THE POLICY CONTROVERSY OF GMOs IN ECUADOR:

1

Wageningen School of Social Sciences - Wageningen University

Chair Group: Public Administration and Policy

Master thesis

THE POLICY CONTROVERSY

OF GMOs IN ECUADOR:

mechanisms of framing and polarization

in coping with a wicked problem

November, 2013

Management, Economics and Consumer Studies (MME)

Specialization: Economics, Environment and Governance

Margherita Maria Benedetta Spinelli, Reg. No. 890621-790-110

Supervisors:

Dr. Art Dewulf, Public Administration and Policy group

Dr. Stephen Sherwood, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group

Dr. Claudio Soregaroli, double degree co-supervisor from the Catholic University of

the Sacred Heart (Cremona)

Thesis code: PAP – 80333

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This thesis aims at contributing to the academic discussion about wicked problems and frame polarization

by studying the policy controversy regarding the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. The thesis focuses on

the public discussions about this policy controversy and on the role played by the main social actors

involved. The thesis opens with an introduction to a series of guiding concepts: wicked problems, media in

politics, government and governance, dialogues of the deaf, framing and polarization. Empirical analysis is

based on public discussions and interviews that were collected during two months of field research in

Ecuador. The results show how the main social actors involved in the controversy currently interact in a

context that can be defined as a wicked problem, and in which the public discussions risk to become

dialogues of the deaf. The research concludes that both the focus of the discussions on the societal

connotations of GMOs and an increase in the interactivity of the discussions might be able to decrease

polarization.

KEYWORDS: GMOs, transgenic products, Ecuador, wicked problem, framing, polarization.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT.......................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 The controversies on GMOs worldwide ........................................................................................... 7

1.1.2 Problem statement: the Ecuadorian case ...................................................................................... 11

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................ 15

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 16

1.4 THESIS OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................................... 16

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................ 18

2.1 WICKED PROBLEMS AND DIALOGUES OF THE DEAF ............................................................................. 18

2.1.1 Wicked problems ............................................................................................................................ 18

2.1.2 Dialogues of the deaf ...................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.3 The role of the media in politics ..................................................................................................... 25

2.2 GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................................... 27

2.3 FRAMING AND POLARIZATION .............................................................................................................. 29

2.3.1 Frames ............................................................................................................................................ 30

2.3.2 Polarization ..................................................................................................................................... 39

3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 43

3.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................. 43

3.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................... 44

3.3 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 46

3.4 ENSURING QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 49

3.4.1 Ensuring quality in case studies ...................................................................................................... 49

3.4.2 Ensuring quality in framing- and discourse analysis ....................................................................... 49

4. THE POLICY CONTROVERSY OF GMOs IN ECUADOR ................................................................................... 51

4.1 GMOs IN ECUADOR: A WICKED PROBLEM? .......................................................................................... 51

4.1.1 The characteristics of a wicked problem ........................................................................................ 51

4.1.2 The degrees of wickedness of a problem and the appropriate strategies ..................................... 53

4.2 GMOs IN ECUADOR: THE ROLE PLAYED BY MEDIA ............................................................................... 55

4.3 GMOs IN ECUADOR: GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE ..................................................................... 57

5. SOCIAL ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY ..................................................................................... 62

5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................................. 62

5.1.1 Roberto Gortaire ............................................................................................................................ 64

4

5.1.2 Javier Carrera .................................................................................................................................. 67

5.1.3 Anonymous member of Ekorural ................................................................................................... 68

5.1.4 Anonymous member of Ekorural ................................................................................................... 70

5.1.5 Maria de Lourdes Torres................................................................................................................. 71

5.1.6 Cesar Paz Y Miño ............................................................................................................................ 72

5.1.7 Anonymous functionaries of MAGAP ............................................................................................. 73

5.1.8 Elizabeth Bravo ............................................................................................................................... 74

5.1.9 Manuel Suquilanda ......................................................................................................................... 75

5.1.10 Anonymous member of FENOCIN ................................................................................................ 76

5.1.11 Anonymous functionary of SENESCYT .......................................................................................... 77

5.1.12 Anonymous functionaries of INIAP .............................................................................................. 78

5.1.13 Andrés Factos ............................................................................................................................... 80

5.1.14 Carina Holguin .............................................................................................................................. 81

5.1.15 Anonymous professor in FLACSO ................................................................................................. 82

5.1.16 PRONACA S.A. ............................................................................................................................... 82

5.1.17 ESPOL ............................................................................................................................................ 83

5.1.18 Alberto Acosta .............................................................................................................................. 83

5.1.19 President Rafael Correa ................................................................................................................ 84

5.2 ANALYSIS OF FRAME POLARIZATION ..................................................................................................... 86

6. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 89

6.1 THE BEGINNING: PRESIDENT CORREA’S DECLARATION ........................................................................ 89

6.2 PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS THROUGH THE MEDIA: WEB 1.0 ........................................................................ 90

6.2.1 Framing on the topic of ‘productivity’ ............................................................................................ 93

6.2.2 Framing on the topic of ‘health’ ..................................................................................................... 95

6.2.3 Framing on the topic of the ‘naturalness’ of GMOs ....................................................................... 99

6.2.4 Framing on the topic of ‘economic interests’............................................................................... 100

6.2.5 Framing on the topic of ‘herbicides’ ............................................................................................. 103

6.2.6 Framing on the topic of ‘social actors to be included’ ................................................................. 103

6.2.7 Framing on general topics ............................................................................................................ 107

6.2.8 Framing on the topic of ‘biodiversity’ .......................................................................................... 108

6.2.9 Polarization in media 1.0 .............................................................................................................. 109

6.3 PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS THROUGH THE MEDIA: WEB 2.0 ...................................................................... 110

6.3.1 Article published on September, 23rd 2012 .................................................................................. 110

6.3.2 Article published on September, 24th 2012 .................................................................................. 113


5




6.3.7 Article published on January, 25th 2013 ....................................................................................... 122

6.3.8 Article published on January, 26th 2013 ....................................................................................... 123

6.3.9 Polarization in media 2.0 .............................................................................................................. 125

6.4 LIVE DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 126

6.4.1 Public discussion on October, 17th 2012 ...................................................................................... 127

6.4.2 Public discussion on October, 31st 2012 ....................................................................................... 136

6.4.3 Public discussion on February, 26th 2013 ..................................................................................... 153

6.4.4 Polarization in live discussions ..................................................................................................... 168

7. DISCUSSION CHAPTER ............................................................................................................................... 170

7.1 THE MAIN SOCIAL ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE POLICY CONTROVERSY ............................................... 170

7.2 MECHANISMS OF FRAMING ................................................................................................................ 172

7.2.1 The use of frames and rhetoric .................................................................................................... 172

7.2.2 Collective action frames ............................................................................................................... 177

7.3 MECHANISMS OF POLARIZATION ........................................................................................................ 180

7.4 STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................ 182

8. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 185

8.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................ 185

8.2 REFLECTIONS ON THE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 187

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................... 188

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................. 196

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPT 1 ........................................................................................................................... 197



6

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 2 - Head and Alford (2008: 10) ............................................................................................................. 20

Figure 3 - Roberts (2000: 3) ............................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 40

Figure 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 40

Figure 6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 7 ............................................................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 8 ............................................................................................................................................................ 63

Figure 9 ............................................................................................................................................................ 86

Figure 10 .......................................................................................................................................................... 91

Figure 11 .......................................................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 12 ........................................................................................................................................................ 112

Figure 13 ........................................................................................................................................................ 115

Figure 14 ........................................................................................................................................................ 117

Figure 15 ........................................................................................................................................................ 119

Figure 16 ........................................................................................................................................................ 121

Figure 17 ........................................................................................................................................................ 122

Figure 18 ........................................................................................................................................................ 123

Figure 19 ........................................................................................................................................................ 125

Figure 20 ........................................................................................................................................................ 173

Figure 21 ........................................................................................................................................................ 174

Figure 22 ........................................................................................................................................................ 174

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 135

Table 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 152

Table 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 167

file:///C:/Users/Marghe/Documents/Didattica/Thesis/final%20thesis/FINAL%20DRAFT.docx%23_Toc372992726






















7

1. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

This introduction aims (1) at providing information regarding how the policy controversy concerning GMOs

(genetically modified organisms) has been dealt with in different places, (2) at analyzing the role played by

society in these different occasions and (3) at zooming in the Ecuadorian context, in which different

debates on GMOs are currently taking place. This latter point will allow me to explain why I consider the

Ecuadorian situation as both problematic and particularly interesting and why I believe further investigation

is needed on the debates about the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. It is essential at this point to already

specify what is meant by ‘introduction’ of GMOs. This does not refer to the introduction of elsewhere

cultivated GMOs, as the importation of such products within the country is already allowed. Instead, with

‘introduction’ I will always refer to the legalization of the possibility of cultivating GMOs within the

Ecuadorian territory.

The use of GMOs in the agricultural sector is a topic that is currently being discussed on many political

agendas worldwide. As in most (perhaps any) policy controversies, the way in which different actors frame

an issue has a great influence on (1) the creation of a controversy, through different definitions of reality,

(2) the resolution of the controversy and (3) the future policies that will be implemented to cope with it. To

study and reveal such process of framing is also made complicated by the fact that frames are created both

consciously and unconsciously by social actors.

1.1.1 The controversies on GMOs worldwide

A genetically modified organism (GMO) can be defined as an “organism whose genome has been

engineered in the laboratory in order to favor the expression of desired physiological traits or the

production of desired biological products” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013). These organisms are being

researched, proposed and used in the different fields of agriculture, medicine, research, and environmental

management. This thesis focuses mainly on their use in agriculture and food production.

Traditional/conventional plant breeding is based on the age-old practice in agriculture of strategically

selecting phenotypes of closely related life forms (commonly species) having peculiar characteristics, with

the aim of improving a particular desirable quality of a plant or of an animal. Genetic engineering goes one

step further. It makes use of ‘recombinant genetic technologies’ in order to produce organisms with an

altered genome. Such alteration is usually achieved by transferring genes that yield desirable traits from

unrelated species to other organisms. Such genes are then able to code for traits in the genetically modified

organism, giving results that could unlikely be obtained through the technique of conventional selective

8

breeding (Acquaah, 2007: 272). Three main techniques are used for producing GMOs: the first one involves

the use of a ‘gene gun’, through which microscopic particles, coated with copies of genes, are propelled,

commonly via bursts of helium, through electronic or magnetic fields into the receptor cell (Feldman et al.,

2000: 8). A second approach involves the use of a bacterium (commonly Agrobacterium tumefaciens) or

virus (commonly Cucumber Mosaic Virus) that is utilized, via infection, as a vector for invading the receptor

cell, where it in turn places some of its own DNA together with the gene that has the desirable traits

(Feldman et al., 2000: 8-9). A third method involves the use of a stream of electricity to create small holes

in the organisms’ cells, so that they become vulnerable to the foreign DNA (Koons-Garcia, 2004: min 27’).

According to Malagoli (2007: 343) and Encyclopædia Britannica (2013) on the subject of the use of GMOs in

the agricultural sector, genetically modified crops (corn, cotton and soybeans) have been introduced for

the first time in the United States: here, in 1995 they have been approved as feasible for human

consumption. Their worldwide spread is proved by the fact that by 2010 genetically modified crops were

spread in 29 countries worldwide, covering more than 9.8 million squared kilometers of land (estimated to

approximately cover the 10% of the overall world’s farmland). The industry argues that the diffusion is

mainly due to intrinsic benefits of GMOs, such as their capacity of increasing production (crop yield per

area) and productivity (yield per unit investment) and in reducing dependence on synthetic pesticides. In

addition, GMOs are currently being developed for enhancing crop nutrient contents as well as for

robustness, including the ability to weather extreme climatic conditions.

Despite potential benefits, GMO technology remains a highly contentious topic for multiple reasons,

including: claims about adverse environmental consequences, such as uncontrollable contamination of

native plant populations as well as the effective loss of crop biodiversity (Tran 2013 and Buiatti as cited in

Franco, 2003 and Gepts in Randerson, 2008 and Feldmann et al., 2000: 10 and Thompson, 2012); concerns

for their ‘unnatural way of being produced’, due to the capacity of scientists to create new life forms

(Feldmann et al., 2000: 9); possible human health affects (Feldmann et al., 2000: 10 Séralini et al. 2007:

596), the fact that their distribution eventually aims at the control of the international seed supply by their

producers (Tran, 2013) and related problems of biodiversity- and of food sovereignty losses (Tran, 2013).

Debates on GMOs are currently present worldwide, and since about three decades ago both the number of

actors involved in the controversy and their respective concerns (concerning environment, agronomy,

health, socio-economic impacts or morality), have increased, resulting in what has been defined as a

‘complex of concerns’ that largely exceeds what at first appeared to be the only reason of concern, that

was, safety issues (Devos et al., 2008: 43). The complexity of the problem has particularly enlarged in the

European Union, where the broadening of the opposition of society towards GMOs have fostered “the

installation of a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GMOs, and […] the implementation

of one of the most stringent process-based regulatory regimes” (Devos et al., 2006 as cited in Devos et al.,

9

2008: 30). These rules resulted in the precautionary principle that is being adopted by the European Union

since 2000 regarding, together with other themes, also the introduction of GMOs within the member states

(Europa, 2013).

Research has shown how in many European countries ‘the public’ is usually ambivalent regarding the use of

biotechnology in the agricultural and food production, as both positive and negative aspects are being

simultaneously perceived by the citizens (Marris, 2001 as cited in Devos et al., 2008: 30). This multifaceted

‘public voice’ has eventually been the reason why the inclusion of citizens in the policy decision-making

process about this topic has been highly contested. For example, Rob Hagendijk (2004 as cited in Irwin,

2006: 301-302) notices how the European Commission paper on Science, Society and the Citizen in Europe

is influenced by two controversial voices, which simultaneously aim at stressing public dialogue and at

including only a properly instructed and educated public. Therefore, despite the ‘complex of concerns’ that

has been growing about the topic of GMOs, other authors stress how many of these concerns, in certain

occasions, have been simply (perhaps strategically) ignored. This is the case of Brian Wynne (2002, as cited

in Irwin, 2006: 302), who claims that experts, by reducing the more ambiguous framings of GMOs to a mere

scientific calculation of risks and benefits, have been able to foster a disaffection in the public. Additionally,

Irwin (2006: 303) underlines how this disaffection is being fomented not by a deficit of scientific

understanding (as it used to happen in the past), but by growing public mistrust towards government. It is

commonly argued that the only appropriate solution for the controversy over the regulation of GMOs

would be the inclusion of public consultation in the decision-making process; however, Irwin (2006: 303) is

skeptical about the possibility of an unbiased inclusion of ‘the public voice’, as “the commitment to

consensus building can suggest a decidedly homogeneous model of wider society”. Indeed, citizens can be

included in the policy-making process, but there is always the risk that such inclusion will not allow their

various opinions to bloom, while instead steering the multifaceted perspectives to a more desired,

homogeneous ‘public consensus’. This risk is also determined by “[…] the control over the framework for

engagement […] [which] constitutes an important source of power” (Irwin, 2001 as cited in Irwin, 2006:

316). This could might explain the greater engagement of citizens in what McFarland (2012: 18) defines as

‘creative political participation’, which is engaged by scattered individuals that, in order to reach their

common goals engage themselves in a public action, without waiting for the formal institutions to pursue

those goals. Citizens are therefore beginning to autonomously seek and eventually reach their objectives,

and this makes the citizenry as a whole a new, important social actor in different public discussions, not

only when they are called to participate as ‘the public’ by their governments, but also in other occasions.

The controversy of GMOs is also influencing countries in South America, where the cultivation of this type

of crops is widely spread, concerning mainly Brazil and Argentina, which are two of the worldwide leading

producers of GMOs. In addition, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia have legalized, to different

10

degrees, the field production of GMO crops (Clive, 2012 as cited in ISAAA, 2012). Meanwhile, social

movements against the main proponent of GMOs, Monsanto Corporation, has grown in the region. In

Brazil, Argentina and Peru communities are fighting for obtaining bans on GMOs and for achieving their

own, independent control over seeds and agriculture in general (Zacune, 2012: 14), while in Ecuador they

are fighting to protect the already existing bans. In Brazil the Landless Farmers’ Movement has guided

other movements in protesting against an excessive use of pesticides in Brazil, which had apparently

increased after GMOs were introduced within the country (Friends of the MST, 2010 as cited in Zacune,

2012: 14). Moreover, the controversy in Brazil is even more problematic due to the fact that in this country

the 78% of the food production is cultivated by peasant and family farmers, which also represent the 84%

of all the farms and which take on three times as many people than the other types of agribusinesses.

Therefore the approval of GMOs technologies could possibly destroy the livelihood of these small-scale

farmers (Via Campesina, 2010 as cited in Zacune, 2012: 15). At the same time there are countries, such as

Peru or Ecuador, where, after active public protests, political initiatives have been taken by the

governments to deal with GMOs in a precautionary way. In the case of Peru, the Congress, supported by

President Ollanta Humala, approved “a ten-year moratorium on GM cultivation and imports, including

seeds, livestock and fish, in order to protect biodiversity, domestic agriculture and public health” (Rema,

2011 as cited in Zacune, 2012: 15). Others examples of direct engagement of citizens in the controversy of

GMOs are: (1) the Court trial engaged in Santa Fe, Argentina by an ordinary citizen, Viviana Peralta, who

levied and won a lawsuit against genetically modified soy producers who overused Roundup herbicide,

eventually leading to a ban on Roundup (Romig, 2010 as cited in Zacune, 2012: 16) and the new ‘Law of the

Mother Earth and of the Comprehensive Development to Live Well’ (literally, Ley de la Madre Tierra y

Desarrollo Integral para Vivir Bien), passed by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales, that prohibits the

cultivation of these organisms in the country (Ugarte, 2012).

This thesis focuses on the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. This is because not in many other places

the controversy of GMOs has become so controversial, the problem so complicated. The uniqueness of the

Ecuadorian policy controversy was established by a constitutional level ban in 2008 (the first worlwide),

followed by the President’s proposed policy shift on September, 1st 2012. Ecuador has in fact undergone

from a situation, in 2008, where the official policy perspective concerning the issue of GMOs was based on

discourses on the ecological respect for the environment, the protection of citizens’ health, the respect of

food sovereignty and the achievement of ‘the good life’, i.e. the sumak kawsay (National Assembly

Legislative and Oversight Committee, 2008: 8) to a situation, since September 2012, in which citizens are

‘fighting’ against their own President to not allow a constitutional amendment that would legalize the

cultivation of GMOs. To reach their goal, citizens have engaged in actions in order to defend the

Constitution against their own President. This indeed represents a paradoxical situation, other than being a

11

controversy in which science, political actors and citizens are involved and organized in competing interests

groups.

Eeten (1999: 190) analyzes, among others, the idea of establishing a participatory process in which people

representing the opposing social actors engage in an open discussion to exchange opinions and to assess

underlying assumptions, in other words, to explore their constructed ways of seeing reality or “frames”.

This operation would eventually lead them to a mutual clarification and understanding, i.e., to deliberation

(Fischer, 1995 as cited in Eeten 1999: 190-191). However, Eeten himself is skeptical about the possibility of

this strategy to succeed in coping with highly problematic controversies: in his words, whenever a ‘dialogue

of the deaf’ is in place. This is because “clarification and mutual understanding will, at best, serve to

excavate and expose the structure of the deadlock”, but they will be unable to lead to reciprocal insights

and learning among the social actors involved (Eeten 1999: 191). The author concludes by criticizing how,

even if the importance of a free exchange of opinions and of the participation of different social actors in

the policy-process have been stressed by many authors, nobody has really faced the challenge of analyzing

what can be done when those solutions bring to nothing else than a dialogue of the deaf (Eeten, 1999:

191).

This thesis has the ambition to furnish insights on what can be done when public discussions either reveal

themselves to be dialogues of the deaf or face the risk of becoming so. By analyzing different debates in

Ecuador on the controversy of GMOs and by literally digging up the underneath conditions that make such

debates either successful or non-successful ones (in terms of exchanging of opinions and reciprocal

learning), I will try to answer the question raised by Eeten: what can be done when participation might lead

to a dialogue of the deaf? That is, what are the conditions to prevent discussions to become dialogues of

the deaf?

1.1.2 Problem statement: the Ecuadorian case

In 2008, with the inclusion of two specific articles on the topic of GMOs within the national Constitution,

Ecuador has declared itself free of transgenic seeds and crops (National Assembly Legislative and Oversight

Committee, 2008: 179). Section 2, article 15 of the Ecuadorian Constitution states that: “The development,

production, ownership, marketing, import, transport, storage and use of […] genetically modified organisms

that are harmful to human health or that jeopardize food sovereignty or ecosystems […] are forbidden”

(National Assembly Legislative and Oversight Committee, 2008: 24-25). In 2009, this led to the Law of Food

Sovereignty (LORSA), which explicitly bans transgenic seeds and crops and demands labeling of all food

products originating from transgenic crops (Art. 16, LORSA, 2009).

12

From these declarations in Ecuador’s Magna Carta, it is visible how initially the official policy perspective

and framework for guiding future policies on the issue of GMOs was based on discourses on the ecological

respect for the environment, the protection of citizens’ health, the respect of food sovereignty and the

achievement of ‘the good way of living’, i.e. the sumak kawsay (National Assembly Legislative and

Oversight Committee, 2008: 8). This policy perspective was also in line with the 2020 Ecuador’s National

Strategy to conserve and promote biodiversity, which is considered a unique characteristic of Ecuador as

this is one of the most ‘bio-diverse’ country worldwide and a centre of origin of multiple food species (Btj-

Forum, 2010: 144).

Nevertheless, during his weekly public radio address on September, 1st 2012, President Rafael Correa

declared that banning GMOs at the constitutional level was a mistake, and that he had planned to call for a

constitutional amendment in order to legalize the cultivation of GMOs in Ecuador (Enlace Ciudadano 287,

2012: 1h and 11min). His declarations immediately triggered various types of counterclaims, for example in

the form of sub-political movements aimed at developing ‘seed banks’ where to preserve heritage seeds

and biodiversity (Groundswell international, 2013) or aimed at defending food sovereignty, as shown for

example by the 2012 Propuesta de ley orgánica de agro-biodiversidad, semillas y fomento agroecológico

(literally ‘Bill of biodiversity, seeds, and the promotion of agro-ecology’) . As a result of the President’s

activity in favor of GMOs, the citizenry currently finds itself in the peculiar position of having to defend the

Constitution against its own President (Sherwood et al., 2013: 17).

The general context in which the debates on GMOs in Ecuador could be positioned seems to reflect the

idea of different authors that (1) citizens increasingly do not necessarily look at their national governments

as institutions to trust, and therefore they organize and take actions themselves in order to represent their

interests against the risks generated through public policy (Beck et al., 1994: 22-23) and (2) actions of

individuals are not exclusively determined by the norms fixed by their governments anymore, if they ever

were (Bevir and Rhodes, 2010: 91).

Moreover, in such general context, it is very noteworthy for the scope of this thesis that the debates on

GMOs in Ecuador seem to exemplify how the relationship between science and politics is changing, and of

how these trends can lead to apparently ‘unsolvable’ controversies. These changes have been recognized

by both Science studies and Policy analysis: they have been named as the ‘scientification of politics’ and the

‘politisation of science’ (Weingart, 1999 as cited in Eeten, 1999: 185), and they have been identified as the

main causes of the failure of both technocracy and highly rationalistic/decisionistic models of scientific

advice (Eeten, 1999: 185). The interconnections among science, business and politics places into question

the notion of science as an objective, independent social actor at the service of government and public

policy, as science can be viewed as a central actor in a growing number of policy controversies, such as

debates over climate change and food. In this case, policy makers that are trying to solve a policy

13

controversy cannot rely anymore on science as a third, independent party to call upon in order to solve a

controversy: science has become one of the social actors involved in a problem, therefore an external,

universal and objective truth simply does not exist anymore. This type of situation can lead to ‘wicked

problems’, as they have been named by Rittel and Webber (1973, as cited in Hisschemoller and Hoppe

(1995: 43). Those are unstructured problems that cannot be easily solved for a series of characteristics, that

for example Hisschemoller and Hoppe, (1995: 51) define as: (1) the technical methods usually used for

problem solving are in their case inadequate; (2) their boundaries are diffuse, so the problem is not clearly

separated from other problems; (3) addressing the whole problem means more than addressing the

singular parts of the problem; (4) there is the uncertainty about which disciplines and specializations are

able to solve the controversy and therefore should be used; (5) the policy process in order to cope with

them determines the involvement of many social actors, who have often conflicting values; (6) their

ambiguity is so high that it is not possible to move from their recognition to their resolution, as it usually

happens in the case of non-wicked (structured) problems; (7) before being solved they need to undergo the

political activity of problem structuring, that provides new insights on what the problem really is. This brief

description of what a wicked problem is will be expanded in subchapter 2.1 of this thesis. However, what is

now worth to mention is that the fourth characteristic seems to be particularly relevant for the case study

of GMOs in Ecuador, a country in which citizens themselves are opposing to both business people and

scientists that advocate GMOs, and in which therefore the ‘verdict of science’ cannot be considered as an

anchorage to solve the controversy, in particular provided the heterogeneity in the scientific community. As

a result, scientists are active in different ways and in multiple groups of social actors involved in the

controversy, whose claims are being doubted as much as the claims of any other social actor involved.

M.J.G Van Eeten (1999: 186) defines this type of controversies in a different way, but which has

substantially the same meaning: the author identifies some controversies to be ‘dialogues of the deaf’, in

which the arguments given by different social actors may claim equal scientific validity, however so

different from each other that discussions become deadlocked, despite the extensive deliberation and

research done in order to solve them. In fact, social actors start their confrontation from opposing frames

or definitions of reality that do not allow them to make use of their encounters in a constructive way. The

concept of frames is described by Schön and Rein (1994: 23) as the main cause of policy disputes such as

the one concerning the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. As a result, controversies can spring from

conflicting frames held by the competing social actors involved in the discussion. These frames can either

be tacit, constitutive frames, which derive from “underlying structures of belief, perception, and

appreciation” on which policy positions of the actors are generated and can rest (Schön and Rein, 1994: 23)

or can they can be formed in a more strategic way, whenever opposing parties in a policy controversy

struggle over the definition of the controversy itself, as such definition has the power to determine the

acceptance of- and the support for- certain political actions and not others (Schön and Rein, 1994: 29). To

14

worsen this situation in which people both consciously and unconsciously struggle over the definition of

reality is the fact that science, instead of being the external arbiter of the conflict, “becomes a, if not the,

bone of contention in these issues” (Eeten, 1999: 186). Eeten (1999, 1999: 186) also raises the question of

why these dialogues are a problem, and how can they be solved: a question of extreme importance for this

thesis, as insights on the conditions that can reduce the incomprehension and conflict among the debaters

could contribute to answer to it. More precisely, this thesis could provide insights on how to prevent a

dialogue to become a dialogue of the deaf, as the latter one is described as “a policy issue [that persists] for

many years and across a variety of deliberative fora” (Eeten, 1999: 186), while in the case of Ecuador, the

controversy itself started only few months (on September 2012) before the beginning of this thesis and

therefore there is still the possibility of preventing this to happen. Moreover, it could also be added that

the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador fits in a broader picture of reiterated controversies that have been

present for many years, in many different countries, about the same topic (an example, the controversy of

the introduction of GMOs in Europe, that is still provoking tensions among the different member states

who do not agree on which common position should be taken). Therefore the recommendations that will

be given by this thesis could be eventually be readapted to other contexts worldwide, in which debaters are

addressing the same type of issue. Such recommendations will focus on how to foster the conditions that

allow the debaters to listen to each other, to make their exchange of information a useful one, during

which debaters allow the information of the other ones to at least be considered by their own perspective,

without refusing regardless what the others are saying.

This thesis will particularly focus on the social activity triggered as a result of President Correa’s public

statements on 1 September 2012, in the form public discussions and other forms of confrontation that

have started after such declarations. In each discussion on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, the

different representatives of the social actors involved define the problem in different ways either due to

their constitutive frames, led by their personal way of viewing the issue, or due to strategic reasons, led by

their willingness to describe the problem in a certain way (in order to steer the solutions to the problem

itself in a certain direction). And when representatives of different social actors confront each other in a

debate on a certain topic, their frames on such topic are confronted as well. This mechanism raises the

possibility for frames to be subjected to mechanisms of de-construction and re-construction. In this

context, the process of frame polarization can be studied, to understand the gravity of the opposition

among contrasting frames.

Moreover, an in-depth analysis of- and a comparison among the multiple public discussions during which

polarization has decreased can provide useful insights on the existence of certain recurrent conditions able

to make such debates more constructive (and perhaps successful) than others. If a pattern of recurrent

conditions will be identifiable, their systematization will eventually allow me to draw some

15

recommendations on the conditions that have to be put in place and fostered in order to prevent the

debates on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador to become dialogues of the deaf. Therefore, the analysis

of the mechanisms of public narration, organization and definition will eventually provide insights on the

existence of conditions that are able to increase the possibility of deliberation during public discussions,

confrontations or debates. Consequently, recommendations on how to foster such conditions may increase

both the possibility of deliberation during a public discussion and the possibility of finding more broadly

acceptable policies and solutions for dealing with GMOs in Ecuador. Accordingly, the enlargement of the

knowledge about these mechanisms and conditions could in turn be useful in fostering a rapprochement

between the mistrusted institutions on one side and civil society on the other side. It is necessary here to

make a brief note on the normative statement this thesis assumes. In fact, this research assumes that to

prevent a dialogue of the deaf is a desirable outcome, regardless the context in which the discussion is

taking place. Therefore when I claim that the final recommendations on how to reduce or halt polarization

will be able to increase deliberation, I am referring to the deliberation within the discussion itself, that is

the possibility of the debaters at least to listen to each other’s point of view. To achieve this goal would

mean to prevent a dialogue of the deaf, which is assumed by this thesis to be a desirable outcome.

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The following thesis will be developed as theory oriented research, with the aim of contributing to the

expansion of the knowledge about framing and polarization in political debates. The findings will have

indeed also a practical relevance, as they will be used to increase both the knowledge and, as a

consequence, the capacity on how to deal in political controversies. The practical relevance of this thesis

will especially derive from providing recommendations on the best possible conditions to create during a

debate (especially on the issue of the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador), so that polarization can be

reduced or at least halted during the debate itself.

