resistance and actors involved Everyday resistance can continue taking place during intermissions between open confrontational events or after the topic loses media and widespread public attention It is therefore important to understand that although dramatic anti-GMO forms of protest are currently limited in Spain, resistance continues to be enacted through everyday practices The forms of resistance described in this paper not represent open, direct threats to institutional powers or biotechnology companies Most of them are not even contributing to the development of a public debate on GMOs or openly challenging their ongoing approval In fact, some of these practices need to be economically profitable to sustain themselves over time This additional layer of complexity reinforces the idea that having an economic motivation is not necessarily contradictory with everyday forms of resistance Despite not representing open threats, however, the actions deployed by the different actors are clearly a form of everyday politics (Kerkvliet 2009) as they actively seek to articulate, pursue and support alternative visions for agri-food futures As the vice president of a farmer cooperative producing conventional non-GM maize explains, criteria beyond market profitability are crucial for understanding where their opposition stems from: At a certain point we realised the impacts of GMOs on the environment and health; we read reports, we saw things and we realised that all stories sold from big corporations about the benefits of GMOs have fallen apart; it has all been a lie, a very well designed marketing plan [ whirl of the toxic agroindustry [ ] We [farmers] have got caught in the ] Most farmers are producing for a global market without any kind of criteria [ ] a market that does not give a shit about food being toxic or not So, farmers who produce for that market want to increase production and for that they use sulfates, herbicides and some fertilisers that destroy the fertility of our soil [ ] If I regret something it is to have realised all this so late in my life We all believed the hype for so many years [ ] We finally 25 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 26 of 37 realised that we must care for soil fertility And any aggressive agriculture, like GM agriculture, is progressively damaging it The everyday practices we have described work to maintain the possibility of a future for alternative agri-food systems and, interestingly, are opening the potential for new alliances between stakeholders from agricultural models that have traditionally been antagonistic (i.e conventional and organic) These paradoxical new alliances are emerging in resistance to a common oppressor Indeed, our research reveals that various battlelines and distinctions relating to GMO conflicts and resistance, are being redrawn or blurred under the current situation Such new coalitions, practices and lines of distinction will be an interesting subject for further observation and research Importantly, everyday forms of resistance essentially point to the fundamental contradiction between the EU’s liberal commitment to coexistence as a way to manage the GM controversy, and the reality that is creating marginalised non-GM producers and contamination risks that are impossible to control The concept of coexistence was introduced as a mere technical solution in which all farmers could make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM crop production and the economic implications of this could be managed (European Commission 2003) Even if this concept has also been used to make GM production impossible in contexts in which opposition to GM is widespread (Seifert 2006), several scholars have articulated strong critiques against it These include: a) the inability of it to function in practice (Altieri 2005; Marvier and Van Acker 2005; Snow 2002), b) the economic reductionism implied by liability being limited to individual economic losses (Binimelis 2008; Rodgers 2007) and therefore likely to prove ineffective for conventional agriculture (Rodgers 2007), and c) the exacerbation of the political contention and clash of competing rationales around GMOs (Levidow and Boschert 2008; Lyson 2002) Interestingly, under the new European Directive on GMOs released in 2015 (EU 2015/412), 26 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 27 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis the concept of coexistence was transformed from a set of technical measures that should have allowed the GM market to operate freely, to a potential problem that can