Politicized seeds and the artificiality of nature.

Debate on genetically
engineered plants in post-socialist Poland
Magdalena Gralska
11th Annual Conference of the Romanian Society for Social and Cultural Anthropology
November 21st-22nd / Cluj: Panel 18. Agri-Food Production at the Fringe of EU Politics: New
Peasants and Local Forms of Resistance
It was summer 2012, when fierce debate over so-called Seed Act a new law settling the
use of transgenic crops, authorized by the European Union broke in Polish media. Different
social agents began to express their opinion over legalization of genetically modified plants. For
some, GMOs were just another achievement of agricultural sciences, a necessary step towards
progress of young Polish free market economy towards becoming a full-fledged member
state of European Union. Others however were identifying genetically engineered plants as
unnatural and dangerous to public health, national economy or traditional crops and biodiversity
in Poland (in the case of both, domesticated as well as wild flora).
The first brief of the Seed Act was vetoed by Polish centre-right president Bronisaw
Komorowski in the late 2011, due to his doubts on imprecise regulations on GM crops
cultivation, awoke by the third sector activists. At his request, members of the Governmental
Commission on GMOs, an advising body by the Ministry of Environment established to issue an
opinion on any matter considering transgenic organisms in Poland (including scientific
purposes), were asked to advice in the process of creating a presidential version of the new law,
on which team of experts hired by the Presidents cabinet worked. Its worth mentioning, that the
composition of the board differed in the years 2008-2010, when the first draft of the act was
being written, from the cadence which was asked to advice in 2011. According to the Law on
Genetically Modified Organisms from 2001, every four years a new commission is to be chosen
by the Minister of Environment. This new cadence, in the contrary to the earlier one, was of
more diverse consistence though obviously dominated by scholars (experts on biotechnology,
biology and ecology), included a few more scientist sceptical about popularization of genetically
modified organisms in Polish agriculture. A year later, in the late 2012 the presidential project of

the Seed Act was accepted in the final reading by the Parliament. Though the cultivation of corn
MON 810 and potato Amflora was banned, GM crops can still be imported for an animal fodder.
Whats particularly interesting, scholars from the governmental commission were
amongst the first who decided to join or even it may be fair to say that they actually started the
whole media debate itself. As authorities they successfully attracted media to the on-going
legislative discussion the first were counter arguments to the manifestos of anti-GM social
organizations, which made a place for the following official replay from scientists sympathizing
with the GM opponents. This argumentative debate caught the attention of public opinion, also
obliging politicians to become interested in the matter. Though at the time, controversies
surrounding transgenic crops were not as high as a semi-similar bioethical issue of the in-vitro
method of artificial insemination, GMOs engaged into discussion actors with a very different
background and interest. The vast variety of voices, highlighting various aspects of the problem,
divided itself (or was rather divided by media in the process) into two fractions of anti and
pro. Apart from this obvious simplification, the division line didnt run the way one would
necessarily expected it to.
I think there are three main questions we should ask ourselves if we want to talk about the
reception of GM crops in Poland, and about the problem of GM crops in general. We have three
whys.
1. First, basis question: Why have GMOs sparked such a deep controversy in Poland?
2. Why debate engaged those particular participants?
3. And the larger question: Why we oppose growing GM plants for food, but we agree to the
conventional monoculture plantations?
All this three questions I was asking myself for the last three years, during my ethnographic
research in Poland and now I will try to answer them.
During my research study on the GMO debate, which I conducted in years 2012-2013, I
interviewed different participants of the discussion and analyzed pro and anti media discourses.