The objective of this thesis is therefore to investigate the mechanisms of interaction and polarization

among the different frames used during public discussions regarding the wicked problem of introduction of

GMOs in Ecuador.

This research falls under the categories of descriptive research and theory building research. First, it is a

descriptive research as it focuses on the description of what is happening in a certain situation (Vaus, 2010:

1-2). This thesis will in fact describe the controversy and the public discussions on the introduction of GMOs

in Ecuador. Second, it is a theory building research, as it starts with the observations of reality and it uses

inductive or bottom-up reasoning to derive a theory from the observations previously made; the theories

16

produced by this latter type of research are called post factum theories, as they are produced after the

observations are made and they are driven by the researcher’s question if “the observation is a particular

case of a more general factor, or how the observation fits into a pattern or a story” (Vaus, 2010: 5-6). This

thesis will in fact start by observing the debates or other forms of public confrontations on GMOs in

Ecuador, and from these observations will try to identify mechanisms that increase or decrease frame

polarization in public discussions on controversial issues.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The objective of this thesis is to investigate the mechanisms of interaction and polarization among the

different frames used during public discussions regarding the wicked problem of introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador.

Consequently, the general research question that this thesis will try to answer is: What are the mechanisms

of interaction and polarization among the different frames used during public discussions on the wicked

problem of the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador?

The specific research questions that this thesis will try to answer are:

- Who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to each other, and what

are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the on-going

controversy?

- Which are the framing mechanisms used during public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador in newspapers, on-line discussions and live debates?

- What mechanisms increase or decrease polarization during the public discussions on the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador?

1.4 THESIS OUTLINE

In this thesis, after the description of the main characteristics and theories about the themes of wicked

problems, dialogues of the deaf, framing an polarization (chapter 2) and the description of the

methodology used in this thesis (chapter 3), I will first identify the characteristics of the policy controversy

on GMOs in Ecuador (chapter 4). Second, I will construct a ‘figurative map’ in which social actors involved in

the controversy of GMOs will be represented based on the interviews of some of their representatives

17

(chapter 5). Third, I will address the analysis of different public confrontations and debates on the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador (chapter 6). By doing so, (1) I will reveal the different frames used by the

actors in each discussion and (2) I will conduct an analysis of the mechanisms of frames polarization. This

research will eventually allow me to draw some final recommendations on the conditions that have to be

put in place and fostered in order to prevent confrontations on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador to

become dialogues of the deaf. The aim of this thesis would finally fits in the broader scope of diminishing

the wickedness of the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. Figure 1 illustrates graphically the outline of the

thesis.

Figure 1

18

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter of the thesis includes different conceptual sub-chapters, in which I will summarized the

theories about the following academic topics: (1) wicked problems and the dialogues of the deaf (with a

small section on the role played by media in policy controversies), (2) the shift from government to

governance and (3) the processes of framing and the mechanisms of polarization. The aim is to reveal the

added value that these theories can provide to this thesis, by underling why I have chosen them, why I

think they are relevant, how I will make use of them and how I think they are connected to each other. This

analysis has the purpose of creating the theoretical background of this thesis, in order to help answering

the research questions of this thesis in the following chapters.

2.1 WICKED PROBLEMS AND DIALOGUES OF THE DEAF

In this chapter a literature review will be provided on the topics of the so called wicked problems and

dialogues of the deaf, to provide the characteristics that a controversy must have in order to be defined

with these designations. The aim of conducting the literature review on these topics is to provide insights

that will help in carrying out the research in order to answer to the first specific research question, namely

who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to each other, and what are their

positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the on-going controversy. To

have a clear view of what are the characteristics of the so called wicked problems and dialogues of the deaf

will be useful (1) in writing the empirical chapter on the current GMOs controversy in Ecuador and (2) in

having a critical approach when constructing the figurative map of the social actors involved in the

controversy, to better analyze the relations among them and between them and the controversy.

2.1.1 Wicked problems

Rittel and Webber (1973: 160), in arguing how a technocratic approach is not able anymore to cope with

policy controversies, describe how societal problems are inherently different from scientific problems, and

how this difference is indeed at the basis of the difficulties in coping with them. For these difficulties such

policy problems have been defined as wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973, as cited in Hisschemoller

and Hoppe, 1995: 43). Different authors have studied the characteristics of these problems. Rittel and

Webber themselves (1973: 160-166) provide the main features that distinguish such problems from

scientific ones, whose solution can be reached through a technocratic approach. The authors claim: (1)

wicked problems cannot be said to be solved or not, because what to do and how to do in order to solve

them is not straightforward and their traits are not obvious; (2) wicked problems have no definitive

19

formulation, as the formulation of the problems is part of the problem itself, because the understanding

and the resolution of the problem are concomitant to each other, and therefore before defining the

problem all possible solutions need to be known; from here the importance of the process of framing in

defining a policy controversy, as it will be described later on in this chapter; (3) wicked problems do not

have specific criteria that can be used to understand if they have been solved, i.e. they have no stopping

rule; (4) there are not correct or uncorrected solutions in of wicked problems, because among all the

parties that are involved in finding a solution to the problem, “[…] none of them as the power to set formal

decision rules to determine correctness”; (5) the solutions to wicked problems cannot completely tested

before their implementation, as they have waves of repercussions whose number and effects cannot be

completely evaluated in advance; (6) wicked problems do not provide the possibility to learn by trial when

coping with them, because every attempt has consequences that cannot be stopped or annulled; (7) all the

possible solutions to wicked problems cannot be exhaustively enumerated or described, therefore their set

it is a matter of judgment; (8) wicked problems are unique, because even if two of these problems seem to

be similar, it is never possible to ensure that the peculiar characteristics of one problems are the same of

another problems that has already been solved; (9) wicked problems are interconnected, in the sense that

each problem can be considered the symptom of another one, that lays at a higher level in a sort of

pyramidal concatenation of problems, which makes it difficult for decision makers to even understand

which is the ‘right’ level of the problem to tackle; (10) the choice of explanation of a wicked problem, i.e.

the frame of the problem, establishes the type of resolution(s) chosen to tackle the problem; (11) because

of the unstoppable wave of consequences triggered by one solution applied to a wicked problem, the

decision-makers that implement such solution are liable also for their consequences.

Hisschemoller and Hoppe (1995: 51) also provide a list of the characteristics of these problems, that

partially overlap with the ones illustrated by Rittel and Webber, but that however are able to show some

different nuances which might be useful when I will analyze the GMOs policy controversy in Ecuador.

Therefore I have briefly summarized what the authors consider to be the characteristics of a wicked

problem, which include: (1) the technical methods usually used for problem solving are in their case

inadequate; (2) their boundaries are diffuse, so the problem is not clearly separated from other problems;

(3) addressing the whole problem means more than addressing the singular parts of the problem; (4) there

is the uncertainty about which disciplines and specializations are able to solve the controversy and

therefore should be used; (5) the policy process in order to cope with them determines the involvement of

many social actors, who have often conflicting values; (6) their ambiguity is so high that it is not possible to

move from their recognition to their resolution, as it usually happens in the case of non-wicked (structured)

problems; (7) before being solved they need to undergo the political activity of problem structuring, that

provides new insights on what the problem really is; this last characteristic is again connected to the

20

importance of the definition of the problem itself, i.e. the framing process of the issue, that will be

addressed later on in this chapter.

More recently, Head and Alford (2008: 10) have made a distinction among problems that undergo different

degrees of wickedness, which in turn are determined by the degree of complexity and diversity of the

problem, as shown in figure 2. In order to understand the degree of wickedness of the GMOs controversy in

Ecuador, it will be useful to analyze it in the light of these characteristics, namely: the knowledge available

on the problem, the knowledge available on the solutions, the knowledge and the values of the social

actors involved in the resolution of the controversy.

Roberts (2000: 2-3) investigates the same distinction among problems, based on their degree of

wickedness. Together with this analysis, she also introduces the main strategies typically used in order to

cope with the problems that are characterized by the higher degree of wickedness, as shown in figure 3.

Figure 2 - Head and Alford (2008: 10)

Figure 3 - Roberts (2000: 3)

21

The different strategies are characterized by different dynamics, advantages and disadvantages. According

to Roberts (2000: 4-5), authoritative strategies try to cope with wicked problems by authorizing few

‘experts’ to define both the problem and possible solutions to it. Their main advantages are (1) the

reduction of the number of stakeholders involved in the problem solving, which decreases the complexity

of such activity and (2) the ‘professionalization’ and ‘objectification’ of the activity of problem solving, due

to the fact that only ‘experts’ are called to solve the problem. The main disadvantages are instead (1) the

fact that such ‘experts’ can be wrong and (2) the lost opportunity for citizens and ‘non-experts’ in general

to learn how to cope with an issue, and the consecutive estrangement of the citizens from the issues that

affect their societies (Reich, 1990 as cited in Roberts, 2000: 5).

The second type of strategies are the competitive strategies, based on which the stakeholders involved in a

controversy assume a ‘zero-sum game’, that is, a mechanism for which the social factors involved believe

that whoever has the right of defining a problem and its solutions is the winner of the game, while the

other ones are losing it. The achievement of power is central to this strategies, because whenever a

stakeholder achieves a victory and sustains over time the status of winner, then she/he is in the most

powerful position, and is able to adopt authoritative strategies. The advantages of this strategy include: (1)

the search for new ideas triggered by the competition among the stakeholders involved; (2) the challenge

to the institutionalization and centralization of power, as this one keeps circulating among the

stakeholders, with the consequence of preventing corruption. On the other hand, the main disadvantage of

such strategies is that they can cause violent disputes among the stakeholders (Roberts, 2000: 5-6).

The third type of strategies are collaborative strategies, that are based on the idea that working together by

joining forces among stakeholders can lead to better results than in the case the stakeholders try to reach

the same goal independently. Despite competitive strategies, collaborative ones are based on the idea that

problem solving is a ‘win-win’ game, in which solutions can be found so that all the stakeholders win

something and nobody loses. The advantages of these strategies include: (1) the share of costs and benefits

among the stakeholders; (2) the possibility of obtaining better results, because of synergetic relationships

among the stakeholders; (3) the elimination of redundancies and therefore an enhancement in efficiency.

On the other hand, the most important disadvantages of these strategies are mainly determined by the

increase of the number of stakeholders involved in the problem solving, which leads to: (1) the increase of

transaction costs; (2) the increase in time and effort in order to reach a solution; (3) the growth of the

difficulty of achieving synergy; (4) the possibility of poor outcomes in the case dialogue turns into debate

and debate turns into conflict (Roberts, 2000: 6-7).

Head and Alford (2008: 14) identify how usually the best strategy suggested to governments in order to

cope with wicked problems is collaboration among the stakeholders involved. Indeed, when operating

22

effectively, the tactic of collaboration is able to reach three important goals: (1) it raises the possibility of

better understanding both the nature of the problem and its causes, because a greater number of

participating actors offers a broader view of the problem, by revealing different perspectives; (2) it raises

the number of provisional solutions to the problem, because both the greater number of actors (and

relative perspectives) and the greater understanding among the parties, often holding different interests,

about what must be done to solve the controversy; (3) because the stakeholders have agreed on the steps

to be taken and because during this process they have mutually adjusted to each other, it eases the process

of the implementation of solutions (Head and Alford, 2008: 17-18). For all these reasons, indeed

collaboration among stakeholders is considered a desirable outcome when coping with intractable or

wicked problems. However, the primary mean through which people interact is dialogue, and whenever

dialogues become places of disputes instead of places of comparison and sharing of ideas, the desirable

outcomes of collaboration will probably never be reached. For this reason this thesis focuses on inquiring

what are the possible mechanisms that allow public discussions to become places of confrontation,

situations in which the social actors involved listen to each other, because I consider this as the first step in

order to achieve the goals of collaboration.

2.1.2 Dialogues of the deaf

Among the characteristics that typify wicked problems as listed above, two of them are particularly

relevant for this thesis, whose main focus is the analysis of the public discussions on the wicked problem of

GMOs in Ecuador. I recall here these characteristics, namely: (1) wicked problems have no definitive

formulation, as the formulation of the problems is part of the problem itself, because the understanding

and the resolution of the problem are concomitant to each other, and therefore before defining the

problem all possible solutions need to be known (Rittel and Webber, 1973: 161-162) and (2) the choice of

explanation of a wicked problem, i.e. the frame of the problem, establishes the type of resolution(s) chosen

to tackle the problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973: 166). Both these features underline how the discourses

and the discussions about the problems are an essential step in determining the problem resolution. This

leads me to analyze what are dialogues of the deaf and the threats that are present whenever a policy

controversy, such as a wicked problem, triggers dialogues of the deaf among the stakeholders that are

called to solve it. Again, this analysis will help me in carrying out the research in order to answer to the first

specific research question, namely who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate

to each other, and what are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador

and the on-going controversy.

23

Dialogues of the deaf could be defined as discussions in which the arguments given by different

stakeholders are equally scientifically valid, however so different from each other that discussions become

deadlocked, despite the extensive deliberation and research done in order to solve them (Eeten, 1999:

186). In other words, the stakeholders involved start their confrontation from opposing frames, opposing

definitions of reality, that do not allow them to make use of their encounters in a constructive way.

The existence of dialogues of the deaf is mainly due to the fact that “[…] the once privileged knowledge of

science gets caught up in the policy controversy and we are confronted by conflicting ‘truths’ […and]

scientific research and expertise […] becomes a, if not the, bone of contention in these issues” (Eeten,

1999: 185-186). This latter feature is strictly connected to two of the characteristics of wicked problems,

namely that (1) the technical methods usually used for problem solving are in their case inadequate and

that (2) there is the uncertainty about which disciplines and specializations are able to solve the

controversy and therefore should be used (Hisschemoller and Hoppe, 1995: 51). Dialogues of the deaf and

wicked problems seem therefore to be interconnected and they could be understood as both the causes

and the consequences one of the other.

According to (Eeten, 1999: 186-187), dialogues of the deaf are characterized by three main features. First, a

so called policy community (Kingdon, 1995 as cited in Eeten, 1999: 186) is not capable of resolving a

controversy, and two (or more) parts of this community engage in prolonged debate, by bringing conflicting

argumentations. These parts are mutually dependent, due to the fact that the means and tools required to

develop, implement or prevent a policy for the resolution of the controversy are distributed among

different individuals of the community, both inside and outside the government, resulting in a situation in

which none of the opposing party is able to impose its preferences on the other one. Furthermore, usually

governmental actors themselves are divided among each other as the social actors of the community,

therefore they are not able to act as external arbiters and to solve the controversy. Finally, even if one of

the parties succeeds in guiding the decision-making process, the other parties have the power to somehow

veto the implementations of the decisions taken (Eeten, 1999: 186).

Second, each party proposes opposing policy arguments, whereas a policy arguments can be defined as (1)

“a line of reasoning that connects a description of the problem situation with an answer to the question of

what, if anything, needs to be done about it” (Eeten, 1999: 186) or as (2) “underlying belief systems: sets of

causal and normative assumptions about reality” (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993 and Rein and Schön,

1994 as cited in Eeten, 1999: 187). The main policy arguments proposed are characterized by the fact that

are all valid and true, therefore they have been able to survive even after long deliberation (Eeten, 1999:

187).

24

Third, because dialogues of the deaf are usually characterized by a long history of discussion and

deliberation, the individuals involved gradually learn the argumentations used by the opposing parties, as

well as the ways to defend themselves against such argumentations. This leads to a situation in which all

argumentations are immunized against- and cannot be invalidated by the attempts of the other parties to

demolish them (Eeten, 1999: 187).

These characteristics will be used later on in this thesis, while analyzing the public discussions on the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, I will try to assess if dialogues of the deaf are already in place or if, on the

other hand, they are still not present and solutions must therefore be found in order to prevent them. As

one of the normative assumptions of this thesis is that dialogues of the deaf should be avoided in order to

prevent the problem to become increasingly more wicked, measures to avoid discussions to become

dialogues of the deaf should be taken for different reasons that have been identified by various authors: (1)

they lead “to paralysis or sometimes to pendulum swings from one extreme position to another”; (2) they

eliminate the possibility of deliberation, and by doing so they threaten the opportunity of public learning;

(3) they produce “analytically intractable issues”; (4) they make use of different resources, and by doing so

they diminish the possibility of innovation and ability to cope with the problem; (5) they result in

institutional sclerosis; (6) they undermine the functioning of different democratic institutions, for example

the electoral process and the interest-group bargaining (Schön and Rein, 1994; and ‘t Hart and Kleiboer,

1995; and Wildavsky and Tenenbaum, 1981; and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993 as cited in Eeten, 1999:

188). Moreover, all these problems make impossible the process of collaboration among the stakeholders

facing the controversy, which, as aforementioned in this paper, is one of the desirable strategy and

outcome when coping with intractable or wicked problems.

Once established that dialogues of the deaf are indeed a problem that must be solved or prevented, Eeten

(1999: 188-191) analyzes the main strategies that have been used to try reach this goal, but that, however,

as failed in doing so. Among all the tactics proposed, Eeten (1999: 190-191) also analyzes the strategy of

establishing participatory processes among the conflicting stakeholders, that would engage in an open

discussion in order to explore their different frames of the problem, an activity that should lead to mutual

understanding, and, indeed, to deliberation. As well as the others, such strategy seems to have different

pitfalls that impede its success in solving dialogues of the deaf, because “clarification and mutual

understanding will, at best, serve to excavate and expose the structure of the deadlock”, but they seem to

be unable to lead to reciprocal insights and learning (Eeten 1999: 191). There is therefore a lack of

knowledge about why in certain occasions participation leads to nothing else than to a dialogue of the deaf,

and about what can be done when this occurs. It is in this knowledge gap that this thesis is situated, with

the aim of shining light on the conditions that still do not allow successful and constructive exchanges of

25

ideas to occur; in fact, despite attempts of participation have been made, the discussions are fragmented

among opponents and a constructive dialogue is not being established.

2.1.3 The role of the media in politics

This third, smaller section aims at helping in carrying out the research in order to answer to the first specific

research question, namely who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to each

other, and what are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the

on-going controversy. The purpose of investigating the role that the media are playing in the controversy of

GMOs in Ecuador will provide insights on if and how they are contributing in the process of framing the

controversy of the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador.

According to Voltmer and Koch-Baumgarten (2010), a political forum that is increasingly assuming

relevance in framing political issues and thereafter in influencing people’s ways of interpreting reality is the

institution of the media. Their preponderance in political debates has grew so much that political

communication has shift from being ‘mediated’ to be ‘mediatised’. In the past, media were understood as

both a vehicle between governments and their citizens and a source of information for the citizens

themselves. Also, the role of both media and politics were following a ‘political logic’, whereas political

institutions, issues and actors were central and whereas governments would gain acceptance from the

public based on their capacity in finding solutions to problems. During the last decades, media has gained

so much power that politics themselves are now being organized based on a ‘media logic’, for which the

media themselves define ‘the format’ in which political communication needs to be conducted. Regarding

many political controversies media have therefore acquired the authority of dictating what needs to be

represented and how (Voltmer and Koch-Baumgarten, 2010: 4). The current ‘media logic’ has also modified

their original aim (the one of informing citizens), due to (1) an increasing influence of market forces and

political/economic elites on their role (Dahlgren, 2009: 35) and (2) the process of tabloidization, that is a

focus of media more on appearance (e.g. personal life) than on the substance of core issues (Dahlgren,

2009: 45-47).

Moreover according to Volkmer (2003 as cited in Castells, 2007: 258), media do not only have the power of

defining the format of political communication, but their role goes further beyond that task. Castells

identifies media and the whole realm of communication, as the institutions currently responsible of the

formation of opinions more than political institutions. Castells recalls Volkmer’s idea that the realm of

communication is now the global public sphere for political debate; as aforementioned, this power of

media leads decision-makers to have to follow a ‘media logic’, but on the other hand it allows them to

exercise ‘control’ on their citizens through the media themselves.

26

Beck (1992, as cited in Cottle, 1998: 7) identifies the media, together with the scientific and legal experts

responsible of defining risks, as key social actors in defining the current risks of the late modern society,

which “[…] induce systematic and often irreversible harm, generally remain invisible, are based on causal

interpretations, and thus initially only exist in terms of the (scientific or anti-scientific) knowledge about

them”. Media have therefore to be considered such an important stakeholder because these risks “[…] can

only become ‘visible’ when socially defined within knowledge or knowledge-processing fora such as

science, the legal system and the mass media” (Beck, 1992 as cited in Cottle,, 1998: 8). According to these

statements, the role of media in the current wicked problem of GMOs cannot be ignored, as the risks

associated with the cultivation of these organisms seem to reflect the characteristics of the modern risks as

identified by Beck.

Beck also analyses the three main tasks of media when dealing with risks in the late modern society:

1. Social construction (i.e. definition) of risks, by making them socially visible in the eyes of the

society (1992, as cited in Cottle, 1998: 8). This process can be identified as the process of framing,

in which the definition of problems plays an important role as it influences both how problems are

perceived and their possible solutions, as it will be explained later on in this chapter;

2. Social contestation of risks, by disseminating knowledge and therefore being the connection

among those who produce the risks and those who are affected by them (Beck, 1992, as cited in

Cottle, 1998: 8);

3. Social criticism of- or social challenge to risks, by performing a surveillance task and by putting

under the spotlight and by scrutinizing the consequences and the deficiencies of the decisions

taken at the institutional level in order to cope with risks (Beck, 1995, as cited in Cottle, 1998: 9).

All these essential tasks of the media however undergo various current dynamics that influence both their

tasks and their capacity of influencing democracy. These have been identified by Dahlgren (2009: 35-41)

and they include: (1) proliferation, i.e. the competition for attention among the many different channels of

communication; (2) concentration, i.e. the ownership of the different media is increasingly restricted in the

hands of few mega-corporations; (3) deregulation, i.e. the decrease in the number of rules, laws and codes

that regulate the media activities in order to leave more room to market mechanisms to regulate them; (4)

globalization, i.e. the dynamic for which media are both the driver and the expression of globalization; (5)

digitalization, i.e. the phenomenon for which the major technological trend in media is to use digital

networks, which are faster in communicating with respect to the traditional media.

All these insights will be used to assess the role played by media in the policy controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador. Even if a profound analysis will not be possible due to the time constraints of this research, I

believe that at least a brief investigation of the role played by media will provide important details on if and

27

how they are contributing in the process of framing the controversy of the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador.

2.2 GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE

In this chapter a literature review will be provided on the current coexistence of forms of both government

and governance, to provide insights on the current mistrust towards institutions and on the actions taken

by citizens to steer the direction of policy without having to wait for their governments. The aim of

conducting the literature review on these topics is to provide insights that help in carrying out the research

in order to answer to the first specific research question, namely who are the main actors involved in the

controversy, how do they relate to each other, and what are their positions and frames with regard to the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the on-going controversy. To have a clear view on how these two

forms of doing policy currently coexist in Ecuador will be useful mainly in writing the empirical chapter on

the current GMOs controversy in Ecuador.

In Ecuador the decisions of the government, at least the ones concerning the topics of food and agriculture,

have not been always passively accepted by the ‘innocent’ citizens; instead, these have organized

themselves in sub-political movements and networks in order to achieve their goals, without waiting for

their government to take the actions they consider necessary. The same dynamics are happening now,

concerning the policy controversy of GMOs. This situation falls into what has been identified by Bevir and

Rhodes (2010: 91) as the ‘third wave of governance’ or ‘Stateless State’, in which the actions of individuals

are also determined by their personal beliefs, which they adopt in response to dilemmas, and not

exclusively by the norms fixed by the government. From this perspective, the institution of the State cannot

be seen as a uniform entity, but it needs to be differentiated in its constituents: “policy always arises from

interactions within networks of organizations and individuals. Patterns of rules always traverse the public,

private, and voluntary sectors. The boundaries between state and civil society are always blurred” (Bevir

and Rhodes, 2010: 91-94). This situation leads to the fact that any pattern of rules proposed by the State is

considered as having some failings, about which people have different opinions and views; this leads to

conflicts about both the framing of the nature of the failings and the consecutive possible solutions (Bevir

and Rhodes, 2010: 90-91). For these reasons this thesis focuses on the process of framings, because the

definition of an issue represents the first stage of conflict between social actors, and therefore is essential

to avoid a situation in which the discussions among such definition transform into dialogues of the deaf.

This ‘failure’ of the State to be perceived as a uniform and trustworthy entity is connected to another

recent challenge that the institution of the State has apparently not been able to overcome. McFarland

28

(2012: 15-18) show how the current political institutions have not been able to facilitate the

communication among individuals, leading to a situation in which different citizens having the same goals

are not able to communicate with each other in order to successfully achieve such goals. For this reason,

citizens have engaged in what McFarland (2012: 18) describes as creative political participation, which can

assume four forms:

1. The logic of collective action, for which public policies are seen as public goods and therefore are

required to provide the same benefits to all the citizens. This assumption leads citizens to lobby for

their interests;

2. The implementation of public policies, to which citizens actively participate by forming short-term

‘issue coalitions’ or long-term ‘advocacy coalitions’;

3. The opposition to political corruption, i.e. the misuse of public power for private gain;

4. The political consumerism, for which citizens use their purchases as votes to determine the future

direction of production practices (McFarland, 2012: 25-32).

Aguirre Sala (2013: 33) describes more in details the failure of the institution of the State, by reflecting

upon the failure of the institution of systems of representative democracy, that in his view is due to “the

centralization of the political parties, the excessive autonomy granted to political representatives and the

indifference to public opinion about the lack of spaces for deliberation”. He explores how such failure has

led to the ‘civic participation’ of citizens, described as a type of participation in which the ‘innocent’ citizens

realize public actions that aim at the interaction with the government, with the final purpose of influencing

the policy agenda and therefore of amplifying the civic participation in the policy arena (Aguirre Sala, 2013:

36). Here, again, comes back the importance of the role played by the media in politics. However, this time

the importance of the media refers to the importance of the ‘new media’, i.e. the new social networks or

the web pages labeled as web 2.0 pages (defined in chapter 3 of this thesis). Aguirre Sala (2013: 36-37)

explains how the importance of these networks is determined by mainly two reasons: (1) they are new

means of information, communication and organization that citizens use to counter the asymmetric

information between them and the decision-makers; (2) they are able to create new spaces (a) that fill the

lack of institutionalized spaces for civic participation and (b) where citizens can organize and legitimize their

actions. Later on in this thesis I will analyze, together with other types of discussions, some public

discussions on GMOs that have been carried out through the use of these new media. I believe that these

public discussions are of the same importance than the ones carried out in more institutionalized spaces,

and that the frames that they use and the mechanisms of polarization that they undergo are as much as

relevant.

Beck (2006: 338-344) makes a positive connection between all these failures of the States, which in his

opinion are determined by the incapacity of the governments to cope with the risks of the ‘world risk

29

society’, and some new opportunities that they have been able to generate. These include, among others,

the possibility of an alternative government or political action “[…] in which boundaries, basic rules and

basic distinctions are renegotiated - not only those between the national and the international spheres, but

also those between global business and the state, transnational civil society movements, supra-national

organizations and national governments and societies” (Beck, 2006: 342). In this sense “global risks

empower civil society movements, because they reveal new sources of legitimization and options for action

for these groups of actors” (Beck, 2006: 343). Besides Beck, many other authors are convinced about the

need for the decision-making process, and mainly its task of risk analysis, to be more open and to involve

different social actors holding various opinions in order to promote a risk analysis approach that is

interdisciplinary (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994; Healy, 1999; Power and McCarty, 2006; Welsh and Ervin,

2006; van der Sluijs, 2007 as cited in Devos et al., 2008: 32). However, together with the idea that wider

participation and cooperation in the decision-making process are two desirable outcomes there is also the

concern of many authors that the participatory initiatives to influence the trajectory and development of

legislation have suffered of limited visibility and effectiveness (House of Lords, 2000; Genus and Coles,

2005; Hagendijk and Irwin, 2006 as cited in Devos et al., 2008: 51-52). As reported by Devos et al.: “The

focus should be both on the software of engagement (values, codes) and on the hardware (participation

procedures) […]. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether similar governmental discourses merely

represent a discursive shift or, on the contrary, a genuine epistemological shift at public policy level”

(House of Lords, 2000; Wilsdon and Stilgoe, 2005; Irwin, 2006 as cited in Devos et al., 2008: 52).

This thesis relates to the necessity of cooperation among different institutions. To achieve this goal

demands as a prerequisite to avoid the possibility that cooperation becomes impossible due to the fact that

the discussions among the social actors become dialogues of the deaf. The findings of this thesis will

include the conditions that help preventing or halting polarization during the public discussions, and that

therefore prevent a discussion to become a dialogue of the deaf. To achieve this goal seems particularly

urgent in the contemporary society, i.e. the world risk society, in which risks are apparently not

manageable if not through the use of cooperative strategies among all social actors affected by them.

2.3 FRAMING AND POLARIZATION

In this third conceptual chapter a literature review will be provided on the topics of framing and

polarization. The aim of conducting the literature review on these topics is to provide insights that will help

in carrying out the research in order to answer the second and third specific research questions, namely

which are the framing mechanisms used during public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador in

newspapers, on-line discussions and live debates. The aim of this chapter is a literature review on (1)

30

framing, to provide insights on how frames get formed and on their power in creating controversies

through different definitions of reality, in solving them and in influencing the future policies that will be

implemented and on (2) polarization, to provide insights on what polarization means and on the

mechanisms that are able either to increase it or decrease it. To have a clear view of what frames are, their

different typologies, how they operate and to analyze the mechanisms of polarization that a discussion can

undergo will be useful in writing the empirical chapter on the analysis of the public discussions on GMOs in

Ecuador.

2.3.1 Frames

Studying ‘meanings’: objectivism vs. constructionism

The meanings or definitions that the individuals of a society confer to different things can be understood in

diverse ways. According to Fischer (2003), two main approaches study and explain actors’ positions in

discourses and their consecutive behavior: the approach of objectivism and the social constructionist

approach. Objectivists seek an objective, causal explanation and prediction when explaining either things or

humans’ behavior (Fischer, 2003: 50). On the other hand, a social constructionist approach claims that a

causal explanation of behavior is valid only when analyzing the physical realm, but not in the case of the

human realm. This is because, differently from things, “[…] humans actors actively construct their social

world […] by assigning meanings to events and actions” (Fischer, 2003: 48). Therefore to apply the scientific

procedures of explaining things to the human realm, leads to the risk of considering only the meanings of

the dominant societal groups and to forbid all the others (Fischer, 2003: 50).