now provide legitimate grounds for restricting the cultivation of GMOs Under this current regulatory situation, our findings have additional relevance Supporting these critiques, our research shows that in contexts where GMOs are introduced under liberal policies and without the implementation of any mandatory measures for management, the uncontrolled expansion of GM crops and the oppression of both organic and conventional forms of production is facilitated This means actors in non-GM systems are forced to bear the unjust burdens of contamination and find novel ways to continue their activities This is occurring through a kind of slow seeping contamination where GM crops are exercising uneven material, institutional and discursive power and pressing other forms of agri/culture4 into the margins and, in the worst case, as is happening with organic maize in Spain, out of production This case therefore shows that rather than a peaceful coexistence of different agri-food systems as has been conveniently promoted is actually facilitating a threat of noexistence Conclusion Resistance exists everywhere, even if it is marginal, often hidden and limited In the case of GMOs in Spain, besides more visible forms of opposition, resistance is also taking place through more practical, everyday measures designed to counterbalance the power GM crops have and their uncontrolled expansion For the agri-food systems and actors involved, these are practices necessary for survival In this paper, we have articulated a range of everyday practices of resistance taking place by a variety of actors throughout the agri-food system Through describing these practices, we have shown how the concept of coexistence is flawed and in Spain is actually working to increase the power of the GM model of 27 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 28 of 37 agriculture as a structure of oppression over other types of agri-food systems Actors involved in these alternative systems are, however, not going ‘gently into that good night’ (to quote poet Dylan Thomas) They are developing and enacting a repertoire of everyday practices to resist the continued expansion of GMOs and fight for the survival of alternatives While none of these practices on their own are enough to achieve a happy coexistence between agricultural forms (should that indeed be the aim), when taken together they are working to fight the threat of noexistence and maintain the conditions of continued survival Just existing is resisting References Adnan, S (2007) Departures from Everyday Resistance and Flexible Strategies of Domination: The Making and Unmaking of a Poor Peasant Mobilization in Bangladesh Journal of Agrarian Change (2) pp 183-224 Altieri, M A (2005) ‘The myth of coexistence: Why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production.’ Bulletin of Science Technology Society 25 pp 361–371 Amigos de la Tierra, Confederación de Consumidores y Usuarios (CECU), Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos (COAG), Ecologistas en Acción, Greenpeace and Red de Semillas 2014 Agricultores, consumidores y ecologistas advierten que en Espa podría haber unas 70.000 hectáreas de maíz transgénico frente a las 136,962 que indican el Gobierno y la Industria Press release, 10th February http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/es/news/2014/Febrero/Agricultores-consumidores-yecologistas-advierten-que-en-Espana-podria-haber-unas-70000-hectareas-de-maiztransgenico-frente-a-las-136962-que-indican-el-Gobierno-y-la-Industria/ Anderson, G (2008) Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university Organisation 15 (2) pp 251-270 28 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 29 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Agarwal, B (1994) Gender, resistance and land: Interlinked struggles over resources and meanings in South Asia The Journal of Peasant Studies 22 (1): 81-125 Assemblea Pagesa, Plataforma Transgènics Fora! and Greenpeace 2006 Impossible coexistence Seven years of GMOs have contaminated organic and conventional maize: An examination of the cases in Catalonia and Aragon, Madrid Binimelis, R (2008) Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (5) pp 437-457 Binimelis R, I Monterroso, B Rodríguez-Labajos (2009) Catalan agriculture and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—An application of DPSIR model Ecological Economics 69 (1) pp 55-62 Bonneuil, C., P.B Joly, and C Marris (2008) Disentrenching experiment the construction of GM—crop field trials as a social problem Science, Technology & Human Values 33 (2) pp 