Politicized seeds: the brief history of GMOs

Well, lets start with some basic history data. In late 60s and early 70s of the 20th
century the idea of humanitarian help as a diplomatic tool became highly popular amongst

Western countries. Food aids as well as agricultural technology transfers travelled down the
North-South axis. This series of research projects and development ideas, which supposed to
help the poor and hungry of the world in the difficult places they live, known as the Green
Revolution, included new types of crops and farming methods: high-yielding varieties of cereal
grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques,
distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. And in fact
combined efforts of Norman Borlaug and his colleagues actually increased an agricultural
production around the world. It had some negative consequences too, but this is a different
topic...
Today, when the new species of maize, soy, wheat, rice, canola and potato are being
developed in biotech labs, many (including UN and OECD) state that we are witnessing the next
Green Revolution the Green Revolution vol. 2. During my research, many of my interviewees
from biotech industry shared this opinion, saying that in the end we [agricultural
biotechnologist] will help people of the Third World1 and that GM can help humanity to
survive or at least those poor people2. They believe that transgenic crops can be an actual
remedy to the problem of word hunger and malnutrition. However, motivation behind genetic
engineering of plants should not be compared to the motivation behind the Green Revolution. In
the case of GMOs, scientists modified the first crop to increase its nutritional value quite late,
because in the year 2001, while creating so called golden rice.
From the very beginning, GM crops had many opponents objecting the introduction of
transgenic crops on several grounds. Main concerns, echoing in public debates around the world,
were related to the issues of environmental protection, health safety, actual inevitability of
creating new, genetically engineered plants, and basic economic as well as food sovereignty, due
to the intellectual property legislative regulations (patenting of newly design species).
Nevertheless, farmers around the world have widely adopted GM technology.
In 1998 European Union established a moratorium over all genetically engineered
products (mainly foods), banning their import. The regulation was obligatory till 2003, when
government of United States, along with governments of Argentina and Canada, launched the
formal complaint to the World Trade Organization; three years later WTO ruled against the

1
2

Interview with Pawe, molecular biologist, Polish Academy of Science (03.06.2013).

Interview with Ewa, biotechnologist, University of Warsaw (04.06.2013).

Union forcing it to cancel the ban. These events, the international debate over GMO along with
media attention, are certainly the reasons for todays narration over transgenic plants and future
of agriculture, not only in Europe, but worldwide. Because of the controversy arouse around the
transgenic crops, some of African countries refused to accept food aids from the US, to avoid
accusations of being GM-contaminated what would affect their economy, based on export to
European countries. To gain some public sympathy for GMOs, US politicians were trying to use
narrative of guilt and shame:
By refusing to adopt scientifically based laws regarding biotechnology, the EU has fed the
myth that biotech crops are somehow dangerous The European Unions lack of science
based biotech laws is unacceptable, and is threatening the health of millions of Africans.3

Even American president at that time, G.W. Bush Junior tried to exert a political pressure on EU
by saying, that European governments should join no hinder the great cause of ending
hunger in Africa4. European Commission replayed immediately:
The European Commission finds it unacceptable that such legitimate concerns are used by
the U.S. against the EU policy on GMOs Food aid to starving populations should be about
meeting the urgent humanitarian needs of those who are in need. It should not be about
trying to advance the case for GM food abroad.5

Although speaking about GMOs in the context of food aids can be considered partially an
economic strategy to promote biotech products, intentions of EU were probably not that pure
either. It may be that the Union was seeking to exclude the US from the market by supporting
producers of conventional seeds. Nevertheless, after lost battle with GM-traders in 2003, EU was
bound to create a new law, which happens to be one of the strictest in the world.
As of the beginning of this year, European Union has authorized 48 types of transgenic
organisms. Most of them are approved to be imported for animal fodder or food processing. By
the year 2014, the only GM food crops with approval for cultivation in Europe are MON 810, a
Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer (for human consumption)

US Senator Chuck Grassley in his article Salvation of Starvation? GMO food aid in Africa (5 March 2003).
President G.W. Bush Junior quoted in French Plan to Aid Africa Could be Sunk by Bush, The Guardian (23
May 2003).
5
EC, Press Release IP/03/681 (13 May 2003).

and a German potato Amflora of BASF Plant Science (for industrial starch production and
animal feed use6). Although according to EU regulations, all member states are bound to apply
the new laws, there is a safeguard clause. Under certain circumstances, particular countries
may invoke to temporarily restrict or prohibit the use or/and sale of a GMO within their territory,
if they have justifiable reasons to believe that the approved transgenic organisms constitute a risk
to human health or the environment. However, till today none of the member states proved and
permanently banned transgenic crops and GM-based foods in their countries. Nevertheless, the
important and quite positive part of the GMO Union law is an obligatory labelling. This
regulation is obligatory also in Poland, where according to the Seed Act and concomitant
regulations, import and sale of GM animal foods and fodder is legal, but cultivation of MON 810
and Amflora potato is not.