The advocates of the social approach suggest that, as social action is constructed through language and it is

based on social meanings, its analysis must be made using metaphoric (non formal) logics. A correct

interpretation of facts will be therefore based on Weber’s process of Verstehen, that is “[…] rendering facts

understandable by interpreting their meanings in the light of relevant social goals and values”, and not on

seeking an objective/universal interpretation of such facts (Fischer, 2003: 50).

According to Fischer (2003), the contributions of the social meaning approach (and of the constructionist

approach, one of its theoretical lines of investigation) to the policy research field are mainly two. First, they

are able to explain scientific studies as social processes themselves, whereas the objects of inquiry are now

understood to be “[…] constituted through a mix of physical objects and social interactions”. Second, they

focus on social problems, which are the main focus of many policies. These problems are defined as

resulting not from “[…] objective, visible social conditions [but] from a sequence of events that develop on

the basis of collective social definitions” (Fischer, 2003: 53-54). Therefore, neither science nor politics can

31

be conceived as ‘objective’ and universal anymore. Fischer instead describe both of them as being social

constructions themselves, whereas the language they use becomes the political reality itself. This is

possible because political language is a ‘medium of symbols’, which is able (1) to structure people’s

understanding of politics, (2) to define which and how stakeholders will be involved in the resolution of an

issue and (3) to shape the future development of the political action to be taken (Fischer, 2003: 56).

The study of how political issues are framed by decision-makers helps us to disclose the interests that are at

the basis of a certain frame, as well as the (economic or political) power relations that foster specific frames

and not others; vice versa, what people consider to be in their interest depends on how issues are framed.

Moreover, to understand this whole process has a further, important implication: as politics are not

considered as something ‘objective’ anymore, their legitimacy can be questioned, as well as their claim for

democracy. This has led to a shift from government to governance, as explained in the previous conceptual

chapter.

A constructionist perspective is at the basis of this thesis, that focuses on studying the discussions about

the policy controversy GMOs in Ecuador, because I believe that the discourses about a wicked problem are

part of the problem itself. This is due to the assumption of the constructionist approach that social actors

can create-, define- and provide solutions for a (wicked) problem by talking, even before than by acting.

The process of framing

The process of framing does not operate in an univocal way; on the contrary, it can work in two different

manners: framing can be constitutive, when the way of defining reality is part of the social actors’

perspectives and it can be also used in a strategic way, when the social actors use a certain definition of

reality and not another one on purpose. The two following sections explain in more detail the difference

among these two sides of framing: their insights will be used in analyzing the frames of the social actors

involved in the public discussions on GMOs in Ecuador.

Framing as constitutive

According to Schön and Rein (1994) policy disputes, such as the one concerning the introduction of GMOs

in Ecuador, can spring from conflicting frames held by the competing social actors involved in the

discussion. Frames can be defined as the “underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation” on

which policy positions of the actors are generated and can rest. Conflicting frames can be themselves the

causes of never ending conflicts, due to the different tacit or explicit definitions that actors use in

32

interpreting both facts and what is to be considered relevant and compelling about them (Schön and Rein,

1994: 23). Frames could be therefore interpreted as those underlying and ‘taken for granted’ assumptions

that are at the basis of our reasoning about- and of our definition/understanding of an issue. Such

suppositions are often neither consciously constructed nor applied, a fact that further decreases the

possibility of finding a common ground for discussion among the social actors involved. Therefore, for

increasing the possibility of success in reaching shared understanding of an issue, these implicit frames

must be revealed. Particularly, when analyzing policy frames and the metaphors that underlie them, the

risk is to face a sense of obviousness of what is wrong and what is right, hence of what needs to be fixed

and of what is seen as already acceptable or even desirable (Schön and Rein, 1994: 28).

The construction of frames usually follows a ‘two step’ process. First, particular things and features are

named: this means that they are selected among others as the relevant ones on which attention should be

focused, in order to make sense of an otherwise too complex reality. Second, frames are crafted into a

coherent organization in order to create ‘a story’ that is able to describe what is wrong or right regarding a

particular situation and, as a consequence, to steer the direction of the future transformation of such

reality (Schön and Rein, 1994: 26).

Descriptions of reality are always linked to- and determined by a certain frame that actors adopt when

looking at situations. In the authors’ words, “if objective means frame-neutral, there are no objective

observers [as] there is no way of perceiving and making sense of social reality except through a frame, for

the very task of making sense of complex, information-rich situations requires an operation of selectivity

and organization which is what ‘framing’ means” (Schön and Rein, 1994: 30).

These types of tacit and non-explicit frames are able to influence what we see, our way of viewing things

and our interpretation of facts, even if we usually do not consciously apply them; instead, they belong to

our ‘a priori’ assumptions, that we take for granted and that we do not question anymore. However, it is

exactly to reveal such hidden frames that increase the possibility of the resolution of policy controversies;

this process takes the name of ‘frame construction’ and faces both practical challenges and theoretical

challenges (Schön and Rein, 1994: 34).

Framing as strategy

The process of framing is indeed particularly dangerous when concerning political issues, whereas frames

are not only the decision-makers’ implicit definitions of problems, but are also used in an active and

creative way in order to define the problem in a particular way in the eyes of society. The threat is

represented by the fact that while governments in representative democracy systems should serve as

33

means for achieving people’s interests, the power that decision-makers have in framing issues can

undermine this aim. This despite the fact that politicians are not the only ones that have this power, and

that citizens have indeed the power to define problems as well.

As framing has the power to determine the acceptance and support of political actions, in a policy

controversy opposing parties struggle for the predominance of their peculiar definition of a problematic

situation and, as a consequence, for the control of the consequential policy-making process. To win this

battle means to prevail in giving a social meaning to a particular issue as well in determining what should be

done in order to solve it. This symbolic battle over a definition of a particular political situation is engaged

by actors on the basis of their interests in such situation. Such interests are interconnected with the actors’

frames, as the former ones are shaped by- and at the same time are used to promote the latter ones

(Schön and Rein, 1994: 29).

A particular risky situation concerns the communication of policies before they have been approved by the

Parliament; in this case political communication is done about problems that have not yet been solved,

therefore various frames of such issue can be used as “interpretative packages” and can influence citizens’

way of seeing a problem (Voltmer and Koch-Baumgarten, 2010: 7). Such interpretative packages are then

able to steer the support of people’s decisions towards a certain policy that will be later developed. In

addition, democratization is at risk also because of the increasing role that media play in framing such

political issues, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

But the tool of strategic framing is not only used in defining issues or problems, but also in defining people.

This is the case of the so called ‘identity frames’, which are “[…] the various ways in which people view

themselves in the context of specific conflicts” and which reveal the influence that the affiliation of some

people with a larger group has on how these people can be perceived (Gardner, 2003).

In the process of active and strategic framing, the use of rhetoric has a relevant role, as it can help decision-

makers to make a persuasive use of story-telling (Schön and Rein, 1994: 32). According to Gottweis (2012),

rhetoric can be defined as ‘the art of persuasion’ used in a communicative strategy and it consists of three

essential elements: (1) the ethos, that is the trustworthiness of the speaker, (2) the pathos, that is the

emotional effect created by the discourse and (3) the logos, that is the logic of the argument itself

(Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). Additionally, other important factors are (4) the ‘coordination’ among different

governmental actors that are responsible of the communication about the same political issue, in order to

avoid contradictory messages that would undermine the legitimacy of a certain frame (Stayner, 2007: 48-

49) and (5) the scenography, that is the setting in which the actor pronounces its political speech (Gottweis,

2012: 219). This latter concept has been studied as responsible of being able to influence the current policy

making process, which according to Hajer (2009: 4) takes place in situations that are only partially under

34

the control of policy makers, due to the multiplicity of political arenas in which such process takes place

and to the increasingly prominent role played by the media. In this context, “politics is about who can make

his/her claim authoritative in the scenes and at the stages that matter in the age of mediatization” (Hajer,

2009: 4). Once the claim, i.e. the definition/framing of something is established, determined policies will

follow, therefore governance is mainly about what Hajer (2009: 6) defines as “the authoritative enactment

of meaning”. Due to the importance of the new political arenas (other than the formal institutions) in which

the policy making process takes place, the performative and dramaturgical dimensions of the

circumstances in which politicians ‘define meanings’ have increasingly assumed importance (Hajer, 2009:

7). The use of symbolism in politics can in fact determine the inclusion or exclusion of actors and meanings,

and by doing so it can strongly influence the authority and acceptance of a government (and of its

definitions of reality) in the eyes of a society (Hajer, 2009: 49-50). As aforementioned, such symbolism

plays a role in the dramaturgical dimension of the policy-making process, through the use of various types

of: (1) performance, i.e. determined modes of interaction in determined contexts that are able to produce

different social realities and meanings; (2) setting, i.e. “the physical and organizational situations in which

the interaction takes place”; (3) scripting, i.e. the ‘dramatic’ roles that the social actors involved in a

controversy have to play in order to produce a particular effect in the audience; (4) counter-scripting, i.e.

“efforts of antagonists to undo the effect of scripts of protagonists” and (5) staging, i.e. the organization on

the interactions among policy-makers and audiences through either the use of already existing symbols or

the creation of new ones (Hajer, 2009: 67).

Collective action frames

Being part of a social movement (such as the ones involved in the agricultural sectors in Ecuador) implies to

adopt or at least accept a certain frame typical of the social movement itself, that is related to the way of

viewing things and the definitions of reality that the members of the movement have agreed upon. Benford

and Snow (2000), provide a review of all the main literature available on the processes of framing within a

social movement, in order to come to describe what is a shared ‘collective action framing’.

The actors participating in social movements are described as persons that are “actively engaged in the

production and maintenance of meaning for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers” (Snow

and Benford, 1988 as cited in Benford and Snow, 2000: 612). The frames used by members of social

movements have the same characteristics of frames in general, that is, they are schemes of interpretation

of reality that allow actors to perceive and describe reality in a certain way; however, the former ones are

typically ‘action-oriented’, as their final aim is to “mobilize potential adherents and constituents, to garner

bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists” (Snow and Benford, 1988 as cited in Benford and Snow,

35

2000: 614). Moreover, they also differ from mere, fixed conceptual schemes as they are dynamic and are

reformulated by- and during the negotiation on their meanings (Gamson, 1992 as cited in Benford and

Snow, 2000: 614)

In the next sections I will report the main features and dynamics of collective action frames processes, as

analyzed by many different researchers whose works have been critically summarized by Benford and Snow

(2000). Insights on the general characteristics of collective action frames will be useful in analyzing the

frames used by the various social movements (and by their members) involved in the discussions on GMOs

in Ecuador. Moreover, the contextual factors that constrain or facilitate processes of framing will be useful

starting points from which to examine whether such factors are present in Ecuador or not, and whether

they play a role in influencing the frames used in the public discussions on GMOs.

Features of collective action frames

The authors start by describing the features of collective action frames based on a distinction between their

characteristic features and variable features.

Benford and Snow (2000) report three characteristic features of collective action frames, which they name

as ‘core framing tasks’ and which are used by the members of a social movement to mobilize consensus

and action (Klandermans, 1984 as cited in Benford and Snow, 2000: 615):

1. The first core task is defined as ‘diagnostic framing’; it involves the members of a movement

seeking to identify the sources of causality of what they define as a problematic situation. This task

is particularly difficult, as the agreement on the causes of a problem is often difficult to reach;

2. The second core task is defined as ‘prognostic framing’ and it implies the articulation of strategies,

plans and solutions for tackling the problematic situation; in this phase the mobilization of both

consensus and actions should be achieved. The authors report how this task is related both (1) to

how the situation has been previously diagnostically framed and (2) to the interaction among the

social movement itself and its opponents (whose solutions are often refused through a process of

counter-framing), targets of influence, media, and bystanders;

3. The third task is the one of ‘motivational framing’, which serves at providing rational reasons for

engaging in collective action (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615-617).

The authors also identify four variable features of collective action frames, which include: their problem

identification and direction/locus of attribution, their flexibility or rigidity, their variation in interpretive

scope and influence and their resonance (Benford and Snow, 2000: 618-619). An in-depth analysis of these

36

features will not be possible to make. This is due to the fact that it would need a study of, for example, the

internal activities/relationships of the NGOs or social movements or of the essential values of their targets

of mobilization, which are tasks that go beyond the objective of this thesis. The only variable feature that

will be possible to analyze with the available data is the one referring to the variation in interpretive scope

and influence of frames. To explain this characteristic the authors refer to two main possible situations. In

the first one, collective action frames have a scope that is “limited to the interests of a particular group or

to a set of related problems”, while in the second one master frames of a social movement show to have a

broader scope and a greater influence on other movements’ activities and orientations (Benford and Snow,

2000: 618).

Relevance of framing processes for collective action frames

Benford and Snow (2000) proceed in investigating and analyzing what the relevant previous literature has

defined as the processes that (1) generate- and interfere in the development of collective action frames

and (2) enable or limit their diffusion. While the former ones will be able to be at least partially studied in

this thesis, the latter ones are not pertinent to this research, as it would require the mechanisms of

interaction among two or more NGOs or social movements when influencing each other in the frames to be

used.

On one hand, the processes that play a role in generating and interfering in the development of collective

action frames are mainly of three, overlapping types: ‘discourses processes’, ‘strategic processes’ and

‘contested processes’. An in-depth analysis of all there processes will not be possible, due to the fact that it

would require an in-depth study of the internal dynamics of the social movements and NGOs, which goes

beyond the objective of this thesis. However, the data collected will be able to provide certain insights on

one of them, namely the ‘contested processes’. These are processes that generate- and interfere in the

development of collective action frames by leading to reformulation of frames. This is because for the

members of a social movement the imposition of given frames on their targets is not a straightforward

process. On the contrary, activists need to engage in what is called ‘the politics of signification’, during

which they face different types of challenges:

1. The first challenge are the counter-framings done by movement opponents, bystanders and the

media, in case these aim at opposing the collective actions frames fostered by the social

movement; this diversity of ways of seeing reality results in ‘framing contests’ (Ryan, 1991 as cited

in Benford and Snow, 2000: 626). However concerning this challenge the authors notice how there

is a lack of literature studying the reasons for success within a framing contest, except for what

37

concerns the importance of resonance and the influence of the political environment in which

debates take place;

2. The second challenge are the framing contests within a social movement, among its own members

(Benford and Snow, 2000: 626); it is due to the ‘frame resonance disputes’, which are determined

by disagreement on “how reality should be presented so as to maximize mobilization” (Benford,

1993 as cited in Benford and Snow, 2000: 626);

3. The last reason for contestation over frames is determined by “the dialectic tension between

collective action frames and collective action events”, as it has been shown that the latter ones are

able to reformulate the former ones as well as to influence the coming action events (Ellingson,

1995 as cited in Benford and Snow, 2000: 627).

Conditions for constraining/facilitating framing and the implications of framing processes

The process of framing is not only influenced by the dynamics that take place within a social movement,

but also by the broader socio-cultural context in which such movement operates. The literature

summarized by Snow and Benford (2000) underline how three main socio-cultural factors are the ones

having the greatest impact on framing process: the ‘political opportunity structure’, ‘cultural opportunities

and constraints’ and the ‘audience effects’ (Snow and Benford, 2000: 628-630). The analysis of these

concepts would require an in-depth study of the context in which framing takes place, which goes beyond

the purpose of this thesis.

However, it will be possible to make general considerations about how framing processes of one social

movement can have an effect on the framing processes conducted by other movements. Snow and Benford

(2000: 630-631) report in fact three main ‘fields’ on which so far other authors have focused their

researches on, which are: ‘political opportunity’, ‘individual and collective identity’, ‘movement-specific

outcomes’ (Snow and Benford, 2000: 630-631).

The first field in which framing processes of one movement can play their influence on framing processes of

other movements is the one of ‘political opportunity’. This is due to the fact that political opportunities are

not universally defined, instead they get partially defined by collective action frames themselves. In fact

social movements, by claiming the need of- and the opportunity for a collective action, are actually stating

that the opportunity for such collective action indeed exists (Gamson and Meyer, 1996 as cited in Snow and

Benford, 2000: 631). Therefore the extent to which the political opportunity in a certain space promotes or

limits the possibility of collective action is at least partially defined by how such opportunities are framed

by one or more movement(s), or social actors in general (Koopmans and Duyvendak, 1995 as cited in Snow

and Benford, 2000: 631).

38

The second possible field of influence is the one of ‘individual and collective identity’, as identified in many

different literature (Jasper, 1997; Melucci, 1989; Snow and Oliver, 1995; Taylor and Whittier, 1992 as cited

in Snow and Benford, 2000: 631). The authors here explore the link between the participation within a

movement and its relative enlargement of individual identity. They do so by looking at the research made

by Hunt et al. (1994, as cited in Snow and Benford, 2000: 632) on how collective action frames ‘enlarge’

personal identities in two ways: “at a general level, by situating […] actors in time and space and by

attributing characteristics to them […] and, at a more concrete level, during the course of identity talk

among adherents and activists and [during] other movement activities”.

Finally, the last field in which framing processes can play their influence is on the ‘specific-movement

outcomes’. Researchers have in fact shown that framing processes are important for the achievement of

the objectives of a social movement, even if the authors underline that how they do so is a question that

still has not been answered (Capek, 1993; Diani, 1996; Reese, 1996; Walsh et al., 1993; Zdravomyslova,

1996; Zuo and Benford, 1995 as cited in Snow and Benford, 2000: 632).

Levels and sources of frames

According to Schön and Rein (1994), a policy discourse can be defined as a dialogue about policy issues. A

policy discourse that takes place within or among institutions is always embedded in a particular

institutional setting; this latter one must be analyzed and revealed because its own characteristics influence

the ways of seeing things and also offer peculiar principles and norms for debate. An example is the

distinction between a private and a public discourse, whereas the latter one can take advantage of the

authority and of the special features of the institutions that our society has identified as the proper ones to

discuss problems of public concern. Among these institutions (or ‘political forums’) we find “legislative

arenas, the courts, public commissions, councils of government and political parties, the editorial pages of

magazines and newspapers, and radio and television programs […]” (Schön and Rein, 1994: 32). As

aforementioned, each one of them has its own ways to define the ‘rules of the game’ of a debate.

Therefore, the analysis not only of the public discussions, but also of the context or institutional setting in

which they take place, can help in revealing how the contextual factors influence the discussion itself. For

example, as described earlier in this paper, the media more and more represent a political forum in which

discussions about political controversies are taking place under the influence of the rules, the dynamics and

the laws that currently characterize the media themselves.

39

The difficulties in revealing frames

Schön and Rein (1994) show different reasons why, in terms of practical challenges, it may be difficult to

reveal the frames that are underneath the position of an institutional actor. Such challenges are

determined by different factors: (1) the frames that shape the public discourses of actors may be different

from the personal ones that are truly inspiring the actors’ patterns of action; (2) the same course of action

or policy may be consistent with multiple and differing frames; (3) the same frame may be consistent with

two policies; (4) the frames underlying policies made at the central governmental body may change during

the implementation of such policies at a more decentralized/local level; (5) frames and conflicts do not

match perfectly each other, therefore sometimes there can be conflicts within a frame and other times

conflicts among different frames, and the distinction among these two cases is not straightforward; (6) the

distinction between real and potential shifts of frame is challenging, as while the latter ones usually signals

the potential of the former ones, real shifts may lie dormant for a certain period of time before their actual

occurrence; on the other way around, the engagement in action and the adaptation to a changing situation

may lead to real shifts of frame without this having to be preceded by deliberations or discourses that

would signal such potential shift. All these difficulties illustrate how the process of revealing a frame is not

straightforward, but instead it requires a careful and accurate analysis of the processes from which political

discourses and actions spring and of all the levels of the policy-making process at which such mechanisms

take place (Schön and Rein, 1994: 35-36). Together with the practical challenges, the authors also reveal

different theoretical difficulties that are faced during the process of ‘frame construction’ (Schön and Rein,

1994: 36); however, as these challenges are related to kind of a ‘second order’ difficulties, the ones faced

by the researcher when conducting the frame analysis, the discussion about them has been addressed

earlier, in the chapter about the methodology used in this thesis.

2.3.2 Polarization

Polarization can be defined as both a state and a process: “Polarization as state refers to the extent to

which opinions on an issue are opposed in relation to some theoretical maximum. Polarization as process

refers to the increase in such opposition over time” (Di Maggio et al., 1996: 693). Therefore to study

polarization means mainly to study the extent of disagreement between two or more parties, the extremity

of a distance among their responses. In this thesis the purpose is to transfer these concepts to the study of

frame polarization within a discussion, that is, to study how the extent of disagreement among the social

actors increases or decreases during the duration of the discussion. Di Maggio et al. (1996: 694-698) has

described polarization as being multidimensional and has listed four main principles to explain all the

40

different dimensions and measures of polarization. I will try to transform the concepts behind such

principles in tools that can be used in analyzing the polarization within different types of public discussions.

However, before presenting the four principles of polarization that will be used in this thesis, it is necessary

to make clear the distinction between frame dimensions and frame categories. Frame categories concern a

subtopic of a larger issue (GMOs), and contrast two qualitatively different frames on that subtopic. For

example, concerning the subtopic of the safety of GMOs, on one side of the scale it will be possible to find

various positive definitions/frames that confirm the safety of these organisms while on the other side it will

be possible to see only negative definitions/frames that frame GMOs as unsafe, as shown by figure 4.

Frame dimensions are the ones that will be used in this thesis. On the other hand, frame categories

consider each frame separately and not related to each other, as shown by figure 5. Frame categories will

not be used in this thesis.

Now that this clarification has been made, I will report the four principles of polarization of frames that this

thesis will use and which have been elaborated starting from the principles of polarization of opinions, as

described by Di Maggio et al. (1996: 694-698).

1. The principle of dispersion, for which public opinion is ‘polarized’ as long as opinions are different

in content such that they can be separated between ends of the opinion spectrum (Di Maggio et al.,

1996: 694). In this thesis this principle will be used in analyzing the polarization among the frames

Figure 4

Figure 5

41

used by the people involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador, that is, the polarization

among the definitions that debaters use to define the problem. Based on this principle, polarization

will be directly proportional to the number of frames that can be identified as either very negative

or very positive about any subtopic of GMOs. Accordingly, polarization will be indirectly

proportional to the number of frames (regarding any subtopic of GMOs) that can be classified as

moderate, i.e. that do not present neither a very positive nor a very negative definition of GMOs.

2. The principle of bimodality, for which public opinion is ‘polarized’ as long as people having different

opinions cluster into separate groups and the space among these two separate positions is barely

occupied. The authors underline how usually actors that occupy middle positions among these two

extremes can act as broker in order to put them in contact. As a consequence, the gravity of the

conflict between actors having different (polar) opinions is directly proportional to the extent to

which such actors are isolated from each other (Di Maggio et al., 1996: 694). In this thesis, this

principle could be translated into the analysis of frames polarization by analyzing how people can

be separate into two different, isolated groups based on the frames that they use. According to the

principle of bimodality, polarization will be directly proportional to the possibility of dividing the

people participating in a debate exactly in a half, whereas each of the two groups obtained from

this division (one of them collecting people using negative frames and the other one collecting

people using positive ones) would include the 50% of the participants.

3. The principle of constraint, for which polarization determines opinion coherence: different opinions

are coherent if they are mutually constrained and if such constraints are extensive in scope. To

explain such principle the authors give the example of the coherence about ethical issues: usually

actors that have a certain opinion about premarital sex have a coherent opinion about the topic of

abortion. Opinion constrain is in fact being defined as “the extent to which opinions on any item in

an opinion domain (a set of thematically related issues) are associated with opinions on any other”.

Accordingly, the extension of an ideology will be directly proportional to the amount of distinct

issues among which it will be able to provide coherent opinions (Di Maggio et al., 1996: 696). This

principle could be used to analyze frame polarization in the following way: the more people use

always negative or positive frames of GMOs, independently of the subtopic they refer to, the more

constrained they will be.

4. The principle of consolidation, for which polarization can be defined as an intergroup

disagreement: opinion polarization is defined as the “difference in response to attitude items by

members of groups defined on the basis of nominal (e.g., gender, race, occupation) or graduated

(e.g., age, income, years of schooling) parameters” (Di Maggio et al., 1996: 698). It is slightly

different from the principle of constraint, because constraint focuses on the associations among

opinions and on the ideological polarization, while the principle of consolidation focuses on the

42

consolidation of opinion and on the identity-based polarization. This principle could be translated

to the analysis of frame polarization in the following way. Different sectors of social actors will be

created, dividing the social actors in few, main groups (e.g. the media, the universities, the NGOs,

the political institutions). Within each group, the various frames used by the different people will

be analyzed. The consolidation (and therefore polarization) will be directly proportional to the

number of people using the same frames and falling under the same sector of social actors.

43

3. METHODOLOGY

In this section I will describe the strategy and the methods I will use to answer the research questions

within the time frame of the four months available for the completion of this thesis.

3.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY

The strategy of this research is to analyze and compare multiple case studies, namely the public discussions

about the wicked problem of GMOs in Ecuador since the President’s declarations of September 2012.

Within these cases, the phenomenon to be studied are the dynamics of frame polarization that such

discussions undergo.

The theoretical background is what guides the collecting and the analyzing of the information during the

case study (Vaus, 2001: 221). In this thesis such theoretical dimension (described in chapter 2) will allow to

make a wider generalization about the mechanisms of polarization in coping with policy controversies. A

nomothetic explanation of the phenomena, i.e. an explanation that aims at using the case “[…] to achieve a

more generalized understanding of broader theoretical propositions” (Vaus, 2001: 234), will not be possible

to achieve due to the constraints of this thesis, i.e. the limited amount of public discussions analyzed and

the fact that all of them will regard the same topic (i.e. the GMOs controversy) and the same context (i.e.

Ecuador). Nevertheless, this research will still try to analyze the case studies following a ‘theory building’

approach, whereas the cases are selected to develop a theory for the phenomenon studied by starting

from one basic question/proposition and afterwards such initial knowledge about the phenomenon is

refined and expanded (Vaus, 2001: 223). However, it will not be possible to use the findings of this research

in order to make broader generalizations and to construct a new theory. Instead, the findings will likely be

helpful to understand how the mechanisms of polarization (i.e. the phenomenon) work under certain

conditions and within a certain context. I refer here to the methodology used by the PhD student Zwaan

(2012: 45-61), whose strategy for the data analysis provides different insights on the contribution of

methodological approaches that do not provide neither nomothetic nor ideographic explanations. Zwaan

(2012: 47) uses the ‘within case study’ strategy for process tracing, whose method is “to explore temporal

evidence for explaining particular phenomena […and it] involves a commitment with the most continuous

spatial‐temporal sequences we can describe at the finest level of detail that we can observe” (George and

Bennett, 2005 as cited in Zwaan, 2012: 47). The resulting historical narrative of the research provides a

detailed understanding of a particular phenomenon, in this case the one of polarization, and an accurate

description of the complexity of the phenomenon itself (George and Bennett 2005, as cited in Zwaan, 2012:

48). Moreover, the historical narratives of the different cases can be compared on the basis of a ‘variation

finding strategy’, with the goal of examining the cases in an holistic way, considering different contextual

44

factors (i.e. variables) and the interaction among them at the same time (Zwaan, 2012: 49-50). As

aforementioned, the final aim of this thesis is not to formulate universal claims or to develop a theory on

how to prevent or halt polarization in public discussions. However, by providing detailed information on the

mechanisms of polarization during public discussions in Ecuador, the analysis of the selected cases aims at

providing insights on how these mechanisms work under particular conditions, that could perhaps be

transferable to other diverse situations whose contextual conditions are similar to the one of the selected

cases. As explained later on in this paper, this study seeks therefore to provide a ‘limited analytical

generalization’ of the findings.

A choice to be made when opting for the ‘case study’ research strategy is about the sampling, which refers

to both the selection of the cases and the selection of the data sources within each case; while the latter

issue will be addressed in the following section, I address here the problem of the number of case studies

to analyze, that can range from a singular one to multiple ones (Vaus, 2001: 226). As aforementioned, this

thesis will compare different case studies, that will undergone a parallel case selection, that is, that will be

selected all at the same point in time. I consider each public discussion as a case study itself in which to

analyze the phenomenon of polarization, therefore different public discussions will be analyzed. All the

cases will be picked from the broader case of the country of Ecuador, which is only one among many

nations in which public discussions on GMOs are taking place.

Finally, Vaus (2001: 227-228) also distinguishes among retrospective- and prospective case studies, a

distinction based on if the case is studied respectively through “[…] the reconstruction of the history of the

case […] through the use of archival records and documents, or interviews with people who participated in

or observed past events” or through “[…] tracking changes forward over time”. This thesis will be primarily

based on the analysis of ‘already happened’ phenomena, therefore the case studies will be primarily

retrospective ones; however, if throughout the duration of the development of this research it will be

possible to study in person some public discussions, the case studies will include also some ‘prospective

elements’.

3.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

For the amount of time available to conclude the research, the cases (i.e. the discussions) will be selected

based on three main criteria:

1. they will be of different types, i.e. live public discussions, web 1.0 ‘mediatized’ public discussions

(carried out through the use of newspapers) and web 2.0 ‘mediatized’ public discussions (that allow the

direct participation of the citizens);

45

2. they will be ‘public’ discussions, i.e. the selection will be based on the degree at which they include- or

they are available to the ‘public’. According to this criteria, I will not consider as public discussion the

private interaction among actors, for example through email exchanges; instead, I will analyze only

discussions ‘open to the public’, which hypothetically any citizen could assist at or even participate to;

3. they will be public discussions in which it is possible to reconstruct the interaction among the social

actors debating.

Moreover, in order to understand the different framings of the social actors involved in the policy

controversy and to construct a figurative map of their position towards the wicked problem, I will collect

interviews of some of their representatives. The interviews will be open-ended and semi-structured,

whereas the former term means that the categories for the answers are not given while the latter one

means that all the respondents may not get the same questions and the topics discussed with each one of

them may differ from each other. All the people interviewed will be asked for their consent about their

names being reported in this thesis (informed consent). In case such consent will not be conceded, their

names will not appear in this report. Finally, whenever representatives of significant social actors will not

be available to be interviewed, I will supply to this lack of data by: (1) conducting desk research on his/her

main public definitions of the issue and the underneath motivations of such definition (2) using indirect

information provided by the other social actors who will be interviewed.