201-229 Büscher, M and J Urry (2009) Mobile Methods and the Empirical European Journal of Social Theory 12 no 1: 99-116 Camp, S (2004) Closer to freedom Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press) Catalan Department of Agriculture (2011) El conreu de panís: noves varietats i efecte de les dates de sembra Dossier tècnic 48 http://portalruralcat.adasasistemas.com/web/guest/dossier-tecnic//journal_content/2002/10136/2191011/el-conreu-de-panis:-noves-varietats-i-efecte-de-lesdates-de-sembra CCPAE (2012) Memòria d’activitats i de gestió econịmica del Consell de la Producció Agrària Ecològica de Catalunya http://www.ccpae.org/docs/memoria/ccpae_memoria2012.pdf 29 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 30 of 37 CCPAE (2014) Memịria d’activitats i de gestió econịmica del Consell de la Producció Agrària Ecolịgica de Catalunya http://www.ccpae.org/docs/memoria/ccpae_memoria2014.pdfhttp:///h CCPAE (2015) Memịria d’activitats i de gestió econịmica del Consell de la Producció Agrària Ecolịgica de Catalunya http://www.ccpae.org/docs/memoria/ccpae_memoria2015.pdf Cox, S.E (2008) Genetically Modified Organisms: Who Should Pay the Price for Pollen Drift Contamination Drake J Agric L 13 pp 401 Crewe, B (2007) Power, Adaptation and Resistance in a Late-Modern Men’s Prison The British Journal of Criminology 47 (2) pp 256-275 Ewick, P and S Silbey (2003) Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance to Legal Authority American Journal of Sociology 108 (6) pp.1328-72 European Commission (2003) Commission recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming C(2003), Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/guide_en.pdf European Commission (2010a) Commission recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (2010/C 200/01) Official Journal of the European Union, 22 July 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/docs/plant_gmo- agriculture_coexistence-new_recommendation_en.pdf European Commission (2010b) Biotechnology Report Directorate General Research http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf Fletcher, R (2001) What are we fighting for? Rethinking resistance in a Pewenche community in Chile The Journal of Peasant Studies 28 (3) pp 37-66 Foucault, M (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (New York: Pantheon) 30 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 31 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Greenpeace (2008) La coexistencia sigue siendo imposible Testimonios de la contaminación http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/transgenicos/lacoexistencia-sigue-siendo-i.pdf Gobierno de Aragón (2016) Transferencia de resultados de la red de ensayos de mz y girasol en Aragón Campa 2015 Informaciones técnicas, núm 259 Dirección General de Desarrollo Rural, Centro de Transferencia Agroalimentaria http://www.aragon.es/estaticos/GobiernoAragon/Departamentos/AgriculturaGanaderiaMe dioAmbiente/TEMAS_AGRICULTURA_GANADERIA/Areas/FORMACION_INNOVACION _SECTOR_AGRARIO/CENTRO_TRANSFERENCIA_AGROALIMENTARIA/Publicacione s_Centro_Transferencia_Agroalimentaria/IT_2016/IT_259-16.pdf Guthman, J (2004) The trouble with ‘organic lite’ in California: a rejoinder to the ‘convensionalisation’ debate Sociologia ruralis, 44 (3) pp.301-316 Hart, G (1991) Engendering everyday resistance: gender, patronage and production politics in rural Malaysia The Journal of Peasant Studies 19 (1) pp 93-121 Hayes, G (2007) Collective Action and Civil Disobedience: The Anti-GMO Campaign of the Faucheurs Volontaires French Politics (4) pp 293-314 Heller, C (2001) From risk to globalization: Discursive shifts in the French debate about GMOs Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15 (1) pp 25-28 Heller, C (2006) Post-industrial ‘quality agricultural discourse’: Techniques of governance and resistance in the French debate over GM crops1 Social Anthropology 14 (3) pp 319334 Herrero, A., F Wickson, F., and R Binimelis (2015) Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment Sustainability pp 11321-11344 Hilbeck, A., T Lebrecht, R Vogel, J.A Heinemann and R Binimelis (2013) Farmer's choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of GM crop adoption Environmental Sciences Europe 25 pp 12 31 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 32 of 37 Hollander, J and R Einwohner (2004) Conceptualizing Resistance Sociological Forum 19 (4) pp 533-554 Holmes G (2007) Protection, Politics and Protest: Understanding Resistance to Conservation Conservation & Society pp 184-201 Johansson, A and S Vinthagen (2016) Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework Critical Sociology 42 (3) pp 417-435 Kerkvliet, B.J (2009) Everyday politics in peasant societies (and ours) The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1) pp 227-243 Kinchy, A.J (2010) Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize Agriculture and Human Values 27 (4) pp 505-517 Kurzer, P and A Cooper (2007) What's for dinner? European farming and food traditions confront American biotechnology Comparative Political Studies 40 (9) pp 1035-1058 Levidow, L and K Boschert (2008) Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe Geoforum 39 (1) pp 174-190 Lyson, T.A (2002) Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture Trends in Biotechnology 20 pp 193–196 Marcus, G., (1995) Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography Annual Review of Anthropology 24 pp 95-117 Martínez, A (2009) Desmontando mitos del maíz genéticamente modificado Vida Rural, junio: 12-18 http://www.magrama.gob.es/ministerio/pags/biblioteca/revistas/pdf_Vrural/Vrural_2009_2 90_12_18.pdf Martiniello, G (2015) Social struggles in Uganda's Acholiland: understanding responses and resistance to Amuru sugar works Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (3-4) pp 653-669 Marris, C (2000) Swings and roundabouts: French public policy on agricultural GMOs since 1996 Notizie di Politeia: Revista di Etica e Scelte Publliche 16 (60) pp 22 32 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 33 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Marvier, M and R C Van Acker (2005) Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, pp 99–106 McAdam, D., S Tarrow, and C Tilly (2001) Dynamics of contention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) McAllister, K (2015) Allocation or appropriation? How spatial and temporal fragmentation of land allocation policies facilitates land grabbing in Northern Laos Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (3-4) pp 817-837 Ministry of Agriculture (2013) Agricultura Ecológica Estadísticas 2012 http://www.magrama.gob.es/imagenes/es/Estadisticas_AE_2012%20ok_tcm7-297880.pdf Ministry of Agriculture (2015a) Estimación de la superficie total de variedades OMG cultivadas en España, 2015 http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion- ambiental/temas/biotecnologia/2015_tcm7-399015.pdf Ministry of Agriculture (2015b) Evolución de superficie cultivada y producción en Espa Cosechas 2012-2015 y media 2010-2014 http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/producciones-agricolas/supprodcerealesespana_tcm7-413218.pdf Ministry of Agriculture (2015c) Autorizaciones concedidas para la utilización de semillas y patatas de siembra no obtenidas mediantes el método de producción ecológica en virtud del reglamento (CE) 889/2008 Año 2014 http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/la-agriculturaecologica/autorizacionessemillas2014es-2_tcm7-370886.pdf Ministry of Agriculture (2016) Comercio exterior de cereales en España http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/producciones-agricolas/comerext_cereales_espana_tcm7-413222.pdf Motta, R (2014) Social disputes over GMOs: An overview Sociology Compass, (12) pp.1360-1376 33 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 34 of 37 Neilson, B (2012) Five theses on understanding logistics as power, Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 13 (3) pp 322-339 Newell, P (2009) Bio-hegemony: the political economy of agricultural biotechnology in Argentina Journal of Latin American Studies, 41 (1) pp 27-57 O'Brien, K.J (2013) Rightful resistance revisited Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (6) pp 10511062 Oehen, B., M Costa-Font, M Morgner, J.M Gil, and M Stolze (2007) Co-existence in maize supply chains in Spain and Switzerland 3rd QLIF Congress, Hohenheim, Germany, March 20-13 http://orgprints.org/view/projects/int_conf_qlif2007.html Research and Markets (2015) Non-GMO Foods: U.S and Global Market Perspective (2nd Edition) Rodgers, C.P (2007) ‘Coexistence or conflict? A European perspective on GMOs and the problem of liability.’ Bulletin of Science Technology Society 27 pp 233–250 Roff, R (2009) No alternative? The politics and history of non-GMO certification Agriculture and Human Values, 26 pp 351-363 Ryffel, G (2014) Transgene flow: Facts, speculations and possible countermeasures GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, (4) pp 249-258 Schurman, R (2004) Fighting “Frankenfoods”: Industry opportunity structures and the efficacy of the anti-biotech movement in Western Europe Social Problems, 51 (2), pp 243-268 Scoones, I (2008) Mobilizing Against GM Crops in India, South Africa and Brazil Journal of Agrarian Change (2 3) pp 315-344 Scott, J (1985) Weapons of the weak Everyday forms of peasant resistance (New Haven: Yale Univ Pr) Scott, J.C (1990) Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts (New Haven and London: Yale university press) 34 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 35 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Seifert, F (2006) Regional GM opposition as multilevel challenge? The case of Upper Austria Tailoring Biotechnologies 2(3) pp.11-36 Seifert, F (2009) Consensual NIMBYs, contentious NIABYs: explaining contrasting forms of farmers GMO opposition in Austria and France Sociologia Ruralis 49 (1) pp 20-40 Seifert, F (2013) Transnational diffusion of a high-cost protest method: open field destructions in France, Germany and Spain Interface, (2) pp 213-39 Serra, J (2015) Aportació de les varietats MG des del punt de vista del rendiment i de la qualitat del blat de moro per a gra Presentació jornada sobre el cultiu de blat de moro (23rd MG April, Tàrrega) https://www.ruralcat.net/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=52ce0d40-0c2f-42c8-ac9f3609cc656237&groupId=10136 Schnuurr, M.A (2013) Biotechnology and bio-hegemony in Uganda: unraveling the social relations underpinning the promotion of genetically modified crops into new African markets Journal of Peasant Studies, 40 (4) pp 639-658 Snow, D., Rochford, E., Worden, S and Bendford, R (1986) Frame Alignment Processes, Micro-Mobilization, and Movement Participation American Sociological Review 51 (4) pp 464-481 Snow, A.A (2002) Transgenic crops—why gene flow matters Nature biotechnology 20 (6) pp 542 Unió de Pagesos (2012) Volen que es permeti la producció de blat de moro ecolịgic a Catalunya Comunicat de premsa d’Unió de Pagesos, la Federeació de Cooperatives Agràries de Catalunya i l’Associació d’Empreses Ecolũgiques AE2 http://www.naciodigital.cat/ecodiari/noticia/7853/volen/es/permeti/produccio/blat/moro/ecol ogic/catalunya Valls, D (2015) Compareixenỗa a la Comissió d’Estudi sobre transgènics del Parlament de Catalunya CCPAE Barcelona 35 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Sociologia Ruralis Page 36 of 37 https://www.ruralcat.net/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=52ce0d40-0c2f-42c8-ac9f3609cc656237&groupId=10136 Vilella, M (2010) Press news coverage of GM crops in Catalonia in 2005: A case study in environmental communication Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, (1) pp 23-41 Vinthagen, S., and Anna Johansson (2013) 'Everyday resistance’: exploration of a concept and its theories Resistance Studies Magazine pp 1–46 Wickham, C (1998) Gossip and resistance among the medieval peasantry Past & Present 160 pp 3-24 Wickson, F and B Wynne (2012) The anglerfish deception EMBO Reports 13 (2) pp 100105 Wickson, F., Binimelis, R., and Herrero, A (2016) Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old Story Sustainability, (11), 1105 Endnotes For a literature review on the broad concept of resistance, see Hollander and Einwohner (2004) It is important to note here that these data are disaggregated and differ substantially depending on the source (Amigos de la Tierra et al 2014) There is no official data indicating the area of conventional maize in the period 1998-2002 or for organic maize in the period 2003-2005 We use the term agri/cultures to specifically emphasise the importance of the socio-cultural aspects of agricultural systems and the way in which they are entangled with the biological-material dimensions 36 This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved Page 37 of 37 Sociologia Ruralis Figure 1: Area of organic, conventional and GM maize in Catalonia, 1998-20153 Own elaboration based on data from the Catalan Department of Agriculture and the Catalan Organic Certification Body (CCPAE) Figure 129x72mm (300 x 300 DPI) This article is protected by copyright All rights reserved .. .Just existing is resisting: The everyday struggle against the expansion of GM crops in Spain Abstract: The attempt to have coexistence between organic, conventional... cultivation of GMOs in Europe, and this is restricted to the GM maize event known as MON810 This GM maize is widely cultivated in Spain and since its introduction in 1998, the number of available GM varieties... found themselves in a situation of oppression by the expansion of GM crops (in the sense of being subject to burdensome power and constraints by both the intentional and unintentional spread of GMOs)