Communist Poland and the myth of countryside

After the 2nd World War, Poland like many other countries in the region became a
communist state ruled by one political formation in the single-party democracy. The Polish
United Labour Party pursed a centrally planned economy. Private agriculture industry, destroyed
during the war turmoil, was heavily collectivized. This system turned out to be unsuccessful in
Poland, though it worked more or less in other communist republics of the region. The
centralization in agriculture sector included control over supplies, like seeds and fertilizers as
well as marketing of agricultural products.
Centralized agriculture never managed to fulfil all social needs of this difficult period.
Malfunction in the food sector was especially noticeable during the temporary periods of
economic crisis in the 60 and then again in early 80. Foodstuff rationing, even with the help of
food supplies, imported from other Eastern Bloc republics, wasnt a satisfactory resolution.
There was no food to buy in the shops; store supplies were not reaching shelves, due to the
general corruption.
The period of Polish Republic of People pushed society towards creativity in the art of
modern hunter-gathering the popularity of family trips to the forest for blackberries,
6

The approval from 2010 was annulled in the end of 2013 by the EU General Court due to the procedural
complications. However, the Amflora seed producer, German BASF stopped selling the modified potato in Europe
in 2011, year later moving the entire biotech division to United States. Their products were struggling to gain a
market share amid widespread consumer and political resistance in many European countries.

cranberries or mushrooms was (and still is) enormous. Black food markets were based on the
complicated underground networks on the axis city-consumers villages-suppliers. Also to have
a family in the countryside was more than just prestigious. Polish rural areas were poor, but rich
in healthy and fresh foods, available all the time. This particular appreciation of independent
home-based, small-scale food production, along with the communist propaganda making out of
simplified representations of peasants (along with other pillars of the nation miners and shipbuilders) ideological heroes and from the folk culture the national one, created a certain
essentialised image of agricultural sector. The romantic narration over cultivated nature
agricultural landscapes and its inhabitants as a mother feeding her nation is present also today.
In 1989 Polish society along with other members of the Eastern Bloc, has gone through
an enormous change. Establishment of multiparty democracy was followed by the large scale
privatization of the economy, including the food industry and agriculture. The economic
situation of 90s was however far from perfection. Post-socialist agriculture was able to survive
only with the help of governmental subsidies and, since 2004, the European funds. Polish
countryside changed a lot with the mechanization of agriculture, with large farm holdings
beginning to dominate over the medium and small family farms, the landscapes and demographic
characteristics change, making a growing underpopulation of rural areas due to the labour
migration the biggest concern.
In the same time, todays folk-inspired and original folk art as well as traditional foods
from the grannys kitchen are extremely popular among new Polish middle and upper class,
living in the cities. Images of homely landscapes, revoking memories of every year countryside
holidays or family visits (due to the strong after-war internal migration), create feelings of
nostalgia and reproduce ethnical self-identification symbolize by purely Polish folk culture, in a
way communist government wanted to see it. In the history there are plenty of examples of such
mythologizing practices from the 16th century Polish Renaissance and its cult of countryside
lifestyle, through the fascination of philosophy with a simple man during Enlightenment, through
Romanticism of occupied Poland in 19th preserving national traditions through celebration of
folklore, to Young Poland and its peasantry lifestyle obsession.