The empirical chapters of this thesis (chapter 4, 5 and 6) will be based on a variety of data (i.e. triangulation

of data), that include:

1. Observational data, namely:

at least two formal public discussions in which actors representing the President’s position

and promoting the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador are discussing in person and directly

with ‘innocent citizens’, that talk either independently or in the name of a social

movement/NGO;

‘mediatized’ public discussions carried out through at least two newspapers corresponding

to the typology of web 1.0, which consists in web pages whose readers simply act as

‘consumers’ of the articles, without interacting and being able to ‘create’ some content

themselves on the web pages (Cormode and Balachander, 2008);

at least two public discussions carried on through the use of internet or social networks

corresponding to the typology of web 2.0. These are pages that allow the interaction

between the publishers of the web pages and their audience, i.e. the readers, that can play

46

a role of ‘creator’ of the pages and not only of ‘consumers’ (Cormode and Balachander,

2008).

2. Open-ended and semi-structured interviews, namely at least eight interviews of the main social

actors involved in the public discussions (network, views, strategies). The subjects to be

interviewed will be selected based on a non-random sampling, mainly through the use of two

methods. The first one is the ‘expert sampling’, which is a sampling in which the researcher himself

selects who he believes is able to provide the best information to answer to the research questions.

The second on is the ‘snowball sampling’, for which the first people interviewed are the ones

providing to the researcher the contacts of other subjects that they consider important for

providing essential information.

Some of these data, such as the ‘in person’ public discussions, will need to be at least partially transcribed

at the moment of the data collection, in order to make the data analysis possible and also understandable

for the reader. Other data, such as the interviews, will not necessarily need to be transcribed in order to be

analyzed; whenever a complete transcription of the interviews will not be needed, their analysis will be

based on their recordings or on the notes taken during the interviews.

3.3 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

This thesis will embody a qualitative research, as it is characterized by some of main features that delineate

a qualitative work, namely: (1) the inquiry of a single case or few cases (i.e. the public discussions on GMOs

in Ecuador), which have been chosen because of their peculiar characteristics and that are therefore of

particular interest for investigating mechanisms of polarization in a public discussion; (2) the study of the

phenomena (i.e. the mechanisms of polarization in the discussions) “[…] in the context in which they arise

through observation and/or recording or the analysis of printed and Internet material”; (3) the fact that the

formulation of hypothesis will be generated by the analysis itself (i.e. after the analysis of the mechanisms

of polarization during a discussion) rather than being stated a priori (Silverman, 2011: 5).

The methods that will allow me to reach the desired outcomes are of two types: network analysis and

discourse analysis. The first type concerns the analysis of the interviews collected, in order to construct a

figurative map of the main social actors that are involved in the policy controversy, while also shining light

on the strategies that their representatives use to reach their goals in dealing with the controversy.

The second type of data will represent the observational data of the research, as they will include the

already existing recordings or written documents that report the public discussions on GMOs in Ecuador

which have taken place after President’s Correa declarations. Such analysis will be carried out based on the

47

approach of conversation analysis (CA). This is the most micro-analytic approach for doing discourse

analysis and it focuses mainly on (1) the analysis of discourses as they happen in naturally occurring

interaction, that is, without being triggered by the researcher/analyst (Kroeger and Wood, 2000: 21) and

the details of the talk as the interaction among social actors, by analyzing for example how the actors

produce descriptions of social life or the organization of turn taking during a discussion (Kroeger and Wood,

2000: 200-203).

Conversation analysis would fall in the methodological approach to discourse analysis that Philipps (2002:

20) identifies as Social Linguistic Analysis which, according to the author, differentiates from other types of

discourse analysis based on the two following characteristics. First, it focuses more on the text, by

considering especially the proximate context, that “[…] refers to the immediate features of interaction

including the sort of occasion or genre of interaction the participants take an episode to be […], the

sequences of talk in which particular events occur and the capacities in which people speak” (Wetherell,

2001 as cited in Philipps, 2002: 19). As aforementioned in this paper, this thesis is particularly interested in

inquiring the mechanism of polarization, therefore, the sequences of talk during a public discussion.

Focusing more on the text does not mean that the Social Linguistic Analysis will completely disregard the

more distal context, that “[…] includes things like social class, the ethnic composition of the participants,

the institutions or sites where discourse occurs, and the ecological, regional and cultural settings”

(Wetherell, 2001 as cited in Philipps, 2002: 19). However, the distal context is studied: (1) to the degree at

which it provides insights on the social framework in which the public discussions are taking place, and not

as the focus of the research itself; (2) whenever the social actors discussing make the context relevant in

their discussions, for example recalling themes such as international regulations on GMOs or as they role as

leaders of a certain social group. This point is very important here, as it is connected to the aforementioned

purpose of giving recommendations on how to reduce polarization in public discussions in order to increase

deliberation, by assuming the normative statement that to prevent a discussion to become a dialogue of

the deaf is a desirable outcome, regardless of the context in which the discussions are taking place. The

second important feature that distinguishes a Social Linguistic Analysis from other approaches in discourse

analysis is the aim of producing “[…] fine-grained explorations of the way in which a particular social reality

has been constructed” as a constructivist approach would do (Philipps, 2002: 20). This, again, does not

mean that this approach completely disregards the dynamics of power, knowledge and ideology that

characterize the context in which the public discussions are taking place; however, a Social Linguistic

Analysis is more interested in explaining “[…] the constructive effects of discourse without explicitly

focusing on the political dynamics” (Philipps, 2002: 21).

Concluding, in inquiring the framings used during public discussions and the mechanisms of polarization

that such discussions undergo to, my approach will be always oriented at the network and interactional

48

level. This because the analysis of this level can help to understand the mechanisms of interaction and

polarization among the main social actors involved that are at least partially responsible of the wickedness

of the problem, if it is true that this one is often determined by different, incompatible frames.

Silverman (2000: 286-300) provides pragmatic tips on how to conduct CA; I report below a brief summary

of the related tasks I will try to accomplish while carrying out the CA in my thesis.

1. As talk is considered action, doing CA implies to avoid any philosophical consideration; instead it aims at

providing insights on very concrete practices, such as on the mechanisms through which conversations

are opened or closed (Silverman, 2000: 286);

2. In CA actions are considered to be structurally organized, which means that whenever social actors try

to pursue their goals “[…] they have to orient themselves to rules and structures that only make their

actions possible” and therefore “single acts are parts of larger, structurally organized entities […that]

can be called sequences”. CA aims at examining such sequences (Silverman, 2000: 286). Examples are:

(1) the organization of turn-taking during a discussion; (2) the conversational openings and adjacency

pairs and (3) the peculiar features of institutional talk compared to ordinary conversation, i.e. the goal-

oriented character or the different types of constraints (Silverman, 2000: 288 and 294-295);

3. As a CA approach is interested in studying the concepts of participants’ meanings, these concepts do not

have to be overlooked, but are instead the focus o the analysis (Silverman, 2000: 286);

4. As a CA approach does not focus on the participants’ intra-psychological experiences, the attention is

shifted towards the “[…] meanings and understandings that are made public through conversational

actions”, such as “[…] the understanding of preceding turn displayed by the current speaker”. For

example, in case the turn of talk seems to be an answer, this justifies the researcher to claim that the

second speaker is treating the previous statement as a question (Silverman, 2000: 286-287);

5. A CA approach obtains the results in a quite different way from how researchers might intuitively would

proceed in searching for them; in fact, CA uses an inductive method that implies: (1) the ‘unmotivated’

exploration of data, that is, as aforementioned, conducting a research without a priori hypothesis; (2)

the identification of some phenomenon worthy of further study (for example a specific characteristic of

turn-taking that seems to be related with a certain increase or decrease of polarization during a

discussion); (3) the establishment of how such phenomenon occurs differently in the data (for example

to understand if such correlation between turn taking mechanisms and polarizations mechanisms occur

in the same or in different ways when analyzing different discussions); (4) the description of how such

variation takes place (Silverman, 2000: 298-299).

Moreover, Kroeger and Wood (2000: 91-95) also provide different suggestions on how to conduct a sound

discourse analysis. I summarize here these suggestions, which I will consider while conducting the analysis

of the public discussions on GMOs in Ecuador: (1) the necessity of the analyst to ask him/herself how

49

he/she is reading a text and why is so, with the aim of identifying what features of the text provoke certain

reactions and how the literal meaning is used to achieve something; (2) to consider what seems to be

obvious as well as what is not in the text, both in terms of content and in terms of form; (3) to ‘play’ with

the text, by trying to modify it and seeing what the omission or the inclusion of certain features completely

alter the effect when reading the text; (4) to develop new terms in order to describe the various discourse

devices or functions; (5) to be able not only to identify certain patterns, but also to justify that

identification.

3.4 ENSURING QUALITY

3.4.1 Ensuring quality in case studies

Vaus (2001: 233-246) identifies several issues that arise when carrying out a research whose strategy is the

one of one or only few case studies. Here I report only one main problem that I personally think my thesis

will have to cope with: I am referring to the methodological issue of external validity of the case studies. In

fact, while its internal validity will likely be high, as I will focus on few particular cases and I will try to

analyze them in details, this thesis will probably face problems of external validity in terms of statistical

generalization behind the specific case studies. If on one hand the analysis of multiple cases will allow me

to try to identify general patterns about followed by the mechanisms of polarization, on the other hand the

public discussions that will be analyze will all concern the same policy controversy, i.e. the one of GMOs,

and they will all be selected in the context of Ecuador. Therefore, the results might face problems in terms

of generalization, because the dynamics of polarization might change among public discussions carried out

either on different topics or on the same topic but in different countries. As aforementioned in this paper it

could be concluded that this study aims at providing a ‘limited analytical generalization’ of the findings.

3.4.2 Ensuring quality in framing- and discourse analysis

Regarding problems of framing, Schön and Rein (1994) have listed the main practical and theoretical

challenges of frame analysis construction. The former ones include: (1) the frames that shape the public

discourses of actors may be different from the personal ones that are truly inspiring the actors’ patterns of

action; (2) the same course of action or policy may be consistent with multiple and differing frames; (3) the

same frame may be consistent with two policies; (4) the frames underlying policies made at the central

governmental body may change during the implementation of such policies at a more decentralized/local

level; (5) frames and conflicts do not match perfectly each other, therefore sometimes there can be

conflicts within a frame and other times conflicts among different frames, and the distinction among these

50

two cases is not straightforward; (6) the distinction between real and potential shifts of frame is

challenging, as while the latter ones usually signals the potential of the former ones, real shifts may lie

dormant for a certain period of time before their actual occurrence; on the other way around, the

engagement in action and the adaptation to a changing situation may lead to real shifts of frame without

this having to be preceded by deliberations or discourses that would signal such potential shift. However,

the authors also recognize that all these practical difficulties may be overcome by a careful and accurate

analysis of the processes from which political discourses and actions spring and of all the levels of the

policy-making process at which such mechanisms take place (Schön and Rein, 1994: 35-36).

Referring instead to the theoretical difficulties faced during the process of ‘frame construction’, the authors

identify one main challenge that cannot be easily overcome. This is due to the fact that whenever frames

are revealed, their construction is made by actors who are not ‘objective’ in their judgments, as they are

themselves embedded in their own ‘a priori’ suppositions, in their peculiar pre-existing frames. Sometimes

such actors are not even able to consciously recognize to be embedded in such distorted visions of reality,

therefore their frames work by tacit agreement without being revealed. Frame analysts must therefore be

careful in taken for granted any construction, that should instead be tested against relevant and objective

data. However, even in this case analysts may disagree in defining the nature of a particular frame conflict,

due to their different personal way of viewing things (Schön and Rein, 1994: 36). This theoretical difficulty

shows how the institution of science has lost its status of being the only ‘objective’ social actors in a

dispute, as their personal embeddedness can shape their ways of viewing things, leading to different

possible truths. This second type of challenges will be particular relevant for the scientific validity of this

thesis, that could be claimed to be undermined by both my hidden, implicit pre-assumptions and my

explicit opinion about GMOs. To avoid such risk: (1) I will avoid any personal comments about any data I

collect and (2) whenever data will be gathered through interviews, I will record them and transcribe in my

thesis a summary of the statements made by the interviewed, without adding personal additional

comments.

Regarding problems in doing discourse analysis, the necessary criteria that have to be respected in order to

guarantee the reliability and the validity of the analysis itself have been described by Kroger and Wood

(2000: 163-177). Roughly, they include both moral and scientific criteria: the latter ones comprehending:

(1) trustworthiness (orderliness and documentation) and (2) soundness (orderliness, demonstration,

coherence, plausibility, fruitfulness). These possible problems will all be considered during the analysis of

the texts and of the discourses, and their justification will be included in the explanation of the results of

the analysis.

51

4. THE POLICY CONTROVERSY OF GMOs IN ECUADOR

In this chapter I will try to understand: (1) whether the introduction of the cultivation of GMOs is to be

considered a wicked problem, based on the characteristics of this type of problems as I have reported them

in subchapter 2.1; (2) the role played by the media and by new governance systems in the policy

controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. This analysis will provide insights that will be used in order to answer to

the first specific research question, namely who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do

they relate to each other, and what are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs

in Ecuador and the on-going controversy. Particularly, the analysis of the controversy itself will be useful in

understanding how the main social actors relate to each other in the context of a wicked problem.

4.1 GMOs IN ECUADOR: A WICKED PROBLEM?

4.1.1 The characteristics of a wicked problem

In subchapter 2.1, I have listed the different characteristics that usually typify a wicked problem, as they

have been reported by Rittel and Webber (1973: 160-166) and by Hisschemoller and Hoppe (1995: 51).

Following I will try to identify if such characteristics are able to describe the problem of the introduction of

GMOs in Ecuador.

A first set of characteristics of wicked problems that typify the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador

regards the fact that wicked problems have no definitive formulation and that before being solved they

need to undergo the political activity of problem structuring. As revealed by the public discussions analyzed

in this thesis in chapter 6, one of the main issues in the resolution of the policy controversy in Ecuador is

the disagreement on the definition of the controversy itself. The social actors involved in the public

discussions on this topic do not agree on how GMOs should be defined. In fact, while some of them

connect their introduction to wider topics of agro-ecology, biodiversity, consumers’ rights, etc… others

consider ‘science’ as the only one able to cope with this problem and to find the ‘right’ solution. The

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador lacks therefore a definition in the sense that the borders of the problem

are blurred, and it is not clear which actors should be involved in solving it. For example, while it could be

thought that the opinion of the citizens should be the first one to be considered in taking decisions about

GMOs, different journalists and citizens themselves (who have commented the articles of the newspaper

Hoy) frame GMOs as a topic on which the opinions of ‘an average citizen’ are not worth of consideration.

This incapacity of agreeing on the definition of both the problem and the people responsible for solving it

leads to the recognition of two other characteristics that are typical of wicked problems, namely that: (1)

the technical methods are inadequate to problem solutions, therefore there is uncertainty about which

52

disciplines and specializations are able to solve the controversy and (2) there is an involvement of many

social actors, who have often conflicting values. This is exactly the case of the policy controversy of GMOs

in Ecuador, where neither the politicians nor the scientists hired by the government are able to convince

the citizens and the media of their capacity in dealing with the issue. On the contrary, as it will be visible in

the analysis of the discussions in chapter 6, both the journalists and the commentators of the articles have

shown skepticism towards the capacity of decision-makers and scientists to be able to solve the issue

without excluding the different perspectives of the citizens, the farmers, the academics coming from

different backgrounds, the ecologists, etc… These latter ones are primarily involved in the controversy as

well, and have demonstrated to hold conflicting values with respect to the ones of President Correa and of

his supporters. However, and here we find another characteristic that is typical of wicked problems: none

of the social actors just mentioned has the authority to set the rules to determine correctness, because

even if the President in charge is Correa, he cannot simply ignore the divergent positions of the various

social actors opposing GMOs. Or, at least, the media are able to capture all these different positions, that

become therefore ‘public’ and afterwards cannot simply be overlooked.

Another characteristic of wicked problems that was possible to notice by analyzing the frames used in the

public discussions in Ecuador was the following: wicked problems are interconnected, i.e. the problem is

not clearly separated from other problems. This feature of the Ecuadorian controversy was visible in the

analysis of the public discussions in which the topic of GMOs was related to many others such as the

resolution of the problem of world hunger, the loss of biodiversity, the GMOs-related health risks, the

survival of rural agriculture despite the monopoly of the multinational companies, the respect for

consumers’ rights, etc…. In different discussions all these aspects were relating GMOs to a different topic,

by increasing the disagreement about which aspects should be taken into account in solving the

controversy and which aspects, on the contrary, should not be considered as the result of the concerns of a

‘childish’ ecology or of disinformation. This feature of the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador is

interconnected with another feature of wicked problems, namely that addressing the whole problem

means more than addressing its singular parts. In fact, in this case the resolution of the controversy about

the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador would include the consideration of all these different aspects, from

the health-related ones to the ones concerning the environmental consequences.

The introduction of GMOs in Ecuador is also linked to another set of characteristics of wicked problems,

namely: (1) wicked problems cannot said to be solved; (2) wicked problems have no stopping rule; (3)

wicked problems have waves of repercussion and (4) decision-makers are liable for the consequences of

the solutions. These characteristics are intrinsically linked to the controversy as they reflect different social

actors’ concerns related to a possible introduction GMOs in Ecuador. In fact, a possible introduction of

these organisms in the country would not be seen as a resolution of the ongoing debate, because the

53

frames of different social actors reveal their concerns about what would happen after such introduction

(the increasing dependence from multinational companies, the possible health consequences, etc…).

Therefore, the introduction of GMOs in the country by many social actors would not be considered as the

end of the problem, but as the beginning of other, interconnected ones. Second, wicked problems could

have a wave of unstoppable consequences. The blame for these consequences would be attributed to

politicians and scientists in the case of the introduction of GMOs, and to the opponents of GMOs in the

case of their definitive banning. In fact, as the former ones are already being accused of being able to

provoke negative consequences in the fields of health, biodiversity and economy, the latter ones are

already being accused of preventing the introduction of an innovation that could save the Ecuadorian

population from hunger and poverty.

From this description it can be seen how the policy controversy regarding the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador can indeed be defined as a wicked problem, as many of the features of this controversy reflect the

characteristics that have been described as typical of wicked problems.

4.1.2 The degrees of wickedness of a problem and the appropriate strategies

In subchapter 2.1 I have also analyzed the degrees of wickedness that a problem can have according to

Head and Alford (2008) and the related strategies that are required in order to solve it according to Roberts

(2000). Here I try to relate the policy controversy of the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador to these

characteristics.

Concerning the degree of wickedness, I have reported how Head and Alford (2008: 10) had identified three

main degrees of wickedness that a problem can have, based on (1) the knowledge available on the

problem, (2) the knowledge available on its possible solutions and (3) the knowledge and the values of the

social actors involved in its resolution. Focusing on the introduction of the policy controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador, it could be said that this controversy is characterized by the highest degree of wickedness, due to

the following reasons. First, the knowledge available on the problem is not considered to be enough by

different social actors. In fact, while part of the social actors frame GMOs as organisms that have been

studied enough and whose possible effects have already been accurately examined, another wide part of

social actors still consider the information available on GMOs as not sufficient, for example by recalling new

researches (as exemplificative the one of Séralini) that are still revealing new insights on their possible

negative effects. Therefore, the agreement on the problem itself is still not present, as GMOs are defined in

multiple and differing ways. Second, the knowledge on the possible solutions for the problem is not

available for the same reason: different social actors propose different solutions that are in contrast with

each other. Third, the knowledge and the values of the parties involved are conflicting, as shown (1) by the

54

contrasting evidences presented by the different social actors involved and (2) by the opposing evidences

that they present to support their statements (see the analysis made in chapters 5 and 6). All these

characteristics determine the highest degree of the wickedness of the policy controversy in Ecuador, as

shown below by the yellow box in figure 6.

Concerning the strategies to use in order to solve a wicked problem, I refer to the ones individuated by

Roberts (2000: 2-3). As shown by the yellow pattern in figure 7 (see the next page), in the case of the

controversy in Ecuador, the conflict is both over the definition of the problem and the definition of its

solution, as none of them have been yet agreed upon. Also, the power is dispersed, as even if the President

Correa is in charge, different social actors including politicians, ecologists, citizens, journalists, etc.. have the

power to contest his decisions in such a way that their voice cannot be completely ignored, therefore the

use of authoritative strategies has not been imposed yet. Furthermore the power, other than being

dispersed, is contested among different social actors; an example are both the protests of the citizens on

the web pages and the protests of the ecologists and the journalists through the use of media against the

President’s statements.

This situation is creating a context in which, as described by Roberts (2000: 4-5), social actors tend to use

competitive strategies, that is they assume a ‘zero-sum game’ that implies that there will be some winners

and some losers at the moment of finding and implementing a solution to the problem. As earlier described

in subchapter 2.1 this thesis, the analysis the ‘frames of reconciliation’ among the opposing social actors,

aims at providing a possible starting point from which the resolution of the policy controversy in Ecuador

could be based more on collaborative strategies than on competitive ones, as shown by the red arrow in

figure 7 (see the next page). As earlier described in subchapter 2.1, the basis of this shift is considered to be

the avoidance of dialogues of the deaf, i.e. the prevention of public discussions that function as disputes

instead as places of comparison.

Figure 6

55

4.2 GMOs IN ECUADOR: THE ROLE PLAYED BY MEDIA

This thesis has focused on the role played by a specific type of media, namely the Ecuadorian newspapers.

As it will be later on explained in subchapter 6.2, the selection of the newspapers has been based on the

possibility to find articles concerning the topic of GMOs through a web research. Within these newspapers,

the selection of the articles has been based on the possibility to find articles that would show to frame

GMOs in a certain way, and not to merely describe the statements made by the social actors involved

through a fact-like presentation of the events. Even if an in-depth analysis of the role played by the

Ecuadorian media was not possible due to the time constraints of this thesis, the following overview aims

at providing general insights on their role in the controversy of GMOs and on if and how they are

contributing to the process of framing such controversy.

As earlier described in subchapter 2.1, Dahlgren (2009: 35 and 45-47) has stated that the current ‘media

logic’ has modified the original aim of media, namely the one of informing citizens, due to (1) an increasing

influence of market forces and political/economic elites on their role and (2) the process of tabloidization,

that is a focus of media more on appearance (e.g. personal life) than on the substance of core issues. As it

will be possible to see in subchapter 6.2, it was possible to identify the former characteristic in the case of

the newspaper El Telégrafo. In fact, this newspaper is owned by the government and associated with the

President Correa, therefore it is not surprising that all the articles published in this newspaper were

promoting the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. Moreover, most of the articles published in this

newspaper have been written by Cesar Paz y Miño, which is the spokesman of the President himself (other

than being a professor at one Universities of Quito and a consultant of a National Secretariat). Such choice

of choosing as a journalist a person that is directly involved in the controversy (and whose opinion is

therefore likely to be partial), leads to the hypothesis that El Telégrafo has to cope with the pressure and

the influence of external political/economic elites. This situation reflects also the concern shown by

Volkmer (2003, as cited in Castells, 2007: 258) about the fact that a strategic use of media allows decision-

Figure 7

56

makers to exercise control on their citizens, by framing the issues discussed in the newspapers in a certain

way. However, the case of El Telégrafo was the only case for which such external influence could be

hypothesized, as in the case of the other newspapers this mechanism was not present: for example, in the

case of the newspaper El Mercurio, which is owned by an American company and therefore it would be

expected to publish articles that are biased towards a positive perspective towards GMOs, the articles have

shown instead to frame GMOs in many negative ways.

The second characteristic identified by Dahlgren (2009: 45-47), namely the current tabloidization of media,

whose focus have become more on appearance of the representatives of the social actors involved in a

controversy than on the controversy itself, was not identified as a feature characterizing the newspapers

analyzed. In fact, all the articles that have been studied focused on the description of facts, and not on the

description of the people involved in the controversy.

Another characteristic of the media that was reported in subchapter 2.1 as identified by Dahlgren (2009:

35-41) and that it was possible to identify during the study of the role played by media in the Ecuadorian

controversy, is the one of digitalization (i.e. the phenomenon for which the major technological trend in

media is to use digital networks, which are faster in communicating with respect to the traditional media).

The most spread Ecuadorian newspapers have in fact been analyzed through their web pages, and, most

important, one of them (the newspaper Hoy) also gave the possibility to the readers of triggering a

discussion by commenting the published articles, through the use of web 2.0 pages. This modern

characteristic of media gives the readers the possibility of contesting the articles and of actively

participating in ‘correcting’ it, whether they disagree on what has been written and they desire to provide

another version of facts.

Finally, it was possible to analyze the role played by media in the light of the insights provided by Beck

(1992, as cited in Cottle, 1998: 8-9) as they have been earlier reported in this thesis, in subchapter 2.1.

Media are described by Beck as responsible of three functions, namely: (1) the social

construction/definition of risks, (2) the social contestation of risks and (3) the social criticism of risks. The

first task was clearly visible during the analysis of the articles published in the newspapers, where GMOs

were framed each time as something different. These different definitions were shining each time light on

different aspects of GMOs, providing therefore different frames, different ways of perceiving the problem

and, consequently, different possible solutions for it.

The second feature of the media as identified by Beck, namely their capacity of being places of social

contestation as it has been described in subchapter 2.1, was particularly visible in the analysis of the

newspaper Hoy. In this case it was possible to notice how the articles were the connection between the

people that created the possible risk (i.e. the politicians that aim at introducing the GMOs in the country)

57

and the people possibly affected by it, i.e. the citizens, who made use of the possibility to comment the

articles to express their (either favorable or not) opinion towards the hypothetical risk.

The last feature of the media as reported by Beck, namely their function of performing a surveillance task

by putting under the spotlight the deficiencies of the decisions taken at the institutional level in order to

cope with the risk, was not possibly to analyze. This because a final decision on how to solve the

controversy of GMOs has still not been taken, therefore it was not possible to find articles that were

analyzing and criticizing the consequences of such decision.

4.3 GMOs IN ECUADOR: GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Regarding the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador, two forms of doing policy currently coexist, namely

the one conducted by the government and the one determined by the actions taken by the citizens. As

already described in subchapter 2.2, this situation falls in what Bevir and Rhodes (2010: 91) have identified

as the ‘third wave of governance’ or ‘Stateless State’, in which the actions of the innocent citizens are not

only steered by the norms fixed by the government, but also by their personal beliefs which they adopt in

response to dilemmas. In this situation, the State is not seen as a uniform institution anymore, but as

fragmented in different constituents. Concerning the policy controversy of GMOs, such different

constituents in Ecuador can be identified in the social movements and NGOs listed below, which are the

main ones being involved in the controversy. These are group of citizens that have reunited themselves

based on a shared perspective on topics of agriculture, which they want to accomplish despite the possible

different perspective of their own government on such topic. They include:

1. The Colectivo Agroecológico (i.e. the ‘National Agro-ecology Collective’). The Colectivo

Agroecológico can be described as “an informal, though influential network of over 200 individuals

and organizations that is playing a major role in reforming the country’s agriculture and food policy,

as articulated in Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and subsequent legislation” (Sherwood et al., 2013:

4). Therefore this organization is neither an NGO nor a social movement, but more a national

network among different social movements and NGOs, among which Ekorural, Acción Ecológica,

UTOPIA (described by his founder simply as a local network of the broader national network of the

Colectivo), the Comisión De Consumidores (i.e. the Commission of Consumers) and the Canastas

Comunitarias (i.e. ‘Community Food Baskets’) and MESSE (the Movimiento de Economía Social y

Solidaria del Ecuador, i.e. the Movement of Social and Responsible Economy of Ecuador). The

different groups that are part of the Colectivo Agroecológico are not equally involved in the

controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. On one hand, being part of the Canastas Comunitarias implies

actions that are only indirectly related to GMOs, but the movement is not directly involved in the

58

public discussions over GMOs. The Canastas Comunitarias are in fact neighborhood purchasing

groups founded in the city of Riobamba in the late 1980s whose role in society is described by

Sherwood et al. (2013). They have been initially founded by a group of women in order to

guarantee their families healthy and economic food items by autonomously organizing their

‘grocery network’. However this network has grown so much that now it includes more than fifty

neighborhoods and 1,500 families in six cities (Kirwan, 2008 and Dillon-Yepez, 2006 as cited in

Sherwood et al., 2013: 10). Moreover, even if initially the official task of the Canastas Comunitarias

was to provide food, meantime their goals have expanded, first by including matters of food

quality, environmental sustainability and social equity (Sherwood et al., 2013: 10) and second by

supporting the Canastas’ members to create new relationships and forms of exchange concerning

food production and consumption (Garcés and Kirwan, 2009 as cited in Sherwood et al., 2013: 10).

The actions taken by this movement are related to GMOs in the sense that its participants

commonly decided to purchase only healthy and cheap food items, which in their view do not

include GMOs. The rise of this movement could also be connected to a form of what McFarland

(2012: 31-32) defines as ‘creative political participation’: the ‘political consumerism’, based on the

idea that citizens can use their purchases as votes to determine the future direction of production

practices. As well as the Canastas Comunitarias the social movement MESSE is not directly involved

in the controversy of GMOs. In fact, according to the interview with two of its members, MESSE is

an association that is too young to be involved in national debates and to have a clear definition or

perspective on the controversy of GMOs. Moreover, according to them the current strategy of

MESSE is to build up spaces of discussion and confrontation among its own members about topics

that directly concern them, without having many ‘exchanges’ and confrontations with other social

actors. On the other hand, Ekorural and Acción Ecológica are instead directly involved in the

discussions over GMOs in Ecuador, as explained below.

