FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W341137412> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W341137412 startingPage "291" @default.
• W341137412 abstract "IntroductionThe phenomenon of globalization is contested on the grounds of its extent, inevitability, and even novelty. Even if globalization is an ideologically driven political project, as many increasingly now characterize it (for example, McBride and Shields 1997; McMichael 2004; Urmetzer 2005), subscription to it nonetheless entails some very real ground-level conditioning. Regulatory reform for trade liberalization is at the heart of this conditioning. With respect to agricultural biotechnologies, this is evidenced in a strengthening of intellectual property rights, a retrenchment of public breeding, and an overall weakening of regulatory oversight. Seemingly nowhere has this reform been so unrestrained as in the U.S. Nonetheless, research on the potential social impacts of agricultural biotechnologies has largely focused on developing countries. Scholars and social movement actors have highlighted numerous inequities from introducing high capital agricultural biotechnologies to developing countries: the capture of developing country genetic resources as a form of recolonization, the technologies' unsuitability for developing country needs, and the inappropriateness of their proprietary aspects for low income countries, to name a few (see Arends-Kuenning and Makundi 2000; Barton and Berger 2001; Fitting 2008; Gonsalves et al. 2007; Howard 2000; Shiva 2001; Teubal 2008).Given that the U.S. is a driver of the new biotechnologies - both with respect to being at the forefront of technological development and with respect to their rate of adoption - it appears to be in an assumed position of privilege, and impacts in that country have garnered far less scholarly attention. New laws and contractual obligations associated with agricultural biotechnologies indicate that significant changes are occurring in the agricultural systems of developed countries such as the U.S., however: patents on seeds, prohibitions on seed saving, grower contracts, and a rise in litigation between technology developers and agricultural producers all suggest that a social reorganization of agriculture may be occurring, whereby ownership and control over agricultural production is expropriated from farmers and shifted to corporations. Despite these rapid changes associated with the technology, we know little of the experiences of those who actually use it. Important work can be found on structural shifts occurring in the agrifood system and on how agricultural biotechnologies increasingly affect these structural systems (see, for example, Kloppenburg 2004; Mascarenhas and Busch 2006; McMichael 1992; Wilkinson 2002), but studies that include the perspectives of farmers in developed countries are largely lacking, with some few exceptions (for example, Mauro and McLachlan, 2008; and, related, Muller 2008).This paper seeks to address this gap by seeking the perspective of farmers from Mississippi to answer: to what extent have the proprietary aspects of agricultural biotechnologies facilitated a social reorganizing of agricultural production, and what effect does any such reorganization have on farmers' control over their production? Intimately related to the discussion of a social reorganization of agricultural production are the questions of the technologies' broader social worth and potential negative environmental and health impacts, and even their long-term viability in the face of weed and insect resistance. While these are important considerations for a social evaluation of the technologies, they are beyond the scope of this paper.1The research for this paper was conducted as part of a larger, comparative investigation between Saskatchewan, Canada and Mississippi, U.S.A. These regions were selected primarily because there was important litigation between farmers and technology developers which could be revealing of the direction in which the proprietary framework for agricultural biotechnologies was developing. In Mississippi, Monsanto Co. …" @default.
• W341137412 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W341137412 creator A5033870909 @default.
• W341137412 date "2010-07-01" @default.
• W341137412 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W341137412 title "Biotech on the Farm: Mississippi Agriculture in an Age of Proprietary Biotechnologies" @default.
• W341137412 cites W1489901752 @default.
• W341137412 cites W1511861416 @default.
• W341137412 cites W1963756172 @default.
• W341137412 cites W1979230284 @default.
• W341137412 cites W200738847 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2017322471 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2028278323 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2038674848 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2043373522 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2076946831 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2098647612 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2282843431 @default.
• W341137412 cites W230719962 @default.
• W341137412 cites W2333441750 @default.
• W341137412 cites W3120439139 @default.
• W341137412 cites W3123977381 @default.
• W341137412 cites W603631961 @default.
• W341137412 cites W648995660 @default.
• W341137412 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W341137412 type Work @default.
• W341137412 sameAs 341137412 @default.
• W341137412 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W341137412 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W341137412 hasAuthorship W341137412A5033870909 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C2119116 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C47768531 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C83864248 @default.
• W341137412 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C162324750 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C17744445 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C199539241 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C2119116 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C47768531 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C50522688 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C83864248 @default.
• W341137412 hasConceptScore W341137412C94625758 @default.
• W341137412 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W341137412 hasLocation W3411374121 @default.
• W341137412 hasOpenAccess W341137412 @default.
• W341137412 hasPrimaryLocation W3411374121 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W1488360200 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W1513978693 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W1612506407 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W205624442 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2095980225 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2099454861 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2105911991 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2123477411 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2133237810 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2559469021 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2742655103 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2799462744 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2902095759 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2916977951 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W2921192634 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W3124457804 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W3124511705 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W216248841 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W3122479071 @default.
• W341137412 hasRelatedWork W3122485960 @default.
• W341137412 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W341137412 isParatext "false" @default.
• W341137412 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W341137412 magId "341137412" @default.
• W341137412 workType "article" @default.