Polish versus foreign? Discourse over genetically engineered plants in Poland

The 90s brought to Poland a political and economical change, opening country to the
influence of Western culture. Throughout the communist period Poles were looking towards the
West for the forbidden books, music, art or fashions with the help of friends and family
members who run away abroad to Germany, France, England or United States. Foreign goods
were considered to be utmost progressive and modern; the more unavailable there were the more
prestigious and wanted. When Poland was hit by the torrent of globalization, all these secret
needs became an open fascination, almost a cult of Western lifestyle. The development of a
capitalist and consumer-driven economy has enormously increased the availability and variety of
consumer goods including foods.
The next step the upcoming accession to European Union noticeably influenced the
development of agricultural sector. After year 2004, when Poland became a member state, Polish
government was obliged to slowly enact all existing EU regulations. However, due to the priority
of other crucial matters, the endowment of one of the newest laws was postponed the
regulation concerning transgenic foods and genetically modified crops. The Seed Act, the final
document which supposed to adjust our law to the European one, as I mentioned earlier, was
voted for in the autumn of 2012 and established in the January 2013.
Genetically modified food was present in the Polish public discourse much earlier in
the end of 90s, around about the time when European Commission announced moratorium over
GM products from United States, Canada and Argentina. Although an importance of the matter
was already noticeable, no emotions were yet involved on Polish side. In 2001, to adjust Poland
to applying for the membership of European Union, a general act regulating the use of
genetically modified organisms was endowed7. In years 2006 and 2007 the first regulations
forbidding sale of transgenic seeds for cultivation and animal fodder were quietly endowed.
Media and public reception of genetically modified food was then in between positive and
neutral. No one really knew what GMOs were and there was yet no need to know. They just
seemed to be an interesting novelty, something fancy, impressive, as it came from the West,
moreover from Polish big brother America, the land of successful and powerful man. There
was no public debate over transgenic plants, maybe a few contesting voices only amongst
politicians.

Dziennik Ustaw 2001. no. 76, position 811 with later changes

The debate over transgenic plants in Poland became more vivid when the new Union law
on GM products was established, allowing certain number of products to enter the market.
Approval of transgenic potato Amflora in 2010 reminded Polish government of a need to
regulate cultivation and sale of GM seeds. Today in Poland its not allowed to sell or cultivate
any GM crop seeds, its however legal to import foods and animal fodder made out of transgenic
components, if it is properly labelled. The regulation responsible for the ban of MON 810 and
Amflora is nevertheless against the Union legislation. The disposition, popularly known as the
Seed Act, was announced by the Council of Ministers on the 2nd of January 2013 after being
voted for by the majority of the Lower Chamber of Polish parliament, Sejm.
The need to adjust national laws to requirements of European Union always raises in
Poland much controversy, depending on the nature of the subject. The biggest outrage appears
usually among the Conservatives (and utmost honest support on the side of centre-left parties),
when the matters of gender equality or violence towards women in the home environment are
being talked about. It was therefore interesting to observe the character of more than a year-long
fierce debate on genetically modified organism, which involved vast choice of actors, including
Polish president. It was the biggest, and as it seems the last public debate in Poland on
genetically engineered plants.
The first non-governmental organization, which became interested in the problem of
establishing regulations approving the entering of GMOs into Polish agriculture, was slightly
radical International Coalition to Protect Polish Countryside (Midzynarodowa Kolalicja dla
Ochrony Polskiej Wsi) with its campaign Stop GMO in Poland (Stop dla GMO w Polsce).
Along with Polish Forum of Ecological Agriculture (Polskie Forum Rolnictwa Ekologicznego),
association focused on the promotion of organic agriculture, was a main initiator of the Coalition
Poland Free from GMO (Koalicja Polska Wolna od GMO). Their anti-GM activism was
based mostly on the on-line articles and blogging. When the independent civil right movement
called GMO TO NIE TO (what means, in a loose translation, GMO is not an answer) and
Polish Greenpeace also got interested in the matter, starting their own campaigns, national media
caught the topic. In response to the actions of anti-GMO movements, the GMO supporters also
spoke up prominent Polish biologists and biotechnologist agreed or decided to express their
opinion, starting the debate. As they were criticizing arguments of the opponents of transgenic
crops, they were giving an impression that the only acceptable scientific perspective on the