2. Comisión de Consumidores. This is another social movement that is connected to a form of what

McFarland (2012: 31-32) defines the ‘political consumerism’. According to its current coordinator,

Ms. Holguin (whose interview is analyzed in chapter 5), this social movement is a dynamic and

‘fluid’ network that since 2011 gathered different members of the Colectivo that believe that

consumers must be involved in order to influence the decisions taken at the political level. This goal

is achieved through different objectives, including: making connections between the institutions

and the society; helping the social movements in stimulating a type of consumption that fosters

food sovereignty; spreading information about the benefits of consuming healthy and local foods

and about where to buy them; generating social proposals of legislations, regulations and public

policies. The practical counterpart of these theoretical objectives has been the articulation, since

59

the year 2012, of a informative campaign named ¡Qué rico es comer sano y de mi tierra! (i.e. ¡How

tasty it is to eat healthy and local!).

3. Ekorural. As reported in chapter 5 of this thesis, according to the members of Ekorural that have

been interviewed, this NGO is involved in the fortification of the rural communities, in order to help

them to be able develop autonomously. Ekorural has been directly involved in the discussions over

GMOs in Ecuador. Particularly, one of its members, namely Stephen Sherwood, is responsible of

taking part to the public discussions, even if what has to be said is decided among him and the

other members. This NGO can be connected to another form of ‘creative political participation’ as

defined by McFarland (2012: 25-32): ‘the logic of collective action’, for which citizens lobby for their

interests so that their perspective on public policies can be heard by the decision-makers.

4. Red de los Guardianes de Semillas (i.e. the Network of the Guards of Seeds). As it will be shown in

the interview of Mr. Javier Carrera in chapter 5, this network is a laboratory of experimentation of

new models of production, more than a social or political movement. This search of new models

encompasses different sectors of production, including the one of agriculture, in which the Red is

mainly concerned about the preservation of the traditional seeds of the country of Ecuador and of

the development and conservation of the seeds currently used and cultivated according to

traditional methods. As his founder Mr. Carrera has specified, this network does not aim at being a

movement directly involved in the political environment, but more at working together with the

farmers and with the citizens in general, to inform them and therefore educate them on the actions

to be taken in order to promote the development a certain type of agriculture (the one of

sustainable agriculture). In this sense, this network could be seen as the form of ‘creative political

participation’ that is the one of ‘political consumerism’ as identified by McFarland (2012: 31-32).

However, according to Mr. Carrera the members of this movement are also involved in a

continuous search of scientific data to present in the public discussions about GMOs, which falls

under another type of ‘creative political participation’, namely the one of ‘the logic of collective

action’ (McFarland, 2012: 25-32).

5. COPISA (i.e. the Plurinational and Intercultural Conference of Food Sovereignty). As it will be

described in detail in the interview of Roberto Gortaire reported in chapter 5, this organization is

part of the fourth power of the policy field in Ecuador, i.e. the one of the participation of citizenry.

Despite the fact that COPISA is financed by the State, this organization is composed by citizens

which are responsible of creating proposals of laws that will be later on examined by the executive

government and, if approved, by the Parliament. Moreover, the members of COPISA are

responsible of controlling the implementation of the policies that they have proposed. For the

direct involvement of the citizens in the creation and implementation of the public policies, COPISA

60

can be seen as reflecting two types of ‘creative political participation’ as defined by McFarland

(2012: 25-32), namely ‘the logic of collective action’ and ‘the implementation of public policies’.

6. Acción Ecológica (i.e. the Ecological Action). This is an NGO that was founded in 1986 in order to

defend life by focusing on the defense of nature (Acción Ecológica, 2013). According to one of its

most active members, namely Elizabeth Bravo (whose interview is available in chapter 5), Acción

Ecológica is an NGO characterized by a non-hierarchical structure. This NGO works through the

promotion of different campaigns, among which there is the campaign against GMOs and pro food

sovereignty, of which Mrs. Bravo is the responsible. This NGO could be mainly identified as

reflecting two forms of ‘creative political participation’, namely ‘the logic of collective action’ and

‘political consumerism’ (McFarland, 2012: 25-32).

7. FENOCIN (i.e. the National Confederation of the Rural, Indigenous and Black Organizations), an

NGO founded in 1965 (Fenocin, 2008). According to the interview with the member of FENOCIN,

this NGO is an organization of indigenous people but also a multicultural one, as it includes farmer,

descendants of African people and inhabitants of the coasts of Ecuador. According to this member

of FENOCIN, this NGO is implicated in the public discussion over GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact

that it is concerned about the agricultural model to apply in the country. FENOCIN is in fact

concerned about promoting an agricultural system that respects food sovereignty and the rural,

small-scale farmers, which the member of FENOCIN defines as the only ones that are able to satisfy

the food requirements of the Ecuadorian population. Since the draft of the Constitution of 2008,

FENOCIN has been actively participating in promoting these themes in the national assembly,

mainly by presenting the arguments why Ecuador should be kept a country that is free of

transgenic seeds and cultivations (which will be present in chapter 5, in the analysis of the

interview of this person). As well as COPISA, for the direct involvement of the citizens in the

creation and implementation of the public policies, FENOCIN can be seen as reflecting two types of

‘creative political participation’ as defined by McFarland (2012: 25-32), namely ‘the logic of

collective action’ and ‘the implementation of public policies’.

All these types of ‘creative political participation’ shows the current presence of different types of

governance systems that, as well as the government, are trying to define the controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador as well as to steer the direction of the policies regarding this topic.

Finally, together with these formal types of governance, the participation of innocent citizens was also

possible to notice in the analysis of the public discussions that directly involved them, i.e. the discussions

over GMOs through the use of the web 2.0 pages of the newspaper Hoy (the analysis is available in

subchapter 6.3 of this thesis). In these discussions different citizens tried to convince each other not only

on which would be the best policy to implement in order to solve the controversy, but also on the

61

definition of GMOs themselves, by framing them each time in a different way. Together with these

discussions, it was also possible to find another initiative that some citizens have taken in order to spread

certain type of information about the topic of GMOs and therefore to spread a certain definition of this

topic. This initiative has been the creation of a page on the social network Facebook called Ecuador libre de

transgénicos (i.e. Ecuador free of transgenic products). Unfortunately, it was not possible to find any

discussion in this web page; nevertheless, the publication of different videos and articles on this web page

by various users demonstrate their willingness to incentivize other citizens of being aware of the possible

damages of GMOs and of taking possible actions in order to sabotage their introduction in the country (like

the one of avoiding the consumption of certain products). The use of both the web 2.0 pages of the

newspaper Hoy and of the web page on Facebook can be indeed related to the importance that Aguirre

Sala (2013: 36-37) attribute to these ‘new medias’, as (1) they are new means of information,

communication and organization that citizens use to counter the asymmetric information between them

and the decision-makers; (2) they are able to create new spaces (a) that fill the lack of institutionalized

spaces for civic participation and (b) where citizens can organize and legitimize their actions.

62

5. SOCIAL ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY

This chapter aims at presenting the main social actors involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador and their perspectives/frames of the controversy itself. The data for this analysis have been

collected mainly through the use of open-ended and semi-structured interviews with representatives of the

social actors involved, conducted between the months of August 2013 and October 2013. In the few cases

in which an interview was not possible to obtain (namely in the cases of: the President Rafael Correa, the

politician Alberto Acosta, the institution of ESPOL and the company PRONACA), the frames of these people

have been constructed through the analysis of their public statements and through the help of the other

people interviewed. This analysis aims at providing insights in order to respond to the three specific

research questions, namely: (1) who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to

each other, and what are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador

and the on-going controversy; (2) which are the framing mechanisms used during public discussions on the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador in newspapers, on-line discussions and live debates and what mechanisms

increase or decrease polarization during the public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador.

While subchapter 5.1 will present the summaries of the interviews and their analysis, subchapter 5.2 will

address the study of frame polarization based on the four principles that have been described in

subchapter 2.3 of this thesis.

5.1 ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS

In the next page, figure 8 shows a figurative map of the representatives (in light black and lower case

letters) of the main social actors (in dark black and upper case letters) that are involved in the policy

controversy, based on their perspectives on the topic of GMOs. The ‘positioning’ of the people that have

been interviewed based on the variables of pro-GMOs or anti-GMOs is based on the personal statements

made during the interviews. The colorful circles only aim at providing the information of which social actor

or institution the people interviewed are part of. However, as it will be explained later on in this thesis,

almost none of the social actors themselves could be identified as pro- or against-GMOs, as the framing of

GMOs varied significantly among the singular representatives of these social actors.

In the following pages the interviews of the social actors and the related analysis of their frames are

presented. Whenever the person interviewed wanted to remained anonymous, his/her name has not been

reported and his/her gender as been randomly changed. In the 1st appendix of this thesis is possible to find

the English version of the checklist that has been used in conducting the interviews.

63

Figure 8

64

5.1.1 Roberto Gortaire

Mr. Gortaire is one of the most relevant people involved in the discussions about GMOs in Ecuador, due to

the fact that he is part of both a political organization and social movements which are equally involved in

the policy controversy. First, Mr. Gortaire is a member of COPISA (Conferencia Plurinacional e Intercultural

de Soberanía Alimentaria). This organization is part of the fourth power of the policy field in Ecuador, a

country in which other than the executive, the legislative and the judiciary powers, there is also the fourth

power of the participation of citizenry. COPISA is financed by the State and is responsible of creating

proposals of laws that will be later on examined by the executive government and, if approved, by the

Parliament. In this organization, Mr. Gortaire is the chief of two of the eight commissions that are part of

COPISA (namely the one about agro-biodiversity, seeds and agro-ecology and the one about consumers).

When asked about the perspective of this organization on GMOs, Mr. Gortaire has revealed how COPISA is

an heterogeneous body, that despite the negative perspective of the majority of his members towards

GMOs has decided to maintain a ‘low profile’ on the topic, without expressing any clear position.

At the same time Mr. Gortaire is part of different social movements, but mainly of UTOPIA, a local

organization which is part of the greater national network of the Colectivo Agroecológico (a network of

different social movements and NGOs involved mainly in the topics of agriculture and food sovereignty).

Mr. Gortaire has defined himself as the bridge between these organizations and COPISA. Other than having

this role in the organization, Mr. Gortaire is also responsible of unifying the different social networks at the

local and national level (namely MESSE and the Consumers’ Commission) so that together they could have

a larger representation at the policy level. Therefore UTOPIA, the Colectivo Agroecológico and the other

networks share the same perspective towards GMOs, namely that Ecuador must remain a territory that is

free of transgenic products and that a new agricultural productive model should be created, i.e. the one of

agro-ecology.

Regarding the personal frame used by Mr. Gortaire when asked what was his perspective on the topic of

GMOs, he described them as: “the end of the rural agriculture, which means the end of food items”.

Transgenic products are therefore seen as a threat primarily for a part of a society (the one formed by

farmers), but secondarily for the society as a whole. This definition could be seen as what Benford and

Snow (2000: 615-617) have defined a ‘diagnostic framing’, which involves the members of a movement

seeking to identify the sources of causality of what they define as a problematic situation, as earlier

explained in subchapter 2.3. Moreover, as I will describe later on in this section, one of the aim of UTOPIA

and of the associated social movement is to mobilize the attention of the citizens towards the topic, by

providing them reasons to engage in collective actions. Indeed, a good reason to mobilize the attention of

citizens towards the topic of GMOs is presenting them as a threat for food items, as any citizen is

hypothetically interested in food, while less people might be interested in a topic such as genetic

65

modification. Furthermore, Mr. Gortaire wanted to underline how both himself and the agro-ecologic

groups that he is part of do not want to present themselves as the opponents of GMOs, but more as the

defenders of a new model of agriculture for the future, the one of agro-ecology, that in his view will be the

only one able to generate productivity, food and yields. In comparison, GMOs are part of an obsolete and

old model of agriculture, that if not stopped will be able to accelerate the collapse of food production and

the agricultural crisis. This ‘positive’ strategy, that proposes something new instead of only criticizing

something that already exists, is the strategy that Mr. Gortaire consider to be the best one also for gaining

consensus in the eyes of the civil society and in the eyes of part of the politicians.

Despite the clear, negative definition of GMOs, Mr. Gortaire has been able to provide different points over

which he (and possibly his organizations) could come to an agreement with the advocates of GMOs. These

three different proposals are:

1. The use of GMOs as components of pharmaceuticals products. Mr. Gortaire has revealed how both

him and his organizations are not keen on contesting the use of transgenic products in the field of

medicine, as long as their production is appropriately controlled;

2. The importation of food items that are made of genetically modified material. Mr. Gortaire has in

fact revealed that both him and his organizations are not keen on contesting the import of GMOs,

as long as they are appropriately controlled and labeled and their impacts are being appropriately

studied;

3. The last, but probably the most important possibility of agreement among Mr. Gortaire and the

advocates of GMOs is the following proposal. Mr. Gortaire knows that the President Correa is not

keen on becoming a ‘slave of Monsanto’, i.e. on basing his decisions on studies that have been

done abroad, without conducting national and independent researches to study the impacts of

GMOs. The proposal of Mr. Gortaire is therefore the following: that the government subsidizes two

independent and controlled researches at the same time, throughout the duration of the new

legislation (5 years). One research would investigate the impacts of GMOs, while the other research

would investigate the impacts of agro-ecology. During these five years, a moratoria should be made

in order not to free transgenic products in the environment. At the end of this period, the effects of

the two different models of cultivation could be compared, and a decision could be taken.

According to Mr. Gortaire, all these proposals should be implemented in an institutionalized way, so that

publicly and clearly is decided who can make the investigations and who is responsible of controlling their

results. These three suggestions could be seen as arguments able to decrease the possibility of the debate

to become a dialogue of the deaf. Moreover, especially the proposal of investigation in both fields reveal

the will of Mr. Gortaire to avoid a dialogue of the deaf among the opposing parties by presenting concrete

evidence on the pros and cons of both systems of production. The realization of such suggestion might be

66

able to satisfy both parties involved in the discussion. This because, on one side, the people fostering types

of production based on the principles of agro-ecology would be given the possibility of presenting their

own empirical data (therefore hushing up all the critiques of being fundamentalists without any concrete

reason supporting their view). On the other side, the people supporting the use of GMOs would be given

the possibility to prove their positive effects through an independent study, whose results could not be

accused to be biased because of the hidden interests of certain multinational companies.

Finally, Mr. Gortaire has explained the strategies that he has developed, together with the social

movements that he is part of, in order to get his perspective on GMOs heard. He has explained how the

strategies used vary based on the different scenarios in which Mr. Gortaire or any of his colleagues have to

debate. These strategies could be seen as what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have identified as the

task of ‘prognostic framing’, which implies the articulations of plans for tackling the problematic situation.

First, in the technological/scientific scenario the strategy has been to present debaters that would come

from an academic background; however, the results of this strategy were heterogeneous, first because

most of the debates have been organized in a bias way and second because, even when the number of

actors of both parties was equilibrated, the arguments proposed were too different for finding a common

ground of discussion. Concerning the social scenario, according to Mr. Gortaire the strategy has been the

one of informing the citizens and of incentivizing them to be part of the social movements. Third,

concerning the scenario of media, the strategy used was the one of talking of the new model of agriculture,

the one of agro-ecology, and not on focusing on the talk about GMOs. For this attempt of not focusing on

GMOs but of including broader aspects in terms of agriculture, food sovereignty and consumers’ rights, the

frames used by these social movements could be defined as ‘master frames’, which are frames that are

broad in term of scope and that therefore aims at mobilizing a greater number of actors, as defined by

Benford and Snow (2000: 618-619) and described in subchapter 2.3. Finally, concerning the political

scenario, the strategy has been the one of mobilizing social actors that are already part of this scenario to

support the position of the social movements.

Concluding, as Mr. Gortaire has explained, the social movements he is part of have consciously developed

different strategies based on the different audiences that are present in different discussions. This variety

of strategies reflects what Benford and Snow (2000: 630) have identified as one of the features of the

socio-cultural context in which frames get formed and that is able to influence the process of framing itself.

Such characteristic is described by the authors as the ‘audience effect’, which means that the targets of a

frame influence both the content and the form of a message, as earlier explained in subchapter 2.3.

67

5.1.2 Javier Carrera

Mr. Carrera is involved in the discussions over GMOs in Ecuador as the founder and the coordinator of a

national network and social movement, namely La Red de los Guardianes de Semillas. Both Mr. Carrera and

his movement hold towards the current models of production used what he has defined as a radical

perspective, also because Red is a laboratory of experimentation of new models of production, more than a

social or political movement. This radical perspective led Mr. Carrera to define GMOs in a drastic way, by

claiming that there is an error at the basis of how genetic engineering is conceived, that through genetic

determinism has associated to a certain gene the capacity of expressing a certain trait, while according to

studies recalled by Mr. Carrera this is absolutely not possible, as various genes are responsible for the

expression of a trait. Therefore Mr. Carrera has defined as wrong the scientific basis on which the concept

of transgenic products has been built up. He has also defined transgenic products as unnecessary, but as

the magic in which people now want to believe in. Moreover, he has accused GMOs to be dangerous for

the environment, the society, the health and from a legal point of view, and he has defined them as a

problem in the sense that they would bring economic advantages only to certain social actors, mainly the

agricultural and food industries, while productivity would not be increased. This last frame could be seen as

what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) defines as a ‘diagnostic framing’.

This radical frame is shared among Mr. Carrera and the Red, whose main task are of preserving the

traditional seeds and of promoting the development of the current seeds with traditional methods. For

these reasons the Red sees GMOs “as a threat, because once they would be introduced it would be

impossible to control the genetic contamination and as we are guards of seeds this affects us directly”. This

strict link between the topic of GMOs and the topic of seeds does not allow to identify this frame as a

‘master frame’, but more as a frame that is “limited to the interests of a particular group or to a series of

related problems” (Benford and Snow, 2000: 618).

For all these reasons Mr. Carrera does not believe in any possibility of agreement between his movement

and the advocates of GMOs. He explained that for what concerns the agro-food industries, they have

rejected any of the claims of the Red, and have actually threatened it of suiting it for defamation. For what

concerns the scientists studying biotechnology an agreement could not be found as well, because “the

poles are totally opposed [as] on one hand there is a repetitive discourse of anxiety of progress […] while

on the other hand there is a very advanced discourse on the necessity of the country to build up a different

matrix of productivity […] and the membrane is impermeable, as from our side you have a lot of reasoning

but on the other side they repeat the same arguments and they do not want to discuss”. Therefore, Mr.

Carrera does not agree with the any of the possibility of agreement proposed by Mr. Gortaire, i.e. the use

of GMOs for medical reasons, the importation of food items that contain GMOs and the possible national

investigations on GMOs (this last one because of the possibility of the genes to escape during the

68

experimentation). This position of Mr. Carrera shows how the incomprehension among him (or the social

movement he is part of) and the advocates of GMOs is likely not to decrease. This is due to the fact that

Mr. Carrera seems to refuse any possible proposal done by the other people involved in the controversy

that do not hold such an extreme position towards the topic.

Mr. Carrera has also illustrated the different strategies that he and his movement has put in place in order

to have their perspective heard. Such strategies include: (1) to search for scientific data and bibliography

that demonstrate the risks of GMOs; (2) to reach the citizens, informing them and represent them, as they

are still not well represented in the political debate; (3) to reach the politicians that oppose GMOs, to be

better represented at the political level. These strategies reveal the intent of increasing the number of

people that share the same view of Mr. Carrera and the social movement he is part of. Again, this

articulation of strategies on how to steer the direction of the discussions over GMOs could be seen as what

Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have defined as ‘prognostic framing’.

5.1.3 Anonymous member of Ekorural

This person is involved in the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador as he has a main role in an NGO, Ekorural,

that is concerned about themes of agriculture and food sovereignty. Despite being part of such NGO his

academic background is in economy, not in agriculture. According to him, he and the entourage of Ekorural

share the same vision on GMOs, namely that GMOs would lead the rural communities to face a loss of

biodiversity and of autonomy, and that this would have consequences also for all the other citizens, in the

form of a loss of food items.

Despite this negative definition of GMOs, the perspective of this member of Ekorural could not be

described as polarized, as he himself has underlined how: “the position of being against- or pro-GMOs does

not help the government and neither helps us”. This strategy of not presenting the movement as opposing

GMOs could be seen as what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have identify as a ‘prognostic framing’,

which implies the articulation of strategies for tackling the problematic situation; apparently, one of these

strategies is indeed to define the movement not as an anti-GMOs movement, because this would lead to a

closure towards different social actors. Such strategy also reveals the purpose of this person to avoid a

situation in which the parties involved can be classified as polarized, leading the dialogue to become a

dialogue of the deaf.

After this member of Ekorural seemed skeptical about any possibility of agreement among the advocates

and the opponents of GMOs, the possibilities of agreement identified by Mr. Gortaire have been proposed

to her, and she he actually agreed with all of them, namely:

69

1. The possibility agreement over the use of transgenic components in medicines and for medical

purposes, as in this case according to this person there is enough evidence that they are able to

bring benefits;

2. The possibility of agreement over the importation of genetically modified foods, as long as they are

adequately labeled in order to respect the rights of the consumers to be able to choose consciously

what they want to eat;

3. The possibility of agreement with a national investigation on GMOs, as proposed by Mr. Gortaire.

As in the case of Mr. Gortaire, these three suggestions could be seen as arguments able to decrease the

possibility of the debate on GMOs to become a dialogue of the deaf.

This person believes that currently the controversy over GMOs in Ecuador is not being treated in a

transparent way, as there is still a lack of open platforms of discussion, as these currently include mainly

the advocates of GMOs or scientists. However, the opinion of the farmers and the people who work in the

agricultural sector should also be heard, because it is in this sector that there is still a lack of analysis on the

impacts that transgenic products can have (and not for example in the medical sectors, where the benefits

of GMOs have been proved). Moreover, he has claimed that the topic of transgenic products is very

controversial, as it is often treated as a political theme, while what should be also done is an analysis of

transgenic products from a technical point of view. This reveals the will of this member of Ekorural to

amplify the current frame with which GMOs are defined, by including new topics and therefore

transforming it in a master frame.

Concluding, this person is not personally involved in the debates over GMOs, as the strategy of Ekorural

was to choose only one person responsible of debating in the policy field, and this person is Mr. Stephen

Sherwood. However, the strategies to use in the debates are discussed and decided among Mr. Sherwood

and the other members of Ekorural, and are mainly based on focusing the talk on the evidence of the

researches in the fields that are carried out by the NGO. This strategy could be seen as an attempt of these

people to decrease polarization in the debate, due to the fact that the pro-GMOs debaters always search

for a debate based on empirical data (and not on myths of fundamentalism, as the concerns of the

opponents of GMOs have been often defined). Again, this articulation of strategies on how to steer the

direction of the discussions over GMOs could be seen as what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have

defined as ‘prognostic framing’.

70

5.1.4 Anonymous member of Ekorural

This person is involved in the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador as she plays a major role in this NGO,

especially concerning the topics of agriculture of- and strategies for rural farmers. Her background is in plat

physiology, and she is an internationally renowned PhD biological scientist. Her definition of transgenic

products is negative as well, as it frames transgenesis as a way to control food production and as “a crime

for the centers of origin of the species”.

The perspective of this person on transgenic products was slightly less moderate than the perspective of

the previous one, despite the fact that they are part of the same organization. In fact, this member of

Ekorural:

1. Did not agree with the importation of genetically modified foods, even if he said that as long as

citizens are correctly informed on what they are eating, the importation can be accepted;

2. Agreed with the possibility of investigation concerning transgenic products, but only if these are

made for medical purposes or in general to generate products that are substances and that cannot

get in contact with the environment. Instead he did not agree with the investigations of

transgenesis in crops in any animal or microorganism that could possibly get in contact with the

environment, as in his view these investigations are dangerous and unnecessary;

3. Underlined how the studies to demonstrate that GMOs are not able to contaminate the

environment and the food chain have to be carried out by the government and by the industries

that want to introduce them, and not by the NGOs that are concerned with their introduction.

However she also claimed that as long as the debate over GMOs is an open and public debate and it

includes the participation of consumers and producers, and as long as in this debate the introduction of

transgenic products in the country is publicly approved, then the will of the population has to be accepted.

Concluding, this member of Ekorural has confirmed what claimed by the one interviewed previously,

namely that the strategy of “being against the transgenic products” would not lead anywhere, and that

therefore the strategy of this NGO during the public discussions on GMOs is based on informing and

facilitating the comprehension of the topic of GMOs, more than merely opposing their introduction. Again,

this articulation of strategies on how to steer the direction of the discussions over GMOs could be seen as

what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have defined as ‘prognostic framing’.

71

5.1.5 Maria de Lourdes Torres

Maria de Lourdes Torres is involved in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that she

is the coordinator of the department of biotechnology of a private university, the USFQC (Universidad San

Francisco de Quito, i.e. University of San Francisco of Quito) and she has also been working for more than

fifteen years as a consultant for the MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente, i.e. the Ministry of the Environment of

Ecuador). Mrs. Torres describes GMOs as a reality of the technological development, as something that is

never going to disappear and that therefore cannot simply be ignored or opposed. In her interview she

wanted to specify how her perspective on GMOs is strictly personal, as according to her the University of

San Francisco as an institution does not have a uniform position on the topic of GMOs. However, this

statement is in contrast with the claims made by Mr. Gortaire, Mrs. Bravo, and the two functionaries of

INIAP in their interviews, where they described the University of San Francisco as an institution that is

clearly in favor of GMOs. Therefore, the strategy of Mrs. Torres of framing the University of San Francisco

as a neutral one could reveal her will to avoid a dialogue of the deaf, by avoiding the labeling of this

scientific institution as pro-GMOs.

Her main concern is that the discussions about transgenic products in Ecuador are not being appropriately

managed, as every time the representatives of different social actors mix in their speeches argumentations

that reflect different concerns, namely technical, social and economic ones. Mrs. Torres views this mix of

arguments as dangerous, because it does not allow the discussion to lead anywhere. According to her, what

should be done is firstly an analysis from a technical point of view and only afterwards, when the technical

results are clear, a social and economic analysis on the impacts of these products should be conducted. She

claims to be neither in favor or against GMOs, but she calls for the urgency of making clear investigations

and of having clear national agricultural policies.

Despite the fact that she describes the members of the social movements that work in the field of

agriculture as people whose opinions are based on myths, ideologies and political interests, she agrees on

the fact that the only possible agreement with them would be the one of starting a national, independent

investigation on GMOs. Despite this technical investigation, other analysis could be done about the social

and economic impacts of each GMO that has been accepted from a technical point of view. However, she

has also reveal to doubt about the possibility that the social movements would agree to make such

investigation, as she viewed them as extremists that are not interested in conducting technical research.

Therefore, Mrs. Torres considers as an obstacle to the resolution of the controversy what she sees as the

will of the social movements to not avoid a dialogue of the deaf, but, instead, to strengthen it by refusing

any proposal from other social actors.

72

For all these reasons, the strategy that Mrs. Torres uses whenever she participates in a public discussion on

GMOs is to try to keep separated the technical, social and economic aspects of the topic, by presenting

scientific data and by steering the direction of the discussion towards a technical one. This strategy could

be seen as trying to avoid a dialogue of the deaf, as it avoids the happening of the principle of constraint, as

defined in subchapter 2.3 of this thesis starting from the definition given by Di Maggio et al. (1996: 694).

This because, by keeping separating the different arguments (and therefore the different domains of

discussion), the possibility of a systematical association of the frames in a subtopic with the frames in

another one is drastically reduced.

5.1.6 Cesar Paz Y Miño

This person is directly involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that he is the

responsible of the department of the biomedical investigation of the UDLA (Universidad de las Americas,

i.e. University of Americas) in Quito. Moreover, he has been directly involved in the investigations over

GMOs conducted by the SENESCYT (Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología, i.e.

National Secretariat of Higher Education, Science and Technology of Ecuador). He claims to be in favor of

GMOs, due to the fact that he sees them as one of the possible solutions to world hunger and to the

insufficient agricultural production of Ecuador, a state that is currently obliged to import many food

commodities from foreign countries.

He recognized how currently worldwide there is a lot of confusion concerning the topic of transgenic

products, as the representatives of different social actors are making opposing claims: on one side, the

ecological groups report studies over the negative effects of GMOs on health and the environment while on

the other side the researches conducted by Monsanto prove that GMOs are innocuous. Mr. Paz y Miño

sees himself and the whole academic sector as the only ones able to give a clear answer to the problem,

after having conducted appropriate investigations. It is important to mention that, as in the case of Maria

de Lourdes Torres, the perspective of Mr. Paz y Miño is personal, as the university in which he works does

not have an official position on GMOs.

Despite his strongly positive perspective on GMOs, a possibility of agreement among Mr. Paz y Miño and

the social actors that hold a negative perspective on GMOs could be found in the investigation that Mr.

Gortaire has proposed. In fact, Mr. Paz y Miño agreed on the fact that an independent, joint investigation

about the two types of agricultural systems (the one that makes use of GMOs and the one based on agro-

ecology) should be conducted, and once the results would be visible a final decision should be taken. The

fact that Mr. Paz y Miño agrees on this proposal can be seen as revealing his will of avoiding a dialogue of

the deaf, by focusing the debate on an empirical research and on concrete results.

73

Finally, concerning the strategy used by Mr. Paz y Miño when participating to the public discussions over

GMOs, he claimed that his tactic is to talk about scientific data, and that the academic sector is the only one

presenting the data in their integrity, as in his view both the social movements and the multinational

companies only present a partial view of reality.

5.1.7 Anonymous functionaries of MAGAP

These two functionaries, that have preferred to be anonymous, have been interviewed together as they

both work in the same sector of the MAGAP (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca, i.e.

Ministry of Agriculture), namely the one concerning the general coordination of the commercial networks

of Ecuador. Their perspective on GMOs is ambivalent, as they claimed that, as public officials working for

the Ministry of Agriculture, their perspective must be the one of the Ministry itself. Therefore they defined

GMOs as something that still needs to be investigated before taking decisions on if and how to change the

current constitution that forbid the introduction of these organisms. However, their personal perspective

about GMOs is more negative, as they revealed to doubt about their capacity of benefiting Ecuador. This is

due to the fact that the main market for the Ecuadorian production is the European market, where the

demand is more and more requiring natural and healthy products, not genetically modified organisms.

Therefore the two functionaries framed GMOs as something that would not represent a good choice for

Ecuador, at least from the point of view of a commercial strategy.

These two functionaries have underlined how the Ministry itself does not hold an official perspective on the

topic of GMOs, and that, as in every organization, the perspectives of its employees are various and

different among each other. Moreover, when asked about the perspective on GMOs of the Minister of

Agriculture of Ecuador, Javier Ponce, they stated that he has not revealed yet an official perspective on the

topic as well.

They have pointed out how both the promoters and the opponents of GMOs have in common the aversion

for the possibility of being manipulated by the foreign multinational companies. This is due to the fact that

one of the main objectives of the current political system of Ecuador is to reach the sovereignty as a

country. Therefore, according to them the possibility of agreement on GMOs among the various social

actors lays in the choice for a national, independent investigation on the topic. Moreover, they have also

underlined how, concerning the GMOs that are present in the imported products, a possibility of

agreement among their promoters and their opponents would be the development of more accurate

controls on the labelling of such products, together with further investigations on the possible effects of

their consumption (especially concerning the products whose consumers are infants).

74

Finally, when asked about the strategies used by them when participating in the public discussions over

GMOs in Ecuador, the two functionaries have claimed not to have a clear strategy, but only to focus their

discourses on what is currently in the constitution, that is, on the defence of the food and on the need of

further investigation before changing the related articles that are currently present in the constitution.

5.1.8 Elizabeth Bravo

This person is involved in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that she is part of the

NGO Acción Ecológica (literally, Ecological Action). Within this organization, Mrs. Bravo is the responsible

for the campaign against transgenic products, that she started in 1998. In this year, the multinational

company Monsanto had made the proposal to the Ecuadorian government to sow transgenic cotton in the

country of Ecuador. Mrs. Bravo is also a Professor in the regional university FLACSO (Facultad de

Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, literally Latin-American Faculty of Social Sciences) of Quito. However,

in this institution she is not an associate professor, but she only works sporadically.

According to Mrs. Bravo her personal perspective on GMOs coincides with the one of Acción Ecológica,

which frames GMOs as organisms that would have negative impacts on the environment, the society and

the human health, mainly because they promote a model of production that concentrates the production,

replaces the small producers and requires the use of a greater quantity of chemical products. As in the case

of Mr. Gortaire, transgenic products are therefore seen as provoking different types of threat for the

society, and this definition could be seen as what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) have defined a

‘diagnostic framing’.

Concerning the perspective of FLACSO on GMOs, Mrs. Bravo claimed that the university does not hold a

uniform perspective on GMOs, but that the different professors hold very differing opinions on this topic.

When asked about the possibility of agreement among Acciòn Ecologica and the promoters of GMOs, she

claimed that she could not think of any possibility, due to the fact that the government and the academic

sector of biotechnology that is in favour of GMOs are not willing to make compromises with NGOs. Even

when different solutions proposed by the representatives of other social actors were suggested to her, she

reclaimed that the government would not be willing to make compromises. Therefore, apparently Mrs.

Bravo sees the current debates as strongly polarized due to the fact that the government is ignoring the

proposals made by the social actors that hold a different perspective.

Finally, when asked about the strategies that she uses in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador, she

said that the main tactic is to present scientific data together with an analysis of the social impacts of the

transgenic products. Such strategies do not reveal the aim of avoiding a dialogue of the deaf among the

75

different social actors, but more of proving the right of the social actors that oppose GMOs. Again, this



5.1.9 Manuel Suquilanda

This person is involved the debates over GMOs in Ecuador as the chairperson of the Faculty of Agricultural

Sciences of a public university, the UCE (Universidad Central del Ecuador, i.e. Central University of Ecuador),

and as a member of the social movement Colectivo Agroecológico, of which he is an active member. When

asked about his personal perspective on GMOs, he answers that he recognizes that innovation is something

good, but that it also leads to risks, and that these risks need to be calculated before taking any decision. In

his view the topic of GMOs has not been well analyzed worldwide, and especially in the developing

countries like Ecuador. Therefore, by recalling to different studies that have proved the negative effects of

GMOs in health or on the contamination in the agricultural system, he claims that further investigations

must be made before introducing them in the country. He also recognizes that Ecuador as a country as a

problem of production, which is too small to satisfy the requirements of the population; however, at the

same time he claims that before thinking about introducing GMOs, analysis should be made on how to

solve this problem of productivity by using the national crops that have been developed for centuries. In

fact, his main concerns regard GMOs but also what he has defined as the ‘technological packages’ that

come with them, which include fertilizers and herbicides that are highly contaminating and that could have

negative effects on both health and the biodiversity of Ecuador. Moreover, according to him such

technological packages that are imported from abroad would make Ecuador a slave of the foreign

multinationals. During the interview it was visible how the perspective of Mr. Suquilanda over GMOs recalls

different frames that are recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, namely: the fact that GMOs can effect

biodiversity and health, the fact that behind them are hidden the economic interests of the multinational

companies and the fact that it is not proved their capacity to increase productivity.

Moreover, Mr. Suquilanda was asked if his perspective was the same of the Central University of Ecuador

or of the Colectivo Agroecológico. He answered that the University as an institution does not hold an official

perspective on the topic of GMOs, as various professors have diverging opinions on the topic. Instead, he

identified the perspective of the Colectivo Agroecológico as completely opposing GMOs. However, it is not

possible to identify the opinion of Mr. Suquilanda concerning GMOs as completely negative, because he

was able to propose two possibilities of agreement among the advocates and the opponents of GMOs.

First, he claimed not to be against the use of GMOs as medicines, due to the fact that these are produced in

a protected environment and therefore cannot cause contamination. Second, he claimed that what should

76

be done is a national, independent investigation over GMOs that would be produced nationally (in order

for Ecuador to be independent from foreign interests), to see if some of them can be introduced without

provoking damages. This latter opinion can be seen as the will of Mr. Suquilanda of avoiding a dialogue of

the deaf, through the focus on concrete data. Finally, his fear for the possible dependence of Ecuador from

foreign productions led him also to disagree on a possibility of agreement of the importation of food items

that contain transgenic compounds.

Concluding, Mr. Suquilanda has also participated in many different debates on the topic of GMOs in

Ecuador, invited as the chairman of the University or as a member of the Colectivo Agroecológico. In these

occasions, he has claimed to focus his discourse on the fact that Ecuador is a country with an great

biodiversity, which cannot be put at risk because of economic interests. Again, this articulation of strategies

on how to steer the direction of the discussions over GMOs could be seen as what Benford and Snow

(2000: 615-617) have defined as ‘prognostic framing’.

5.1.10 Anonymous member of FENOCIN

This person has been largely involved in the public discussion over GMOs in Ecuador as in the last few years

he has fulfilled a very important function in FENOCIN (Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones

Campesinas, Indígenas y Negras, i.e. National Confederation of Organizations of Farmers, Indigenous and

Black People). He also works in the administration of the public University Simón Bolívar, however his

involvement in the public discussions in Ecuador has been determined by his role in FENOCIN. According to

this member of FENOCIN, his perspective and the one of the FENOCIN over the topic of GMOs are identical

and both focus on three main frames of transgenic products. First, GMOs are framed as incapable, the

majority of the times, to increase productivity; second, they are framed as unable to have the endogenous

capacity of resisting to plagues; third, they are framed as absolutely incapable of decreasing the use of

herbicides. All these frames can be identified as ‘diagnostic framings’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615-617),

as they identify the sources of causality of the problematic in adopting GMOs. These definitions of GMOs

has been agreed upon in the organization after several investigations on the effects that they have

provoked in the countries of Argentina, Brazil y Paraguay.

When talking about GMOs, this person explains how this topic is not isolated, but that it is actually strictly

related to the broader discussion on the models of agricultural production to be adopted in the country of

Ecuador. The aim of FENOCIN is the one of promoting agricultural systems that defend the right to food

sovereignty of the Ecuadorian citizens and the development of the rural farmers. This NGO has afterwards

looked for the support of various universities of Ecuador (among which there is the USB, the Universidad

Simón Bolívar, i.e. University Simon Bolivar), in order to present stronger technical reasons to oppose the

77

introduction of GMOs. Therefore, according to this person the University Simon Bolivar holds as well a

negative perspective on GMOs, mainly because of the investigations conducted in the university, which

have proved the negative effects on health that these organisms can have.

According to this person, the only possibility of agreement among the FENOCIN and the promoters of

GMOs concerns the possibility of producing and using transgenic products in the form of medicines.

Instead, concerning the use of transgenic products in the fields of agriculture and food production,

FENOCIN opposes both the importation of food items that contain genetically modified material and a

possible national investigation over GMOs in the country. After I have proposed the latter possibility of

agreement to this member of FENOCIN starting from the proposal given by Mr. Gortaire, he has said to not

agree with it due to the fear that, if such investigation would be made, the advocates of GMOs would shift

the only debate on the technical aspects of GMOs, without considering anymore the opinion of social

movements such as FENOCIN. Furthermore, according to this person, the University Simon Bolivar holds

the same perspective of FENOCIN concerning the possibilities of agreement with the advocates of GMOs.

Concluding, this member of FENOCIN has explained how the main strategy that this organization has used

so that its perspective would be heard included: (1) the creation of relationships with people that are

working in the government, in order to influence their opinions; (2) the creation of relationships with the

other social movements and NGOs or political powers (such as COPISA) that hold similar perspectives on

GMOs, in order to have a greater number of actors opposing the introduction of transgenic products; 3) the

alliance with the universities (mainly the University Simon Bolivar and the Central University of Ecuador), to

have the support of academics in the more technical debates. As in the case of Mr. Carrera, these strategies

reveal the intent of increasing the number of social actors that share the same view of FENOCIN. Again, this



5.1.11 Anonymous functionary of SENESCYT

This interview has been conducted with a functionary of SENESCYT (Secretaría Nacional de Educación

Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología, i.e. the National Secretariat of Superior Education, Science and Technology)

which is a national secretariat with the status of Ministry of Ecuador. The functionary that has been

interviewed did not want to express any personal opinion, but only to talk about the official perspective on

GMOs of the institution of SENESCYT, which is reported below.

According to the person interviewed, SENESCYT aims at: (1) strengthening the investigation at the national

level; (2) revitalizing the ancestral knowledge; (3) democratizing the access to knowledge. In this sense here

78

is a position of the Ministry concerning not only transgenic products but many different topics that aims at

strengthening the development of investigation; however, such development must always respect

parameters of quality and ethical parameters, in order to not harm the rights neither of the singular

individuals or of the Ecuadorian collectivity. According to the interviewed, such parameters include the

respect of the rights of nature, therefore in this sense a premature approval of GMOs without a careful

evaluation of their possible negative impacts would put these rights at risk.

Therefore, the official position on GMOs of the Ministry and of its minister, Mr. Rene Ramirez, is that

currently a pro- or anti-GMOs definition cannot be given so far. This is due to the fact that the Ministry is

still analyzing all the parameters that suggest a pro- or an anti-GMOs position. All these parameters are

being studied in the SENESCYT to determine the position of the Ministry not only towards the introduction

of GMOs, but also towards the need or not of investing resources in the investigation of GMOs in the

country. In fact, the Ministry does not hold yet an official perspective on if investigations on GMOs should

be done, and, if so, in which field (in the medical one, in the agricultural one, in both, etc…). Before such

position will be determined, all the ethical, technical, social and cultural arguments are being analyzed, to

decide if they respect the aforementioned parameters of SENESCYT.

As SENESCYT does not still hold an official position, the functionary was not able to provide possible points

of reconciliation among SENESCYT and the other pro- or anti-GMOs major social actors involved in the

controversy. However, as SENESCYT is the public organism that dictates the public policies on investigation

and superior education, according to the interviewed it is in constant relationship with the Universities, the

technical or technological institutions and the local communities.

Concluding, according to the interviewed SENESCYT has been organizing several debates in order to hear

the opposite perspectives on GMOs and to get to know different types of information from a political and

technical point of view.

5.1.12 Anonymous functionaries of INIAP

These two functionaries are involved in the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that they are

two investigators and plant breeders working for INIAP (Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones

Agropecuarias, i.e. National Institute of Agricultural and Livestock Research).

INIAP is an experimental station of Ecuador, that since 54 years has been conducting investigations on the

main crops of the mountainous area of the country of Ecuador. The perspectives on GMOs of the members

of INIAP are very different, however the institution itself has never taken an official position towards the

79

topic. However, according to the interviewed, there are two main lines of thought within INIAP, one in

favor- and one against conducting investigations on GMOs, and the former one is the prevailing one.

The two investigators interviewed have revealed to frame negatively GMOs. Both of them believe in fact

that it is not the right moment neither to investigate nor to introduce GMOs in the country, as previously

the country should invest its economic resources in other types of investigation, mainly the study of how

the great biodiversity present in Ecuador could be used for the wealth of the Ecuadorian population. Such

biodiversity could be harmed by the introduction of GMOs, that according to the interviewed could

contaminate the native species at the genetic level. The two functionaries have linked the cultivation of

GMOs to large-scale, intensive and mechanized agricultural systems of production, which are not suitable

neither for the rural systems that are the majority in Ecuador nor for the topography of the territory of

Ecuador. Such link is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, according to the principle of constraint (Di

Maggio et al., 1996: 694) that seems to characterize the discussion of GMOs in Ecuador. Moreover, they

have criticized the frames of GMOs as organisms able to increase productivity and as organisms whose

cultivation is able to defeat the problem of the poverty of farmers. In fact, according to the interviewed this

latter problem is related to difficulties in the access to land, to water, to seeds, to education and to market,

and not to a lack of productivity nor to a lack of technological development. And these are the problems

that the two people interviewed believe that should be resolved first, before investing huge economic

resources in the investigations on GMOs.

Concerning the possibilities of agreement, the two investigators have not been able to come up with many

ideas, nor they have agreed on the possibilities of agreement proposed by Roberto Gortaire. The only field

of use of GMOs that has not been criticized by the investigators has been the one of medicines, due to the

fact that they have claimed not to have the knowledge in order to make any judgments. On the other hand,

they have claimed not to agree with the imported food items containing GMOs, however they have stated

that at least the government should take care of their adequate labeling. Moreover, they did not agree on

the fact that both investigations on agro-ecology and GMOs should be made at the same time, due to the

fact that they believe that the former ones should represent the first option in which the government

should invest (while the latter one should be left as the last option to adopt, if perhaps in thirty or fifty

years the territory of Ecuador will be not large enough to satisfy the food demand of a growing population).

Finally, they have also admitted that the topic of GMOs at the political level is connected to great political

and economic interests, and that therefore a solution will be hardly found.

Concerning the public debates over GMOs, the two functionaries have stated that, due to the fact that they

are against-GMOs, they have almost never been invited as members of the INIAP to participate. They

claimed that the people invited most of the time express personal opinions, as the institution of INIAP still

80

does not hold an official position, and that these opinions are mainly based on the fact that Ecuador should

invest its resources in scientific development, if it does not want to be classified as a retrograde country.

5.1.13 Andrés Factos

This person is involved in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that he is part of the

Ministry of Environment of Ecuador; namely, he is a public assessor in the project and implementation of

the national framework of bio-security. During his interview, Mr. Factos wanted to underlined that his

perspective over GMOs was personal, as the Ministry of Environment still does not hold an official

perspective on the problem; moreover, he has claimed that within the Ministry, different functionaries

have different opinions on the problem.

The frame provided by Mr. Factos over GMOs is very similar to the one provided by Mr. Paz y Miño, as they

both define GMOs as an tool that, if used respecting the criteria of bio-security, can have positive impacts.

Especially, Mr. Factos referred to the already proved benefits of GMOs when used in the field of medicine.

During the interview, Mr. Factos has also described GMOs as organisms that are being extremely regulated,

revealing therefore the frame of GMOs as safe organisms that should not be dreaded. Moreover, he has

claimed that the farmers that are opposing GMOs are being manipulated by different NGOs, which have

themselves their own political and economic interests. In this case, it can be seen how Mr. Factos has made

of the ‘identity frames’ (Gardner, 2003), accusing the social actors that oppose GMOs to have a bias

perspective due to their hidden interests.

Especially because of this latter reason, Mr. Factos seemed skeptical about the possibility of agreement

among the people asking for an investigation on GMOs and the ones opposing it. When proposed the

solution suggested by Mr. Gortaire, namely the one of a national and independent investigation over the

impacts of both GMOs and agro-ecology, Mr. Factos seemed to doubt about the possibility that different

NGOs would accept such agreement. Therefore, this person sees the distance among the opponents and

promoters of an investigation on GMOs in Ecuador as apparently irresolvable, due to a lack of trust in the

fact that the opponents would agree on investigating anything. However, he indeed revealed to agree on

the fact that there is a lack of data on the effects of both, GMOs and agro-ecology, and that to fill such fault

would be useful, as it would allow to base the discussion on scientific data. Therefore, if the NGOs and the

social movements would accept the investigation as proposed by Mr. Gortaire, the doubts of Mr. Factos

about the possibility of such investigation could be solved.

Finally, concerning the main strategy used by Mr. Factos in the public discussion over the introduction of

GMOs in Ecuador, he stated that his focus is on talking to the audience and to make the people reason

81

about what he believes are the ‘real data’. This because, as aforementioned, he believes that the citizens

are being manipulated by bias information provided by the NGOs, and that only because of this reason they

oppose the investigation on GMOs.

5.1.14 Carina Holguin

Ms. Holguin is involved in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador due to the fact that she is the main

coordinator of the social movement Comisión de Consumidores (i.e. Commission of Consumers). As earlier

explained in chapter 4, this social movement gathers different members of the national network of the

Colectivo Agroecologico that believe in the importance of mobilizing consumers, in order to influence the

political action.

Ms. Holguin has claimed that her personal perspective on GMOs, namely that they represent a danger for

the country, is shared among herself and the social movement Comisión de Consumidores. The differences

in opinions concern only the diverse methods that should be used in order to avoid the entrance of GMOs

in the country. This is due to the fact that some of the members believe that actions should be taken in

order to persuade influent politicians to fight against the introduction of GMOs, while others believe that

the focus should be only on informing and mobilizing consumers, through practical actions. Anyways,

according to Ms. Holguin all the members believe that the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador would

represent a threat, that, if cannot still be proved at the health level (due to the conflicting results shown by

different researches), it is already visible at the level of biodiversity, agriculture, loss of national (traditional)

crops and economic losses for the farmers due to their dependency from the producers of GMOs.

Concerning the possibility of agreement with the promoters of GMOs, Ms. Holguin only partially agrees

with the proposals made by Mr. Gortaire, that have been proposed to her after that she had seemed

skeptical about proposing herself any possibility. She agreed on the use of transgenic products in the

medical field, as well on the importation of food items that contain transgenic material if they are

appropriately labeled. However, when asked about the possibility of a national investigation both in the

field of agro-ecology and GMOs, she did not completely agree. This because she claimed that the

government should invest all the money in conducting research on ecologically friendly methods of

production, like the one of agro-ecology. However, she claimed that if a double-investigation would be the

only solution accepted by the advocates of GMOs, she would agree as well with it.

Finally, when asked about the strategy used by the Comisión de Consumidores in the public discussions on

GMOs in Ecuador, she claimed that in reality the members of the social movement itself do not directly

participate in the debates. This because they rather focus on engaging in practical actions with the

82

consumers while leaving the task of debating to other social movements or NGOs that share the same view

of Comisión de Consumidores, in particular to the members of Acción Ecológica.

5.1.15 Anonymous professor in FLACSO

This person is involved in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador for different reasons: first, she is a

member of the social movements Comisión de Consumidores of Colectivo Agroecológico. Second, she is an

associate professor and investigator in the department of ‘Development, Environment and Territory’ in the

private university FLACSO. However, she specified that the FLACSO as an institution does not hold an

official position on the topic of GMOs, as well as the two social movements, despite the fact that at least in

these latter ones the opinions on transgenic products are widely shared among their members.

When asked about her perspective on GMOs, this person said that, when evaluating what is better for the

country of Ecuador according to the interests of its producers and to criteria of food sovereignty, transgenic

products correspond to an agricultural model that simply does not fit in the reality of this nation.

Moreover, she did not focus on trying to find possibilities of agreement among the advocates and the

opponents of GMOs. This because she claimed that what is important, before finding solutions, is to

consider the opinions of all the important social actors: something that, according to her, is not happening

in Ecuador. Therefore, what she would suggest before starting to find solutions, would be the inclusion of

the opinions of the Ecuadorian farmers and consumers in the discussions that are being carried out at the

political level. This perspective was present also when this person was asked about the strategy that she

has been using during her participation in the public discussions over GMOs in Ecuador. In fact, after stating

that her main concern is to focus the discourse on the topics of rural agriculture and food sovereignty, she

has stated that however such discussions will not lead anywhere, if the ones participating are the ones

sharing the same ideas on the problem. Instead, she would suggest that the best strategy would be to

reach the decision-makers, and to influence their decisions by making them consider the opinions of

different social actors that are currently being excluded.

5.1.16 PRONACA S.A.

This company, which is one of the main food industries of Ecuador, has been recognized by most of the

people interviewed as a representative of a social actor (the agro-food industry) playing an important role

in the controversy over GMOs in Ecuador. Unfortunately, none of the managers nor of the employees of

PRONACA S.A. has been available for granting an interview. Therefore, the information about the position

83

of this company towards this topic has been reconstructed from the opinions of the other people

interviewed and from information available in internet.

PRONACA S.A. is a corporation that gathers different industries mainly centered on the production of

poultry, food items and agricultural products (Chacón, 2007: 4). From different interviews, PRONACA S.A.

has been defined as an Ecuadorian company that is exercising influence on the government of Ecuador in

order to change the Constitution and allow the introduction of transgenic seeds in the country. In his

interview, Mr. Gortaire has even identified the chiefs of PRONACA S.A. as the main responsible for

introducing in the article 401 of the Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 that exemptions to the ban of GMOs

in the country could have been made in exceptional circumstances. According to Mr. Gortaire, since then

this company has worked in order to change the Constitution and allow the introduction of transgenic

crops in the country, especially of corn and soy, on which the production chain of poultry is based on.

Furthermore, PRONACA A.S. is the representative of Monsanto and Bayer in Ecuador, industries which are

described as interested in the expansion of the utilization of transgenic products (Semillas de Identidad,

2008).

Therefore, it can be deduced that PRONACA S.A. is playing in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador an

important role as an actor that is defining GMOs in a positive way.

5.1.17 ESPOL

The Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (i.e. the Technical Superior School of the Littoral), is one of the

universities of Ecuador that has been recognized by most of the people interviewed as a representative of a

sector of social actors (i.e. the academic institutions) playing an important role in the controversy over

GMOs in Ecuador. Unfortunately, none of the professors nor of the employees of ESPOL have been

available for granting an interview. Moreover, a research on the internet did not allow to find an official

statement of the university on the topic of GMOs. The only consideration that can be made about this

university is based on the interviews of the other interviewed, which have identified this university as an

advocate of the introduction of GMOs, and in which a whole department is currently involved in the

investigation over the creation of transgenic banana trees.

5.1.18 Alberto Acosta

This person is to be considered has playing an important role in the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador due to

the fact that, in 2008, he has been the President of the Constitutional Assembly that was responsible of

84

writing the Constitution (in which, indeed, was introduced the prohibition of cultivating transgenic seeds

and crops in Ecuador). Unfortunately, an interview with Mr. Acosta has not been possible to obtain.

However, his perspective on GMOs has been deduced from an article written by Mr. Acosta himself on

September 27th, 2012 (Acosta, 2012).

In this article, Mr. Acosta defines GMOs as: “a true danger not only for health, environment, and the

genetic patrimony of our biodiversity. Above all, they are an economic danger for the farmers, in turn

eroding the opportunities of the country to enter with its production and its comparative advantages in

different international markets”. Already from the beginning of the article it can be seen how Mr. Acosta

shares different negative frames of GMOs with the other main opponents.

More specifically, Mr. Acosta touches upon different themes that concern GMOs. First, he continues by

claiming that the only farmers that would agree with the introduction of such products would be only the

large-scale farmers whose main objective is to decrease the number of employees they have to pay.

Second, he criticizes the frame that the use of GMOs allows the reduction of quantity of herbicides.

Instead, he claims that GMOs, due to one of their endogenous characteristic (i.e. the fact that there are less

susceptible to herbicides) actually foster an increase of the use of these organisms in the fields. Third, he

states that GMOs are not able to increase productivity. Fourth, he accuses GMOs of being used to increase

the earnings of the multinational companies that sell the herbicides necessary for the cultivation of these

crops, accusing that “the production of transgenic seeds and the production of glyphosate are a

monopoly”. Finally, he questions if the international market would be willing to buy the products cultivated

in Peru if these one would contain transgenic material.

Concluding, it can be seen how Mr. Acosta frames GMOs with strong negative connotations, which are

shared among him and the opponents of GMOs. Unfortunately, conclusions cannot be made about the

possibility of agreement among this person and the advocates of GMOs, as he does not refer to any of

them.

5.1.19 President Rafael Correa

The interview with this very important political actor involved in the controversy of GMOs was not possible.

However, the reconstruction of his main frame of GMOs was possible through the review of the Enlace

Ciudadano of September, 1st 2012 (Enlace Ciudadano 287, 2012: from minutes 55 to 1h and 14 minutes).

This was the occasion in which the President presented to the citizens his opinion on the prohibition of the

cultivation of GMOs in the country. Below, the main frames used by the President in his intervention.

85

The first frame used by President Correa to describe GMOs did not limit to the description of the transgenic

products themselves, but included the ‘identity frames’ (Gardner, 2003) of the people defending the ban of

GMOs in Ecuador. In fact, the President has introduced the discourse by claiming that in Ecuador there are

people that, because of their fundamentalism, are afraid of knowing real information, of knowing reality.

Therefore, already from this statement it is possible to see how the President views part of the concerns for

GMOs as unfounded, as if they were not scientific enough. This frame has been repeated several times

during his discourse, as he was claiming that the debate should be a scientific one, based on scientific

arguments. This classification done by the President reveals how he sees the public discussions on GMOs in

Ecuador as polarized among scientific and non-scientific actors. Therefore, if the proposal of an

independent and national investigation on both agro-ecology and GMOs, this might be helpful in

decreasing the skepticism towards the concerns of different NGOs and social movements, because they

would provide scientific arguments.

The second recurrent frame used by the President in his statements was about the various positive impacts

that these organisms could have on poverty, due to the fact that they have been proved to be able to

quadruplicate the production and to resist to extreme weather conditions. For this reason, the President

accuses the current Constitution to be limiting the possibility of production and development of the

country of Ecuador.

A third topic presented by President Correa in this discussion has been the comparison between the

cultivation of GMOs and their consumption in the food items that are currently imported in the country of

Ecuador. This theme was also connected to the concerns of the transnational companies that are currently

producing and exporting these products to Ecuador: the President accuses the opponents of GMOs of being

afraid of these transnational companies, but at the same time to impede the investigation on GMOs that

could free the country of Ecuador from their dependency.

Finally, the President has shown all the fields in which GMOs could be used in a beneficial way, including

the one of agriculture, bioremediation and medicine.

Concerning the possibility of reconciliation among the President and the social actors holding an opposing

perspective, from his statements it could be hypothesized that an agreement could be found among the

government (that he represents) and the social actors that would agree in making national, independent

investigations over GMOs.

86

5.2 ANALYSIS OF FRAME POLARIZATION

In this subchapter I will analyze polarization of the frames that the representatives of the different social

actors have revealed during their interviews. The analysis will be based on the four principles that have

been reported in subchapter 2.3. In order to carry our such analysis, I have divided the frames used in three

main frame dimensions, that are shown in figure 9 and which are described in detail in subchapter 7.2.

The first principle is the principle of dispersion for which frames are polarized as long as they are different

in content such that they can be separated between ends of the frame spectrum. From the analysis of the

interviews that have been carried out it can be said that frames are indeed dispersed. This is due to the fact

that all of them can be identified as either negative or positive frames, independently from the subtopic

(safety, efficiency or societal connotations) they refer to.

The second principle is the principle of bimodality, for which frames are polarized as long as people using

different frames cluster into separate groups and the space among these two separate positions is barely

occupied. From the analysis of the interviews that have been carried out, the principle of bimodality is not

respected. This is due to the fact that for each subtopic the percentage of the people using negative frames

Figure 9

87

of GMOs was much higher (80% for safety, 77% for efficiency, 92% for societal connotations) than the

percentage of people using negative ones (20% for safety, 23% for efficiency, 8% for societal connotations).

Here it is important to mention how the calculations have been made, for each subtopic, by calculating as

the total population (i.e. the 100%) only the people that have actually used definitions concerning, each

time, the subtopic considered, and not all the speakers.

The third principle is the principle of constraint, for which frames are polarized if they are mutually

constrained and if such constrains are extensive in scope. From the analysis of the interviews that have

been carried out, the principle of constraint is respected. This because, concerning the negative frames of

GMOs in twelve interviews (out of the fourteen that revealed a negative perspective on GMOs) people

have used negative definitions referring to two or more subtopics (safety, efficiency or societal

connotations). On the other hand, concerning the positive frames of GMOs in three interviews (out of the

three that revealed a positive perspective on GMOs) people have used positive definitions referring to two

or more subtopics (safety, efficiency or societal connotations).

The fourth principle is the principle of consolidation, for which frame polarization is directly proportional to

the number of people using the same frame(s) and falling under the same sector of social actors. The

sectors that can be applied to the analysis of the frames used in the interviews include: (1) NGOs and social

movements, (2) academic institutions and (3) political institutions. According to this principle, the following

considerations can be made:

In the sector of NGOs and social movements it is not possible to find inconsistency among the

interviews of their representatives. All of them share in fact a negative perspective on GMOs,

revealed through the use of negative frames in all the three subtopics (safety, efficiency, social

connotations);

In the sector of the academic institutions it is instead possible to find inconsistencies among the

people interviewed, as different representatives of this sector used contrasting frames of GMOs,

which would be sometimes positive (as in the interviews of Maria de Lourdes Torres or Cesar Paz y

Miño) and sometimes negative (as in the cases of the anonymous Professor working in the

University FLACSO, of Mr. Suquilanda and of the anonymous employee of the University Simon

Bolivar);

In the sector of the political institutions it is also possible to find inconsistencies among the people

interviewed (or whose definition of GMOs was founded trough research). In fact, on one hand

some representatives of this sector (such as Mr. Gortaire, the two anonymous functionaries of the

MAGAP, the two anonymous functionaries of INIAP and Alberto Acosta) used negative definitions

88

for describing GMOs. On the other hand, others representatives of this sector (such as the

President Correa or Cesar Paz y Miño) used positive definitions to describe GMOs.