matter the only reliable is the pro-GM one, as it is how future of the agriculture looks like8.
To counter those arguments and to counterbalance the impression that the whole scientific world
is unanimously approving the introduction of transgenic crops, other scholars joined the
discussion biologist, botanists and biotechnologist, as well as ecologists and ethics. Growing
interest of media and the following interest on the part of public opinion drove the attention of
politicians, obliging them to position themselves in the matter of GMO. When the debate went in
full swing, also the labour unions which interest was at stake took their part in the discussion
the Polish Union of Corn Producers (Polski Zwizek Producentw Kukurydzy) and the Trade
Union of Organic Farmers (Zwizek Zawodowy Rolnikw Ekologicznych).
The national debate on the legalization of transgenic arable crops didnt stir the masses,
like it was with ACTA case few years back when thousands of citizens went out on the streets to
protest against the regulations threatening freedom of the Internet. There were some relatively
small marches and protests (counting every time few hundreds of participants), organized by the
NGOs and civil movements, lectures and conferences (academic as well as commercial)
organized by both sides, television and radio discussions, articles published. Some media as well
as non-governmental organizations tried very hard (without success) to shock people, by
pursuing overdramatic narrative of GMO being a agricultural and ecological Holocaust.
Nevertheless, public discussion over transgenic crops engaged lots of different actors, for whom
it seemed a perfect opportunity to promote their cause or political agenda.
Few interesting observations sprang here in my mind. Firstly, one would think scientists
perspective over the GM problem would be more or less similar, especially considering the fact
that they all share academic background all are educated similarly and all have access to the
newest research data. However the few scholars, who did took part in the discussion quite
actively had a strikingly different opinions some biotechnologists were fiercely criticizing
GMO opponents and their arguments, while other along with ecologists stood with dashing
attitude on the other side, supporting anti-GM media campaigns, marches and protests.
Disagreement on the matter of transgenic crops divided as well the political parties,
which allowed their members to have an individual opinion on the case. As a result upmost
extraordinary phenomena took place single politicians of extreme right from the Law and
Justice Party (PiS: Prawo i Sprawiedliwo), conservative peasantrish Polish Folk Party (PSL:
8

Interview with Piotr, biotechnologist, University of Warsaw (08.06.2013).

Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe), centre-left Democratic Left Alliance (SLD: Sojusz Lewicy
Demokratycznej) and the Green Party jointly said no to legalization of GM arable crops.
Along with medium scale, small scale and organic farmers, environmental and civil rights
activists they opposed large farm holders, supported by politicians from centre-right Civic
Platform Party (PO: Platforma Obywatelska), which rules in a coalition with PSL. However, let
us not be deceived various actors, who joined the discussion on the anti or pro side, differ
significantly among each other in their reasoning behind their disapproval or approval of
transgenic crops.
In Poland the biggest concern in the public debate over legalization of transgenic crops
seemed to be the health safety of GM products and consumers right to demand product labelling
from companies using transgenic ingredients. Not much attention was being paid to the danger of
losing Polish local species of fruits and vegetables (i.e. indigenous apples or pears), and hence
the traditional foodways (i.e. in the case of meals, which can preserve the original flavour only if
made with certain components). Nonetheless, what many were afraid of are the imported foods,
which if cheaper can compete with products of national agro-industry. Some nongovernmental organizations tried to with partial success draw public attention to the potential
danger of GM plants for ecological biodiversity of cultivated and wild plants (the initiative
Ocali Polskie Nasiona To Save Polish Seeds by ICPPC, the International Coalition to
Protect Polish Countryside). The same happened to ethical concerns on monopoly and authorship
rights of corporations, producing the new genetically engineered species of plants.
The general discussion over GMOs was based on the dialogue (or rather on the lack of it)
between the scientists, who decided that it is their moral duty to engage in the debate as objective
authorities. However, their constant disagreement on the issue made it very difficult for the
public to choose one opinion over the other. The fierce argue over the risks of planting and
consuming transgenic crops, followed and maybe even exaggerated by media, strained the
credibility of the experts, leaving people unable to decide. From a number of scientists involved
in the debate, exactly a half was against and a half for. The only objective authorities most
would think of were not giving one reassuring answer to the problem, arguing vividly in
national-level newspapers and television, and discrediting each other. The unusual division in the
area of politics also didnt help to decide according to the preference surveys, conducted by
some of the news portals, public opinions were evenly split.