Therefore, it can be concluded that, according to this principle, frames are not consolidated for what

concerns the sectors of social actors ‘academic institutions’ and ‘political institutions’. Instead, they are

consolidated concerning the sector ‘NGOs and social movements’.

89

6. PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS

Following are presented different type of live discussions that have taken place in Ecuador concerning the

policy controversy of GMOs and their relative analysis. For reasons of practicality, whenever a statement or

an expression of a speaker/writer was not considered relevant for this research, it has been removed and

substituted by the symbol: […]. In the same way, whenever a literal translation was not possible due to

grammatical differences, some interventions on the text have been made and some words have been

added by the editor. In this case, such intervention is signaled by the use of the square brackets: [].

Moreover, the statements are not reported in their original languages, but in their (translated) English

version. For what concerns President Correa’s statements, the newspaper articles and the comments of the

citizens through the web 2.0 pages, the reader will be able to find the original texts online, in the websites

whose links are provided by the bibliography of this thesis. For what concerns the live discussions, the

original texts are provided in the appendixes of this thesis.

6.1 THE BEGINNING: PRESIDENT CORREA’S DECLARATION

As earlier mentioned in this thesis, what triggered the current discussions on the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador has been the definition of the banning of GMOs at the constitutional level as a mistake. This

declaration was made by President Correa during his weekly public radio address on September, 1st 2012

(Enlace Ciudadano 287, 2012: 1h and 11min).

In this occasion President Correa used different frames of GMOs that have been re-used several times, in

different ways in the subsequent discussions on this topic. These included, for example, the definitions of

GMOs as organisms that are able to increase the productivity and therefore to defeat world hunger:

“Everybody agrees on what is called, in economy and in ecology, the precautionary principle: if we

do not know which impact something is going to have, it is better not to use it. […] But to put such

lock at the Constitutional level is crazy! It needs to be put at a normative level: only when you have

the final proof that these food items do not effect human health, they can be used. But this lock

does not have to be put at the Constitutional level. Why? Because […] you know that certain

transgenic seeds quadruplicate the productivity and [that] they can assist us in helping our farmers

to defeat poverty […]” (Enlace Ciudadano 287, 2012: min 58-59).

Moreover, such positive presentation of GMOs has been supported by Correa through a logical reasoning

or logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) that has been often re-used by other advocates of GMOs. Such

reasoning regards the presentation of the ban of the cultivation of GMOs in the country as a contradiction,

90

due to the fact that the Ecuadorian citizens are already consuming (imported) transgenic food items (Enlace

Ciudadano 287, 2012: 1h and 00min).

Also, in his discourse President Correa made use of identity frames (Gardner, 2003), when defining the

opponents of GMOs as “[…] people that, in order to privilege their fundamentalism, fear the information,

fear the truth” (Enlace Ciudadano 287, 2012: min 55). Such definition is almost supported by the presence

at the conference of the Doctor Cesar Paz y Miño, an expert on biotechnology whose opinion is asked

more than once by President Correa during his speech.

As it will be possible to see later on in the analysis of the public discussions on GMOs in Ecuador, this

intervention of President Correa triggered a non-stopping debate about the advantages and the

disadvantages of GMOs, a debate that triggered also a reflection about which social actors are able to

answer such question and about which agricultural model should be adopted in the future by the country

of Ecuador.

6.2 PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS THROUGH THE MEDIA: WEB 1.0

Concerning the public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador carried out through the use of

media, they have been studied in five Ecuadorian newspapers. These newspapers are exemplificative of the

public discussions carried out through what is known as the ‘web 1.0’. This includes, as earlier explained in

chapter 3, web pages whose readers simply act as ‘consumers’ of the articles, without interacting and being

able to ‘create’ some content themselves on the web pages (Cormode and Balachander, 2008). Moreover,

the choice of the newspapers has been chosen based on: (1) the possibility of searching articles on GMOs in

their file archives on the internet and (2) the fact that they frequently address in their articles the topic of

GMOs. The newspapers analyzed include:

1. EL TELÉGRAFO. This Ecuadorian newspaper is one of the oldest and the most spread public

newspaper of Ecuador. It has been founded in 1884 in Guayaquil, and it is currently owned by the

government of Ecuador (Wikipedia c), 2013). It is known as the public newspaper of the Civic

Revolution, a project started by a coalition among different political- and social movements,

President Correa and the movement Alianza PAIS with the aim of spreading the socialist ideology

within the country (Hoy.com.ec, 2009). The articles published in this newspaper seems frame

positively GMOs, which could be connected to the fact that the newspaper is owned by the

government and associated with the President Correa, whose will is to introduce GMOs in Ecuador.

2. EL COMERCIO. This Ecuadorian newspaper is the most important one in Quito, the capital of the

country, and it is one of the most sold in the whole nation. It has been founded in 1906, it is owned

91

by Compañía Anónima El Comercio and it is edited by Grupo El Comercio. Its political ideology is

liberal (Wikipedia a), 2013). In this thesis the online version of this newspaper has been analyzed,

that is El Comercio.com. In this newspaper the majority of the articles published frame GMOs

negatively.

3. EL DIARIO, an Ecuadorian newspaper whose headquarters are in Manabí (El Diario, 2013) and

whose articles frame negatively GMOs.

4. EL MERCURIO. This Ecuadorian newspaper was founded in 1924 and is edited in the city of Cuenca

(El Mercurio b), 2012). Despite it is a member of the Inter-American Press Society, literally Sociedad

Interamericana de Prensa (Wikipedia b), 2013), the frames used to describe GMOs are always

negative.

5. CRÓNICA. This Ecuadorian newspaper was founded in 1979 in the province of Loja (Crónica c),

2013). The articles published in this newspaper frame always GMOs negatively.

Figure 10 shows the articles published in these newspapers since September, 1st 2012, the day in which

President Correa has publicly declared his will to change the Constitution in order to allow the possibility to

cultivate GMOs in Ecuador, until July, 17th 2013, that is the day in which this research has been conducted.

Figure 10

92

Note that not all the articles that have been published about transgenic products have been reported and

analyzed, but only the ones that would frame the topic of GMOs in a certain way, either positively,

negatively or moderately. The articles that were merely describing the situation by reporting the

statements made by different people involved in the controversy but without taking a position towards the

issue have not been included in the analysis.

The left column of figure 10 includes all the articles that show to define positively GMOs and their

hypothetic cultivation in the country of Ecuador. However, in red we find the dates in which the newspaper

El Telégrafo, whose articles usually framed positively GMOs, was publishing articles that instead could be

seen as holding similar positions of articles published in newspapers whose articles framed negatively

GMOs. The arrows connect these articles to the relative ‘against GMOs’ frame that they are similar to.

Following I explain these mechanisms in details and I address the analysis of frame polarization. I have also

tried to identify mechanisms of frame polarization by analyzing the articles in a chronological order, as

shown by figure 11. However, in this case it was not possible to identify and therefore to analyze any

systematic pattern.

Figure 11

93

6.2.1 Framing on the topic of ‘productivity’

Concerning this topic, two main opposing frames have been identified. On one side we find the frame used

by the articles of El Comercio and El Telégrafo, where the journalists defend the idea that genetically

modified organisms are able to increase the productivity of crops in different ways:

El Comercio (02/09/2012): “Paraguay has authorized, two weeks ago, the import of transgenic

seeds of cotton from Argentina and Brazil to strengthen the production, […]” (El Comercio.com a),

2012). In this sentence, for example, the author seems to have no doubts about the potential of

GMOs to increase productivity. This is made explicit by the use of the phrase ‘to strengthen the

production’, which takes for granted such property of GMOs.

El Comercio (08/09/2012): “The President of the Republic has shown that the dispositions related

with the agricultural biodiversity and the genetic heritage is a constitutional candidate for the

restriction on increasing the production of food through genetic engineering” (Mayorga Puma,

2012). In this article the journalist constructs the sentence in a way that the increase of production

derived by the use of GMOs (claimed by President Correa) is taken for granted.

El Telégrafo (24/09/2012): “The decade 2000-2010 has been characterized by the significant

growth of the production. [...] Today, the spread of the crops of soya in Brazil, a tropical country

like Ecuador, represents the main cause of the change in the use of the soils and it constitutes a

threat for the conservation of the Amazon and its biodiversity, […]. If it is childish to not recognize

the strengths of transgenic [products] concerning the reduction of the costs of production of the

crops, the increase in yield and the exploitation of a series of benefits regarding the rotation of

crops; likewise, to promote their use without a national agreement, without a precautionary

perspective, without a strategic plan that safeguards the farmers and the conservation of agro-

biodiversity, will be [an] irresponsible [action]” (Bonilla Bedoya, 2012). This article starts the

discussion about GMOs by advocating their capacity to increase the productivity and the yield for

the farmers. However, even if the beginning of the article clearly promotes GMOs, in the second

part this positivity in the description decreases, as the author recognizes also the importance of

protecting the biodiversity of Ecuador and defines as irresponsible any action aiming at promoting

GMOs without protecting it. The frame of GMOs used in this article is therefore less positive than

the ones used by the other articles usually published in the newspaper El Telégrafo. The yellow

arrow in figure 10 indicates how the problem of loss of biodiversity that is brought up by the author

can be connected to the worry of losing biodiversity, that is a typical negative frame of GMOs.

El Telégrafo (20/11/2012): “[...] hunger is not necessarily lack of food items but also political

circumstances. The strategy of the industrially developed countries is not the distribution of food

items, [but] is the introduction of the innovations of biotechnology, especially in what corresponds

94

to the genetic recombination with the result of significant increase in productivity per unit of

[agricultural] surface” (Mendoza Andrade b), 2012). In this article the frame of GMOs is again very

positive, as the author takes for granted that GMOs have been adopted by developed countries

due to their capacity of solving the lack of food items, that is, of increasing the production. In this

case it can be noticed an attempt by the journalist of using what Gottweis (2012: 216-217) has

defined as a tool of rhetoric, namely the use of pathos. This is the emotional effect created by the

discourse in the reader, as it earlier described in subchapter 2.3. In this particular case, such

emotional effect is being produced by the connection of the topic of higher productivity to the

topic of hunger. This is a worldwide problem that the reader is likely to be aware of, therefore the

strategy used is the one of presenting GMOs as a solution to such problem, in order to trigger a

sense of approval towards GMOs by the readers themselves.

On the opposite side, holding a divergent perspective on the topic of productivity, we find three main

articles of the newspapers El Mercurio, El Diario and El Comercio. In these articles the authors accuse GMOs

to not be able to increase productivity:

El Mercurio (26/09/2012): “Myths, as the one of high productivity, four times more compared to

the non-transgenic crops, [the one of being] economical seeds and that its products are of a better

quality, have fallen in front of the evidence that their productivity is smaller, that the seeds are

expensive and that many of their products do not have a nice flavor. Until today the genetic

engineering does not manage to win the battle against nature, as consumers will keep preferring

natural products” (López Bustamante, 2012). The frame used by the author in this article to

describe GMOs is very pessimistic, showing a clear negative definition of GMOs, accusing their

claimed property of increasing productivity to be a myth, without scientific basis, and accusing

them to have instead a lower capacity to increase productivity when compared to non-transgenic

crops.

El Comercio (25/01/2013): “Four years after their prohibition, transgenic [crops] have changed the

debate by the hand of the President and candidate for the reelection Rafael Correa, that has

changed his position and now suggests to legalize them, according to him in order to quadruple the

agricultural production and to decrease poverty” (El Comercio.com a), 2013). In this article, even if

a negative opinion of GMOs is not that straightforward, it can be noticed how the author does not

report the increase of productivity as a property of GMOs that can be taken for granted. In fact the

journalist, when writing about the capacity of GMOs to increase productivity, is careful in reporting

‘according to him’. This expression that can be seen as a linguistic tool to attribute the truthfulness

of that statement to the President, and, somehow, to doubt about it.

95

El Diario (20/02/2013): “Currently the debate is based on the introduction of the transgenic

[products], because ‘the farmers do not know how to produce and with these food items the world

hunger will finish’. The same has been said since the 1960s, when they have spread the toxic

phytosanitary products of the green revolution around the world” (Zambrano Cabrera a), 2013). In

this article we can notice the sarcastic tone with which the author compares the idea of introducing

GMOs to solve the problem of world hunger with the apparently inefficient tool that has been used

in the 1960s to solve the same issue, i.e. the use of phytosanitary products.

6.2.2 Framing on the topic of ‘health’

Also concerning this topic, two main opposing frames have been identified. On one side we find the articles

published by the newspaper El Telégrafo, in which the authors defend GMOs against the accuses that they

have negative consequences on the health of their consumers:

El Telégrafo (16/09/2012): “The biotechnology used to produce TG [transgenic products] is

increasingly more effective and more secure. […] The ones that oppose dogmatically the TG,

because they ignore the complicated genetic processes to produce them, shift the attention to the

political, ideological and rhetorical discourse, that has a greater advertising impact, but [that is] not

true” (Paz y Miño e), 2012). In this article the author drastically opposes the idea that GMOs could

have a negative impact on health, by accusing the people that make such statements to aim only at

endearing the public opinion, but without having scientific reasons to justify such statements. This

shift from the framing of the issue of GMOs to the framing of the people opposing GMOs can be

identified in what Gardner (2003) described as identity frames, a concept illustrated in subchapter

2.3. Moreover, the author is confining the discourse about GMOs to the scientific realm, by

discharging the opinions that in his view do not have science as a basis for their reasoning. This

frame of the problem can already be noticed from the title of the article, that translated is:

‘Transgenic products, a scientific matter’. The reasoning beyond the statement of the author reflect

the use of the rhetorical tool named logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217): here the author is trying to

construct a logical reasoning for which, because GMOs have being discovered and studied by

scientists, the related decisions about them should be discussed only among scientists.

El Telégrafo (24/09/2012): “The United States is strewing transgenic [seeds] since the 1990s and

we, in theory, even if we do not know, we are eating transgenic [products]. Everything that is

imported in Ecuador from the United States and Argentina, either corn or soy, the 95% that comes

[here] is transgenic, in flours and processed products, since 15 years ago” (El Telégrafo, 2012). In

this article it seems that the author is justifying the fact that GMOs must be considered healthy, by

96

referring to the fact that Ecuadorian citizens are already consuming. Therefore, the reader is

pushed to believe in the assumption that because he/she has been eating GMOs for years, these

products must be considered healthy. Again it is possible to see how the argumentation is

organized based on a logical reasoning, thus through the use of the rhetorical tool of logos.

El Telégrafo (30/09/2012): “One of these [analysis of publications], conducted in 6 millions of

articles about TG, reduces to 17 the researches that show convincing data. Its conclusion says that

there are no evidences that to eat transgenic products instead of natural products leads to

important changes in health” (Paz y Miño f), 2012). This article starts to frame GMOs in a positive

way by using the rhetorical tool of logos. This is done by referring that the seventeen articles that

can be considered as reliable (even if it is not explained which criteria of reliability are being taken

into account) have demonstrated that GMOs do not have negative effects on health. However, by

continuing the analysis of the article, this initial positivity of in framing GMOs seems to decrease:

“Because of the absence of investigations about TG, my position as a geneticist and doctor has

been the support and the call for investigation on TG, to have trustworthy data. Meanwhile, we

cannot believe in anything. Equally, in front of the economic and political interests regarding the TG

produced abroad and managed by the transnational [companies], the position of the government

of the country must be to realize investigations that release us from the scientific-technical servility

and from the dogmatic environmentalism that repeat [their] arguments rejecting investigations to

get to know the truth” (Paz y Miño f), 2012). This second part of the article shows the underneath

skepticism of the author about the reliability of the researches that he was previously defending, as

he shows his concern about the power of the big multinational companies. This description of the

situation is very close to the one usually used in the articles of the newspapers framing GMOs

negatively, as shown by the green arrow in figure 10. It is also interesting to see how in this article

the author himself recognizes a division among the opinions on GMOs, that in his view is blocking

the resolution of the problem. Furthermore, when describing this division, the journalist uses

identity frames, by describing one group of people as the serves of hidden interests and the other

one as ecologists that base their arguments on dogmas or ideologies.

El Telégrafo (07/10/2012): “We are many researchers of DNA that are in favor of the transgenic

technology in Ecuador […]. We have to be prudent, […] however we cannot be afraid of a

technology that will include us in the modern and international scientific environment. I do not

accept that without proper investigation we convince the Ecuadorian population that TG are bad”

(Paz y Miño d), 2012). In this article the author starts by claiming that he himself, together with

other researchers, is favorable to invest in transgenic technology in Ecuador; moreover, when he

claims for the need of ‘proper investigation’, the effect on the reader is that of a blame of the

current investigations, that are erroneously defining GMOs as something bad. Therefore, compared

97

to the previous article, in this case the same author frames GMOs more positively. This is because,

despite the fact that he is still calling for the need of more investigation, he already frames GMOs

as something able to help the technological development the country of Ecuador. Moreover, he

makes use of the rhetorical tool of pathos, by describing GMOs as something that would be able to

include the country of Ecuador in a more modern, advance environment, provoking in the reader

the feeling that GMOs are what the country needs in order to advance and develop.

El Telégrafo (04/11/2012): “[...] now the technology on this topic has modernized so much that it

becomes increasingly better and more secure. Its marginalization or prohibition will delay us as a

country (Paz y Miño b), 2012)”. Again, the rhetorical tool of pathos used in this article do not leave

much space for the reader to counterclaim the potential benefits of GMOs: they are described as

organisms whose quality and security is increasingly improving, therefore any objection to their

implementation is considered as detrimental to the progress of the country.

El Telégrafo (03/03/2013): “There are no convincing investigations that reveal that TG are harmful

for human health, [...]” (Paz y Miño, 2013). The first part of this article starts by showing a quite

extreme frame of GMOs, as all the researches that have been done in order to prove their negative

effects on health are discharged. However, later on in the article this frame becomes more and

more moderate: literally: “[...] It is sure that the freedom in the environment of TG is controversial.

Economic interests, multinational [companies], technological dependence, have characterized the

discussion in these four decades. The 80% of transgenic biotechnology is managed by

multinationals” (Paz y Miño, 2013). As he has already done in a previous article (Paz y Miño f),

2012), the author reveals to fear the power that is owned by certain companies concerning the

development and distribution of GMOs. This fear is similar to the concerns of the newspapers

whose articles frame GMOs negatively, as shown by the green arrow in figure 10.

On the other side we find different articles of the newspapers El Comercio, El Mercurio and Crónica, whose

authors accuse GMOs of being capable to provoke negative effects on the health of consumers:

El Comercio (26/09/2012): “the team of Gilles-Eric Séralini has conducted a study that shows the

serious diseases that genetically modified corn commercialized by the American multinational

Monsanto provokes in mice” (El Comercio.com b), 2012). This article frames negatively GMOs by

reporting the results of the research of Séralini as a truth, while in other articles of different

newspapers it was underlined the fact that the validity of these results have been doubted by the

European Commission. However this detail is not reported. Instead, the article puts emphasis on

the gravity of the findings, by using the adjective ‘serious’ when describing the diseases apparently

provoked in the mice during the experiment.

98

El Comercio (07/10/2012): “However the genetic manipulation has implications [that are] moral,

political, economic, medical and environmental” (Borja, 2012). This article can be seen as framing

GMOs in a negative way because, even if later on in the text the author explains the opinions of

both the advocates and the opponents of GMOs, he starts by assuming that medical implications

actually exist, therefore by already framing GMOs as organisms that have an impact on health.

El Comercio (22/03/2013): “the defenders of an healthy diet, the environmentalists and the health

professionals of the United States are going to report a legislative reform that, they say, will

destroy the capacity of the Federal Government and of justice to regulate the transgenic seeds”

(Biron, 2013). The negative frame of GMOs is here achieved through the use of identity frames

when describing people interested in defending consumers from GMOs, which are defined as

‘defenders of an healthy diet’ and as ‘health professionals’. The use of these definitions implies that

whoever wants to defend health and whoever is a specialist in the subject would oppose GMOs. By

doing so, it leads the reader to make also another conclusion: whoever defends GMOs cannot be

defending an healthy diet and cannot be an health professional.

El Mercurio (08/10/2012): “Our famous Constitution ‘declares Ecuador free of transgenic crops and

seeds’ and, together with it, it guarantees that the disease of consumerism, the exploitation of

farmers, the poisoning of the environment and of crops, the cancer provoked by the glyphosate of

sodium, etc, stay far from our country” (Sojos, 2012). The framing of GMOs used in this article is

clearly negative, because it is assumed that the introduction of GMOs would provoke only negative

effects on the Ecuadorian citizens, among which there is the poisoning of where they live and of

their own bodies. This dramatic link among GMOs and the event of poisoning reflect the use of the

rhetorical tool of pathos by the journalist.

El Mercurio (19/10/2012): “There are few studies about the consumption of transgenic [products]

and of their consequences for animals’ health. […] All that brings up the GENETIC

CONTAMINATION, because this ruins the idea that we respect the ecological- or agro-ecological

food items and especially its credibility… But why? Only for economic interests, is the economy

more important than health?” (Deleg Pacheco a), 2012). The negative frame of GMOs in this article

touches upon two topics, the one of health and the one of hidden economic interests behind the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. In constructing his statement, the author not only does not

doubt about the fact that genetic contamination actually exists, but he also capitalizes the letters of

these words to highlight them in the eyes of the reader.

Crónica (22/03/2013): “Inside the transgenic products there is a great threat of high risk for human

health. […] However there are advocates of capitalism that claim, with high ignorance, that they do

not affect [human health]. Nevertheless, since the arrival of the transgenic [products] it can be

observed in the population of consumers the raise of a variety of allergies, modifications in the

99

human metabolism, the stress derived by various factors, among them the food associated to

GMOs” (Solano De La Sala Torres a), 2013). In this article the negative frame of GMOs is visible

from different factors, other than the underneath assumption that GMOs indeed provoke health

negative consequences: a) the use of expressions such as ‘great threat’ and ‘high ignorance’, that

strengthen the negative perception of the reader towards GMOs by using the rhetorical tool of

pathos; b) the association of the health negative consequences of GMOs with the hidden economic

interests of a small part of the population that is in favor of capitalism.

Crónica (03/05/2013): “Careful parents with the ‘junk’ food […], made uniquely with chemicals or

that are transgenic, nothing to be recommended, damaging for the human health. The diet needs

to be one hundred per cent natural of excellent [quality], reliable and carefully controlled by the

parents” (Solano De La Sala Torres b), 2013). The author of this article frames negatively GMOs by

taking for granted that everything that comes from a transgenic food is dangerous for human

health. Moreover, he connects GMOs to junk food, and by doing so he remarks the negative

properties of these food items. It is visible how the author uses the rhetorical tool of pathos by

addressing the article explicitly to the parents and by making them reflecting about the possible

risks these organisms can have especially on their children. Already from the title of the article, that

is: “Possible causes of the low educational performance of our children” (Solano De La Sala Torres

b), 2013), the journalist is attributing to GMOs the capacity not only of provoking negative health

effects, but also of lowering the intellectual potentialities of the students. Furthermore, he does so

by using the expression ‘our children’, in order to build up a feeling of empathy with the readers,

conquering their trust through the use of ethos.

6.2.3 Framing on the topic of the ‘naturalness’ of GMOs

Concerning this topic, two main opposing frames have been identified in two articles, published

respectively in the newspaper El Telégrafo and in the newspaper Crónica, which shown opposing

perspectives on the problem:

El Telégrafo (16/09/2012): “To understand the origin of the transgenic [products] it is necessary to

look at the beginning of humanity […]. The human race first has developed through gathering food

and after through agriculture. Soon the homo sapiens have managed, modified and chosen the

products that could feed them, that could provide them health or benefits in general” (Paz y Miño

e), 2012). The author of this article, by making use of the rhetoric tool of logos, constructs an

argument for which he compares the technology used in the field of genetically modified organisms

to the technique of crossbreeding that for years has been used in agriculture. This strategy allows

100

him to defend the frame of GMOs as natural products, while the opponents of GMOs frame these

two types of techniques as completely different from each other.

Crónica (22/03/2013): “When we go to the supermarket to buy our food we see fruits and

agricultural products every time bigger, with bright colors, spectacular, suggestive, perfect, we ask

ourselves: does nature produce them like this?, well, no Sirs. […] And what is serious about all this

is [that they are] making biotechnological experiments as if we were mice of laboratory. The

investigations realized show an high level of risk. […] Concluding, you are eating pieces of mice in

your tasty lettuce salad” (Solano De La Sala Torres a), 2013). In this article the negative frame of

GMOs is evident by the fact that they are associated with products created in laboratory. The

author uses the rhetorical tool of pathos by making use of strong expressions at the emotional level

to shock the readers, making them feel almost disgusted towards the food that they are eating.

Moreover, he uses the rhetorical tool of ethos by referring to the food with the use of the pronoun

‘our’, therefore creating an emotional connection with the reader and building up his

trustworthiness as a speaker (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). In fact, by using the pronoun ‘our’ the

journalist is positioning himself at the same level of his readers, by warning them about the risks

that are affecting himself as well as the readers. Concluding, the journalist also connects the

negative frame of GMOs as unnatural products to a taken for granted health risk that their

consumption provokes.

6.2.4 Framing on the topic of ‘economic interests’

Concerning this topic, two main frames have been identified. Such frames present different definitions of

GMOs, that are not so contrasting as in the case of other topics:

El Telégrafo (21/10/2012): “The ones that oppose their introduction [i.e. the introduction of GMOs]

have focused their arguments on a old debate about the interest of the transnational [companies]

to sell their products (seeds, pesticides and agrochemicals). A position that is reductionist and

insurmountable” (Paz y Miño c), 2012). The author identifies the accuses of the existence of hidden

economic interests behind the development and spread of GMOs as unfounded and biased. Also he

defines such accuses as part of an “old debate”, a statement that aims at denigrating their

credibility and validity. In this first part of the article it is interesting to notice how there is a shift

from the focus on the issue to the focus on the people that talk about the issue, through the use of

identity frames. However the first, positive opinion of the journalist towards GMOs becomes more

moderate later on in the article, leaving space for a possibility of agreement among his frame and

the negative frames of GMOs used in other articles: “The proposal of the national researchers is

101

that the Government, through Senescyt, inverts the latest investigation about the topic of TG and

that we develop our own products, freeing us from the foreign interests, either of the transnational

[companies] or of the ecological networks that also have their own economic benefits with their

position” (Paz y Miño c), 2012).

El Telégrafo (30/10/2012): “Nevertheless, as all the inventions over nature [done] from humans, it

has impacts: positive and negative ones, these latter ones observed in the transgenic [products]

have raised a big polemic that not only reaches the scientific field but also the political one, due to

the monopolizing intervention of the big transnational companies in the expensive technological

packages that encompasses the production of modified seeds” (Mendoza Andrade, 2012). Despite

this article is published in El Telégrafo, which usually publishes articles that frame positively GMOs,

here the journalist takes a more moderate position, by revealing his concern about the

monopolizing power of the multinational companies involved in their production. This concern can

be linked to one of the worries that characterizes the articles that frame GMOs negatively, as

shown by the light blue arrow in figure 10.

A clearly negative frame of GMOs concerning this topic was present in the articles of different newspapers,

namely El Diario, El Comercio, El Mercurio and Crónica:

El Diario (13/09/2012): “When we allow the introduction of species without the adequate supports,

we lose as well the food sovereignty, because we will depend from what the transnational

[companies] will produce [...]. [...] What counts is the money to make richer the rich and poorer the

poor, because they extract our resources: soil and water, essential for our survival. The global

scenery concerning these themes is terrifying, with the complicity of the United Nations that

already have global legislations so that the transnational [companies], supported by the corrupted

governments, will take over our territories with the excuse that we do not know how to cultivate”

(Zambrano Cabrera b), 2013). The accuses of this journalist are serious and reveal a very negative

framing of GMOs. The author is accusing not only his own government, but also the United Nations

of favoring the economic interests of the multinationals, at the expense of the poor part of the

population. It is also relevant the use of the rhetorical tool of ethos through the use of the personal

pronoun ‘we’ as the subject of the sentences, that serves at building empathy among the journalist

and the readers.

El Comercio (08/09/2012): “Que estos vacíos constitucionales sean el preámbulo de una serie de

reformas que requiere la Constitución para su correcta aplicación y no únicamente que se utilice

como instrumento de manipulación de inocentes ciudadanos”, literally: “That these constitutional

defects may be the beginning of a series of reforms that requests the Constitution to be correctly

applied and not only to be used as a tool for manipulating the innocent citizens” (Mayorga Puma,

102

2012). In this article, even if the author does not refer explicitly to any hidden interest or power, he

refers to them indirectly, by accusing the Constitution to be sometimes used as an instrument to

manipulate the citizens by somebody that has more power.

El Comercio (28/09/2012): “There is an evident sign of the duality of the discourse, legitimized

because of the needs of [the people having the] power. What is clear is that this decision, of giving

away themselves, will not only promote the hardest interests of the economic imperialist groups

that they say to oppose, but it will also be in line with the most retrograde political sectors of the

United States” (Cuvi, 2012). The negative frame of GMOs in this article is evident, as the author

clearly accuses the government to be in line with the economic interests of foreign companies and

governments that in theory the government itself should be fighting against.

El Mercurio (08/10/2012): “Definitely the war in order to survive has begun, thus we face a global

crisis and these perversions to convert our diet in a merchandise for the most powerful [people] of

the world. […] We know that these ‘solutions’ to poverty by mortgaging the nation to the

transnational [companies] are a genocide” (Sojos, 2012). As in the previous article, the accuses of

hidden economic interests behind the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador are quite explicit. The

author makes use of the rhetorical tool of pathos by employing strong expressions such as ‘the war

in order to survive’, ‘mortgaging the nation’ or ‘genocide’ that emphasize the seriousness of the

situation and that aim at engaging the readers at an emotional level.

El Mercurio (16/10/2012): “Few months ago, a Wikileak was published, a communication of the

embassy of the United States… the acceptance of the transgenic [crops] comes across a dilemma,

because of the Constitution and the law of Food Sovereignty and it is necessary to change the

perception of the public opinion, so that it becomes favorable to biotechnology…” (Deleg Pacheco,

2012). The article could at first sight appear as being ‘objective’, because it is only reporting a news

without making any particular comment. However, what reveals the negative frame of GMOs used

in this article is its own introduction, in which the author claims: “The United States, defending its

transnational companies, tries to introduce TRANSGENIC seeds and crops in Ecuador […]” (Deleg

Pacheco, 2012). After this introduction, the news of the Wikileak reported below cannot be seen as

objective anymore; instead it can be seen as a tool that the journalist uses in order to confirm the

accuse of hidden foreign interests behind the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador.