So now I will present my lovely and totally fascinating analysis of the adjectives, or
rather labels given to GMOs by both sides of the debate and by all kinds of different social
agents activists, politicians, priests or scientists. This list is based on the media discourse
analysis and the analysis of the interviews I did with scientists and activists involved in the
discussion. In the summary Im comparing words used in the context of genetically modified and
not modified organisms (particularly foods and plants). As we can see, the terms used by
different actors are surpassingly similar, to dont say the same.
Particularly interesting is the use of a word natural in the relation to transgenic
organisms, as well as non-transgenic ones. It implies that users of this term understand
differently the nature of genetic engineering. For biologists and biotechnologists I interviewed,
the possibility to modify organisms is a natural development, the next level in the process of
plant domestication, which in their opinion is a cornerstone of human civilization. On the other
hand, GM-opponents consider genetic engineering to be unnatural; for them nature is not just
nature, but Nature a cosmological system of life, Gods sacred creation or the Mother Nature.
Any disturbance, any act of human conceit may destroy the divine, universal balance and bring
chaos to the humanity. As Tim Ingold points out, thefarmer is passive because he just follows
the nature laws, while artisan, in this case scientist, is active since he impels reason in his actions
(2000:80). Other terms being used in the context of naturality give a deeper inquire into the
problem. For pro GMO certain artificiality of transgenic food products is a positive factor
the fact that they are highly processed and therefore controlled makes them safer to eat from the
organic, uncontrolled and unknown ones. Some even consider modified foods as less artificial, as
they believe that less chemicals will be used during the farming process. In the same time, for
GM opponents the artificiality of genetically engineer products is unacceptable; for most of them
transgenic foods are just another idea of large agricultural firms to sell more and to make nations
dependent on the seed delivery from the West (due to the patenting regulations). The problem of
food sovereignty is also a matter of misunderstanding for the GM supporters it is an answer to
the problem of world hunger, in what do not want to believe the GM opponents, highly
concerned about the economical independency of the countries of Global South.
Other interesting adjective which caught my attention is the term cheap, also used in
the case of both contradictory categories. According to the pro GMO side, transgenic crops
make a cost of food production lower and therefore the availability of cheap quality (less

chemicalized) food will rise. They state in the same time that the attempts to base worlds
agriculture on sustainable and organic farming is a false hope, which make price of food
production extremely high. On the other hand, anti-GMO side says that the conventional seeds
are good enough (in the case of centre-right politicians or medium scale and small scale farmers),
and the truly organic food produced on the higher scale would be as expensive as the traditional
one; the only problem is to modify the system (according to the most of environmentalists,
organic farmers and social activists, but also biotechnologists criticizing corporatism and
privatization of science).

Conclusion: Natural as Polish?

The debate on genetically modified crops, which took place in Poland in years 20122013, is a significant example of how important can social consulting be in the case of
agricultural politics. As I presented above, the discourse on transgenic foods is fluid and
inhomogeneous. Although the influence of national media on the debate was substantial, they
didnt entirely succeed in their attempt to create simplified oppositions in the discussion over
legalization of transgenic crops. The debate wasnt at all a fight between black and white, and it
was one of the reasons why many had a major problem with developing an opinion on the
matter.
The European policy towards development of agriculture might be a next interesting
example of how complicated the issue is. The subsides offered by Union to Poland support
projects of sustainable agriculture as well as GMO introduction by pursuing the field trials of
crops in order to quickly legalize them. Although the term global in the case of transgenic foods
might be both, positive and negative, the biggest concern of GMO opponents is, as I believe, a
default threat to national identity. Transgenic crops symbolize the once admired powerful
economies of the world, States and Canada, as well as the newer once China and India (in the
case of Bt Cotton cultivation). Modified seeds are considered to be a foreign idea, even though a
new species are being worked on in Poland. In the eyes of many anti-GMO activists and familyowned, postpeasant farms it is better to stay with the traditional seeds, which can be bought in
without much complication, in an old way. Is Poland choosing backwardness by banning (semilegally) the cultivation of MON 810 maize and Amflora potato? By challenging the logic behind
the unified laws of European Union, along with a few other member states? It rather seems that

Poland, after a quarter of century from the system transformation, started to fear cultural
dissolution as national boundaries disappear. This invisibly working resistance to this Euroglobalization can be a Polish of self-glocalization in order to preserve what is considered to be a
nations heritage - the socio-cultural landscape of Polish countryside, with its traditional cuisine,
environment and agriculture.