Crónica (22/03/2013): “In 2000 there were other meetings, but the discussion on this theme has

been concretized only in the analysis of the economic interests of the big transnational [companies]

of transgenic foods, that worried only about their own economic interests and big rewards and

profits, and they did not care at all about human health, hunger and poverty” (Solano De La Sala

Torres a), 2013). Again, this article frames negatively GMOs, defining them as products used by big

companies to increase their profits and provoking problems of health, hunger and poverty.

103

6.2.5 Framing on the topic of ‘herbicides’

Concerning this topic two main opposing frames of GMOs have been identified. On one side we find one

article of the newspaper El Telégrafo:

El Telégrafo (19/03/2013): “Moreover these special seeds are immune to the pests, which avoids

the indiscriminate use of pesticides that contaminate the soil” (El Telégrafo, 2013). The author

frames positively GMOs by underling two main factors: first, that GMOs are ‘special seeds’, thus

attributing a positive property to these organisms; second, that GMOs are able to avoid the

‘indiscriminate use of pesticides’ that would be made in the absence of GMOs. With this latter

expression, the journalist is not considering all the agricultural systems that do not use neither

GMOs nor pesticides, such as the organic or biodynamic agricultural systems. By excluding them

from being considered, the author is able to propose GMOs as the only solution to diminish the use

of pesticides.

On the other side we find articles from El Mercurio and Crónica:

El Mercurio (02/10/2012): “The use of herbicides as a complement of the transgenic seeds is not

limited to the area of the transgenic crops but they spread, affecting the close crops that are not

genetically modified in order to tolerate the action of the chemical and, as a consequence, tend to

disappear” (El Mercurio a), 2012). In this article, the author does not only take for granted the fact

that GMOs crops need treatments of pesticides as any other crop, but also accuses the pesticides

used for their cultivation to be able to contaminate non genetically modified crops.

Crónica (01/06/2013): “The glyphosate is a substance contained in herbicides, used to eliminate

weeds unwanted in the agricultural production. This chemical is widely used, due to its

effectiveness on transgenic crops like soy. The fumigation of glyphosate in extensive plantations of

wheat in close countries such as Argentina causes serious problems […]” (Crónica b), 2013). The

negative frame of GMOs used in this article can be noticed by the fact that the journalist does not

only talk about pesticides in a negative way, but, when it comes to connect them to an agricultural

system, he links them only to the use of GMOs, without for example mentioning that pesticides are

actually used in conventional types of production.

6.2.6 Framing on the topic of ‘social actors to be included’

Regarding this topic GMOs are framed differently based on the type and sectors of social actors that are

considered relevant in order to take wise decisions concerning these organisms. Again, on one side we find

the articles published in the newspaper El Telégrafo, whose authors claim that the only relevant voice to be

104

heard in order to solve the controversy of GMOs is the one of scientists. Interestingly, by doing so these

journalists are considering all scientists as favorable to the use of GMOs, and automatically excluding all the

opinions of those scientists which are against them:

El Telégrafo (09/09/2012): “During a meeting called by the president Correa, together with the

governmental authorities of the highest level and experts on the topic [of] TG, there was the

opportunity to clarify a series of myths on them and there was the necessity of a scientific national

debate. […] Scientifically sound, the proposal of the President is clear: we have to make appropriate

studies on TG to find out the truth regarding their benefits or not […]” (Paz y Miño a), 2012). In this

article the author uses different expressions to underline how science is the only relevant and

reliable social actor whose opinion must be listened by all the other ones, such as: the proposal of

the president is ‘scientifically sound’, the people attending the meeting were only ‘experts’ and the

concerns of other groups of social actors are not relevant, as they are only ‘myths’. Such

expressions tend to denigrate all the doubts and concerns about GMOs of these different groups,

such as the ones formed by farmers or consumers. Such denigration can be noticed already from

the title of the article, namely: “Demystify the transgenic [products]” (Paz y Miño a), 2012).

El Telégrafo (19/10/2012): “The greatest social impact that has been obtained by the transgenic

[products] in the country is that they have excluded the opinion of the farmers” (Redacción

Sociedad, 2012). This sentence is the subtitle of an article published in El Telégrafo. Compared to

the other articles published in this newspaper it can be seen how the position of this particular one

is much more moderate, and it actually reflects a concern that is typical of the articles that frame

negatively GMOs, as shown by the pink arrow in figure 10.

El Telégrafo (24/09/2012): “In the last weeks, has come back in the arena of political debate the

implementation of the transgenic technologies (TT) in Ecuador. Thus, […] the positions become

polarized. In a corner, with limited scientific argumentation, but with much categorical ideological

doctrine, already present there are the savers of the naturalness, the ones that have made

‘conservation’ their political platform; in the other [corner], and with scientific foundations

accompanied by good intentions that want to underpin the change in the productive matrix, but

without a strategic plan, there are the new consultants of the agricultural policy. In this way it

begins a debate that apparently will not reach any consensus” (Bonilla Bedoya, 2012). This article

clearly frames GMOs as a topic that must be discussed only among the ‘right’ social actors, despite

the fact that, as explained earlier in this paper (under the section of polarization on the topic of

‘productivity’), the same article demonstrates to have a more moderate perspective when

analyzing the possible negative effects on GMOs in Ecuador. Nevertheless, the article shows an

extreme position for what concerns who has the right to say something about this controversy. The

105

tone used by the journalist is in fact almost sarcastic when referring to the people opposing the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, by using identity frames such as ‘the savers of naturalness’.

Moreover, the journalist underlines how the ‘good intentions’ are only of the people advocating

the use of GMOs, by implying that the intentions of the opponents of GMOs are anything but good.

Interestingly, the author himself recognizes how the debate among these two factions of social

actors is polarized and that a solution will be hardly found.

El Telégrafo (30/09/2012): “The serious scientific investigations appear in specialized ‘Journals’ [...].

One of these [analysis of publications], conducted in 6 millions of articles about TG, reduces to 17

the researches that show convincing data. Its conclusion says that there are no evidences that to

eat transgenic products instead of natural products leads to important changes in health” (Paz y

Miño f), 2012). The rhetorical tool of logos used by the author consists in the fact that he claims

that ‘serious investigations’ are only the scientific ones, and also that the ‘serious’ ones have

demonstrated that GMOs do not have any negative effect on health. By using such expression, the

author is denigrating any other concern regarding GMOs as not serious, and, therefore, as not

worth of consideration.

El Telégrafo (04/11/2012): “Science is called to clarify if the current knowledge about the

transgenesis and TG are sufficient so that a country or a society decide about their use or

development […]. Unfortunately, in Ecuador still does not exist an academy of science (its creation

is indispensable) that group all the experts on these themes […]. […] Is with scientific data about a

technology or a technological product that wide and democratic discussions have to start. […]

However it seems that science is a good antidote to avoid the confusion and to open the space for

the knowledge and to support the debates with sound opinion. The academic workshops about TG

have revealed the necessity to leave the academy and to organize workshops that include in the

discussions the common citizens that have to freely show their opinions, even about themes that

are scientifically complex. Also, they have demonstrated the spaces of deliberation are necessary

[…]” (Paz y Miño b), 2012). This article begins by framing GMOs as a controversial topic that must

be solved by scientists. However, this initial description becomes more moderate in the second part

of the article, in which the author admits that the opinion of the public has been demonstrated to

be relevant, independently from the topic discussed. Such statement is in line with one of the

worries that characterize the articles that hold the perspective that social actors must be included

in the debates on GMOs, as shown by the pink arrow in figure 10.

El Telégrafo (04/11/2012): “The genetic and the transgenesis are the products of the progress of

the sound science. Science has cut the reality into pieces for its analysis and explication. The

western culture has venerated this analytic science and it considers it as the only source of

knowledge. […] Only the market of pharmaceuticals and equipment cares about giving the image of

106

a universally powerful science that knows everything and that can solve everything. […] It is not

possible to demand a scientific analysis of micro-fragmented truths, when the reality is

comprehensive and it includes physical, biological, cultural and social [factors]. It is not possible to

refer only to the scientific or biological sciences when analyzing the transgenesis of food items,

without considering the political, social and economic relations in our societies” (Hermida, 2012).

Despite this text was published in the newspaper El Telégrafo, whose articles are usually

advocating the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, the message is clearly controversial for what

regards the consideration of only analytical sciences in the public discussions. Through the use of

the rhetorical tool of logos, the author argues that without an holistic view of the problem, which

includes the consideration of the problem from also an economic, political and social perspective,

solutions that are appropriate will never be found. This frame of the issue is very similar to the one

adopted by the articles framing GMOs as something that should be discussed among different

sectors of society, as shown in figure 10 by the pink arrow.

On the other side we find articles published in El Diario and El Comercio, which frame GMOs as something

that should be discussed among different actors of society:

El Diario (13/09/2012): “Food sovereignty [...]. But this does not happen because the powerful

groups impose on us [the use] of plants and animals [...] they want us to pay the bill of their

environmental disasters and for the current economic crisis. [...] We lose our food sovereignty

when we buy hybrid seeds or with damaging technology, but also we lose our money” (Zambrano

Cabrera b), 2013). In this case, even if the reference is not explicitly connected to the inclusion or

exclusion of certain social actors in the discussions on GMOs, the author underlines the fact that

consumers’ rights are not being respected by the current production systems. Accordingly he

incentivizes them not to consume transgenic products, in order to have their rights being heard.

El Comercio (16/10/2012): “Moreover, the debate has to include the rural farmers and sectors so

that they explain their doubts and the information may be transparent and the consumer may

know what he/she is deciding” (Redacción Ecuador, 2012). In this article the frame of GMOs as

something that should be discussed among different social actors is visible not only from the text,

in which the author clearly states that both the consumers and the farmers are currently being

excluded by the discussions on GMOs, but also from the title of the article, namely: “In Ecuador

there is not an open debate on transgenic [products]” (Redacción Ecuador, 2012).

107

6.2.7 Framing on general topics

In this section I include all the articles that seem to hold opposing frames on GMOs in claiming general

either positive or negative properties of transgenic products, without referring to any of the specific topics

that I have previously discussed.

El Telégrafo (09/09/2012): “To restart the research on GMOs does not mean that as a country we are

going to be in the hands of those multinational companies that produce GMOs [...], but instead [it

means] to look for a way to increase the quality of life of the Ecuadorians or to have new alternatives”

(Paz y Miño a), 2012). In this statement the positive frame of GMOs is visible because the introduction

of GMOs within the country is associated with the increase of the quality of life of the citizens of

Ecuador.

El Telégrafo (04/11/2012): “Fortunately, it has always been reiterated that the genetic technology to

produce the transgenic [products] is present in Ecuador and must be taken into account as a tool that

will contribute to the solutions of human problems: hunger, production, environment, equity, justice,

redistribution, knowledge, etc.” (Paz y Miño b), 2012). Again, the use of transgenic biotechnology is

associated by the author with many positive characteristics.

On the side we find articles published in the newspaper Crónica:

Crónica (10/10/2012): “The target is […] to develop a scientific investigation about transgenic

[products], but with responsibility” (Crónica a), 2012). In this article there is a general negative

assumption that the current studies about GMOs are being conducted without the necessary

responsabilty, as the author aims for more responsible investigations in the future.

Crónica (22/03/2013): “What is the difference? The transgenic lemon is big, without seeds, but it is

hybrid, tasteless, hard, not juicy and the negative [part is that] only the 25% has nutritional

properties, [while] the remaining 75% is food garbage, and is like that in all the other products such

as: soy, potato, tomato, corn, papaya, apple, tomato, etc…” (Solano De La Sala Torres a), 2013).

Already from the beginning of the article, the journalist associates genetically modified food items

with negative properties, both from the perspective of health and of taste. Moreover, the author

continues: “Inside the transgenic products there is a great threat of high risk for human health.

Under the criterion of substantial equivalence, if a GMO […], has a composition of proteins,

carbohydrates, fats, ashes, amino acids, etc. They are similar to the [substances] present in the

other organisms that have not been genetically modified, therefore the transgenic product can be

considered safe. Moreover, if different values are met, other similar values of other varieties of the

same species are used, to make sure that the GMO is safe” (Solano De La Sala Torres a), 2013). In

this case, the accuse of the author to GMOs is not only that they have negative consequences on

108

health. In the article there is a more serious, underneath accuse of manipulation of the values that

distinguish an healthy food item from an unhealthy one, and that such manipulation is being used

to convince consumers that GMOs are equivalent to other ‘regular’ products.

6.2.8 Framing on the topic of ‘biodiversity’

Regarding this last topic, it was not possible to find articles reflecting conflicting frames. Instead, only

articles that were opposing the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador due to their capacity of increasing the loss

of biodiversity were found. However, I include the analysis of these articles as it is possible to identify

points of reconciliation between them and some articles published in El Telégrafo, as shown by the yellow

arrow in figure 10.

El Diario (13/09/2012): “We lose, moreover, the genetic biodiversity of the plants that needed

thousands of years of manipulation, crossing and development to come to be productive. We lose

the millenary exchange of seeds done by our farms and that have originated at the beginning of

humanity” (Zambrano Cabrera b), 2013). In this article, the negative frame of GMOs can be noticed

by the accuse of them being responsible to destroy the biodiversity that has been built up in

Ecuador over a long period of time. To make his argument more convincing, the author uses the

rhetorical tool of ethos, by employing the pronoun ‘we’, which creates a feeling of empathy among

the journalist and the readers and which builds up the trustworthiness towards the speaker.

El Mercurio: (02/10/2012): “Ecuador has the advantage of being the producer of the best cocoa,

bananas and coffee of the world for its natural characteristics, and because its seeds have not been

genetically modified, which opens the doors of our products to exigent markets such as the

European one […]. It has to do with fighting against the paradigm of the green deserts, in which

agro-biodiversity is lost and small producers constitute an obstacle to the selling of transgenic food

items” (El Mercurio a), 2012). Also in this case the frame of GMOs is very negative, as they are seen

as a possible threat for the reduction of the possibility of selling the products to other markets and

also for the survival of the many national rural farmers.

El Comercio (04/02/2013): “It is a delicate topic that deserves scientific debate, analysis of

productive variables and to take into account the environmental aspect, [which are] so important

in a country of rich and diverse naturalness, but [that is] extremely sensitive. The legislative

treatment is able to create a mess” (El Comercio.com b), 2013). In this article, even if the text does

not show an extreme negative frame, the author underlines the importance of preserving the agro-

biodiversity that characterize the country, despite the possible introduction of GMOs.

109

6.2.9 Polarization in media 1.0

In this subchapter I will analyze polarization of the frames used by the representatives (newspapers) of the

social actor ‘media’. The analysis will be based on the four principles that have been reported in subchapter

2.3. In order to carry our such analysis, I have divided the frames used in three main frame dimensions, that

have been already presented in subchapter 5.2 and which are described in detail in subchapter 7.2.

The first principle is the principle of dispersion for which frames are polarized as long as they are different


articles, the following considerations can be made:

Regarding the subtopics of safety and efficiency of GMOs, frames are dispersed, as they all can be

identified as either negative or positive and there is not the presence of ‘moderate’ ones;

Regarding the subtopics of societal connotations of GMOs, frames are dispersed as well, because

they all can be identified as either negative or positive and there is not the presence of ‘moderate’

ones. However, concerning this subtopic there is a small exception to be considered. In fact, out of

sixteen articles that use frames related to the subtopic of societal connotations, two of them (the

12%) indeed present ‘moderate’ frames. These articles include: the one published on El Telégrafo

on October, 30th 2012 (see page 100) and on November, 4th 2012 (see page 104).

The second principle is the principle of bimodality, for which frames are polarized as long as people having


occupied. From the analysis of the articles, it can be concluded that frames are not present in a bimodal

form. This is due to the fact that that newspapers could be divided in two groups. On one side, one group

would includes the newspapers El Comercio, El Mercurio, Crónica and El Diario, which have used always

negative definitions in describing transgenic products (except for two articles published in El Comercio on

September 2nd 2012 and September 8th, 2012, see page 92). On the other side, the second group includes

only the newspaper El Telégrafo, presenting positive frames to describe GMOs. Therefore, the newspapers

cannot be divided in two clusters including a similar number of tabloids. Accordingly, the principle of

bimodality is not respected.


constrained and if such constrains are extensive in scope. The analysis of the articles confirm the

applicability of this principle. This because, on one side, concerning the positive frames of GMOs, the

newspaper El Telégrafo has used positive definitions referring to the three frame dimensions (safety,

efficiency or societal connotations). On the other side, concerning the negative frames of GMOs, the

newspapers El Comercio, El Mercurio, Crónica and El Diario have used negative definitions referring to the

three frame dimensions (safety, efficiency or societal connotations). The only small exception concerns the

110

two articles published in the newspaper El Comercio (on September 2nd 2012 and September 8th, 2012, see

page 92) which present a positive frame of productivity (a frame that refers to the subtopic of efficiency).

However, all the other articles published in the newspaper has made use of negative definitions referring to

all the three frame dimensions (safety, efficiency or societal connotations).

The fourth principle is the principle of consolidation, for which polarization is directly proportional to the

number of people using the same frames and falling under the same sector of social actors. As in this case

the social actor considered is only one, namely the media 1.0, it can be concluded that polarization is not

present according to the principle of polarization. This is due to the fact that within this social actor

different representatives (i.e. different newspapers) have defined GMOs in different, contrasting ways.

6.3 PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS THROUGH THE MEDIA: WEB 2.0

This second subchapter will analyze the mechanisms of framing and polarization as they take place in the

public discussions carried out through the use of ‘web 2.0’ pages. These, as earlier explained in chapter 3,

are pages that allow the interaction between the publishers of the web pages and their audience, i.e. the

readers, that can play a role of ‘creator’ of the pages and not only of ‘consumers’ (Cormode and

Balachander, 2008). The discussions analyzed are the ones triggered by the readers of the articles on the

topic of genetically modified organisms as they have been published in the newspaper Hoy. This is an

Ecuadorian newspaper that has been published since 1982 and that is mainly spread in Quito (Wikipedia d),

2013). The pages of the web version of the newspaper allow the readers to comment the articles published,

therefore to trigger public discussions to which any reader can contribute. As in the same case of the public

discussions that have been analyzed in the newspapers representing the web 1.0 version, also here the

discussions have been selected based on: (1) the possibility of searching articles on GMOs in the file archive

of the newspaper Hoy (2) the fact that the discussions below the articles would show different frames of

GMOs. Below the analysis of the discussions, listed in chronological order; in each discussion I use the

labels of ‘speaker A’, ‘speaker B’, ‘speaker C’, etc… to identify the readers that have left their comments

underneath the articles. Note that not all the comments of the readers have been reported, but only the

ones that are congruent with the discussion and that were able to provide useful insights on the frames

used and on the mechanisms of polarization.

6.3.1 Article published on September, 23rd 2012

In the article published on this date with the title: “Scientists demonstrate the risks of genetically modified

organisms” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2012), the author frames GMOs as organisms that are able to have a negative

111

effect on health. In fact, he refers to the scientific study carried out by the French scientist Séralini by

assuming that its findings on the negative side effects that GMOs can have on health are trustworthy

(Hoy.com.ec a), 2012). The negative frame of GMOs behind the article can be noticed by different

expressions used by the author, such as:

“A study carried out by a group of French researchers guided by Gilles-Eric Séralini, […] an expert

concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of the French government, has demonstrated

the dangerousness of the transgenic food items” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2012). Already in this sentence,

Séralini is described as an expert on the topic (while his expertise has been doubted by other

journalists); also, the author states that the research has been able to demonstrate that GMOs are

dangerous for human health, while this fact has been doubted by other articles and their readers,

as described later on in this subchapter;

“Séralini […] has demonstrated that [the transgenic corn NK603] is pure poison” (Hoy.com.ec a),

2012);

“The results [of the research] have been catastrophic” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2012).

Below the article, readers have replied to the statements made by journalist, using different frames to

describe the findings of the research conducted by Séralini and the position took by the journalist himself:

SPEAKER A: “And what about the capacity of reproduction of the mice? As the transgenic seeds are

sterile (to make the farmer a slave and to oblige him to buy new seeds and herbicides for every

harvest) that are produced by the diabolic Monsanto, it has been investigated the relationship

between the transgenic seeds and the increase in sterility in the middle and high social classes that

consumes regularly foods made from the transgenic [products] of Monsanto?” (Hoy.com.ec a),

2012). As it can be noticed, the commentator frame GMOs even more negatively than the

journalist. The reasons of such negative frame are connected both to the topic of health and to the

topic of hidden economic interests behind the production transgenic products, whereas the reader

describes the company Monsanto as diabolic and the transgenic seeds as able to make the farmers

slaves of this type of technology. The choice of strong words at the emotional level (i.e. ‘diabolic’

and ‘slaves’) aims at creating pathos during the reading;

SPEAKER B: “The scientific community is laughing out loud about this study. [The scientists] have

used mice raised to develop tumors and the controls are not adequate, therefore it cannot be

concluded that there are differences between the treated [mice] and the control [group of mice].

[This is] science of low quality with purposes of activism. An article like this one has to show the

controversy or it is not objective” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2012). The comment of this reader reveals

instead the opposite perspective, showing a frame that is shared by different journalists (as

112

described in the previous subchapter). In fact, the commentator is blaming the research of not

being scientific enough and to have purposes similar to the ones of environmental activists, as if

these latter ones have not the same right as scientists to talk about their concerns. In this case

therefore the initial negative frame of the research itself shifts to a negative frame of a part of the

social actors involved in the controversy, using identity frames;

SPEAKER C: “Since the beginning it was known that the transgenic products would have brought

undesirable effects, but two aspects have took the priority: one, to increase the global production

of foods having positive humanitarian aspects; two, the possibility (today a fact) to obtain fantastic

profits in the long term, and additionally to control the global production through the dependency

to the multinationals and [through] legal actions to make this possible; this [fact] has political

connotations; the negative effects as diseases and similar, can be considered ‘collateral damages’

to solve as time [passes by]…, with even newer transgenic [products]” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2012). This

last comment seems to hold a perspective in between the two previous ones. The commentator

does not frame GMOs in a completely negative way, as he recognizes the fact that they could have

been created also in order to reduce the problem of world hunger (therefore assuming that these

organisms are able to increase the productivity). However, he recognizes that despite the possible

good purposes, the multinationals producing these products have been increasing their profits

enormously.

Therefore, the worry of possible hidden economic interests behind the production and the distribution

of these products seems to be the possible topic of reconciliation among divergent frames of these

products, as shown in the next page by the yellow arrow in figure 12.

Figure 12

113

6.3.2 Article published on September, 24th 2012

In the article published on this date with the title: “Transgenic [products]: the debate rises in Brussels”

(Hoy.com.ec e), 2012), the author uses a fact-like type of framing, by only reporting the circumstances in

which the research conducted by Séralini has taken place and the different opinions about the findings of

such study. The commentators of the article use instead more negative or positive frames of GMOs:

SPEAKER A: “The advocates of Monsanto and of the blind faith in science serving capitalism do not

have any argument, and emerge as certain only the versions [of facts] of the ones that have been

unjustly defined as ‘childish’. The perceptions of the farmers are more credible than the interested

reasoning of some ‘professionals’. Every time is visible the failure of the model of progress. A new

world is possible and necessary , from the bottom-up and with the strength of nature, together

with it and not against it, with the farmers and not with the multinationals” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012).

The negative definition of GMOs in this comment is supported by two frames that are recurrent

among the opponents of GMOs: the one of hidden economic interests behind the introduction of

these organisms and the one of the exclusion of some relevant social actors (i.e. the farmers) due

to the fact that they are not ‘experts’. Moreover, by claiming that the world of the future will have

to raise from the strength of nature, the commentator is implying that GMOs are able to hurt

nature, another frame that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs.

SPEAKER B: “[…] and now, starting from this corn, all people in the worlds consume transformed

products… […] is it reasonable to ‘gain’ more money at the expenses of causing serious damages to

nature, [and to] people?” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). Also this comment frames GMOs negatively, as

these are described as both unnatural products and as able to have a negative impact on health.

Speaker B is therefore reconnecting one of the frames used by speaker A (the one of

unnaturalness), and linking to this frame another one that is recurrent among the opponents of

GMOs (the one of health).

SPEAKER C: “The commentators always take it easy. They talk about ‘capital’, ‘new world’,

‘development’, ‘money’. These are factors in this circumstance but the real problem, the one that

nobody dares even to mention is: how to give food to seven millions of people? The problem is the

explosion of the population, above all in the countries that produce less and that carry on with

nativity rates of 4% or more” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). Speaker C focuses more on the fact that GMOs

are organisms that are able to feed the increasing population; this frame implies their definition as

crops able to increase productivity, which is used frequently among the advocates of GMOs.

SPEAKER A: “The problem is not to produce for the 7.000 millions, [but] is to allow the access to

these food items to everybody. […] The problem is the system, not the technique. The rural farmer

agriculture can feed everybody without the necessity of transgenic [products]. The multinationals

114

produce transgenic [products] so that in the North they can eat [it] and waste [it]. The pigs fed with

corn NK603 are not going to feed the children of Ethiopia. […] Neither was useful the Green

Revolution […]. It is obvious that the system collapsed. It is impossible to find the solution with the

same [tools] that have caused the problem” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). In this second comment,

speaker A restates his position by using for the second time the frame of GMOs as products that

are not going to solve any problem of hunger, as their production is part of an immoral system that

focuses only on defending the economic interests of certain companies and countries.

SPEAKER D: “The idea that everyone may eat quality and quantity, being poor or rich, is completely

wrong. A possible solution to the problem of food in the world is the continuous investigation,

either of the government, private sectors, multinational, catholic church or whoever else. The

important is to search for solutions to the scarcity due to the population growth and the progress in

the less wealthy countries” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). Speaker D uses a ‘moderate’ frame to describe

GMOs. His main focus is in fact the need of new investigations on different possibilities of how to

feed the growing population, without specifying if such investigations should be on GMOs or not.

This more moderate frame is apparently ignored by the other commentators, that continue to

discuss on other topics.

SPEAKER C: “[You all] always make it easy. To say that is not a problem to feed 7000 millions of

people. Once have you asked yourselves to cultivate without phytochemicals and you have seen

which one is the productivity? By chance the children of Ethiopia survive with the cereals of the

donations of the ONU. This discourse is being repeated by hearth without having any foundation.

‘The rural agriculture of farmers can feed everybody without the necessity of transgenic [products].

But why it does not do it? It is a statement without any foundation that has never been reality for

such a big population” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). Ignoring speaker’s D statement, speaker C

counterclaims the comment of speaker A, by reframing GMOs as the only organisms able to feed

the world population (due to their capacity of increasing productivity).

SPEAKER E: “The easiest [way] is to support the technological package seeds-fertilizers-insecticides,

because they have the support of the state, loans, advertising and a whole strategy paid by the big

food supply chains. To accept them, as if there were no impacts on the agricultural biodiversity

[and] on the population health is to deny what is happening in the country and in the world. The

often mentioned Green Revolution (curious that it was used the same argument that it would have

been solved the world hunger, did it succeed?), only the global productions of rice, corn, soy,

cereals have to be investigated and it has to be seen if the problem is the quantity of food

produced or the wrong distribution. The discourse about hunger in the world is very demagogic to

justify the introduction of transgenic [products]. Perhaps the greater controllers of transgenic seeds

in the world result now to be altruistic and to be working to solve hunger in the planet. I think that

115

the naivety has a limit” (Hoy.com.ec e), 2012). This final commentator frames negatively GMOs by

recalling various negative frames used by the previous commentators. Among them, the he re-

proposes the definition of GMOs as organisms which have negative effects on health and

biodiversity, which are not able to defeat the problem of world hunger (as they are not able to

increase productivity) and which are a tool for large companies to expand their power in the global

market.

Concluding, in this public discussion none of the commentators is able to find a point of reconciliation

among the opposing frames they use. The only ‘middle’ frame (represented by the red box in figure 13) is

not taken into account by the other commentators.


The article itself does not reveal a clearly negative or positive perspective towards GMOs, as the journalist

uses a fact-like presentation of the issue, without expressing his own opinion about it. The only negative

frame of GMOs that is being used refers to their capacity of increasing productivity: “The productivity does

not increase with this type of seeds; what happens is that the price of the production of the corn

decreases” (Hoy.com.ec f), 2012). Below, the frames used by the commentators of the article:

SPEAKER A: “Congratulations for the excellent article and for this important contribution to the

reflection about the transgenic [products]. Only a very small clarification: […] we need to consider

that, other than scientific and technical, the debate must include the social organizations and the

population in general. For this the state has to generate processes of communication and of wide

participation (not only of information)” (Hoy.com.ec f), 2012). This comment reports an only

Figure 13

116

slightly negative frame of GMOs, concerning the current exclusion of relevant social actors (such as

the citizens themselves) in the decisions that are being taken about them.

SPEAKER B: “Permanently governments and transnational [companies] have tried to make money

out of it [food], as 50 years ago they managed to introduce in the world phytochemicals and

pesticides to produce food, generating millions of profits for the transnational [companies] and the

governments that have negotiated with them, damaging in the most vile way the health of the

human beings, farmers and consumers. Now this new global plan about the transgenic [products]

uses the slogan to end the hunger in the world, freeing the living being (plants or animals) that

have never had existed in nature, mixing easily the genes in the laboratory, whose results and

impacts on the living being already are being noticed and others that are not known yet

threatening the future generations” (Hoy.com.ec f), 2012). In this comment, the reader uses three

types of frames that are recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, namely: he accuses GMOs to

have negative side effects on health, to be a tool used by multinationals and governments to

pursue their own interests and to be unnatural products that will negatively affect the

environment, animals and people.

SPEAKER C: “Childish ecologists. With the support of the free and independent press” (Hoy.com.ec

f), 2012). This comment reflects a recurrent frame used by the advocates of GMOs, namely that

GMOs are a topic that must be discussed among ‘experts’ and scientists, therefore whoever is not

part of such group of people and is against GMOs is labeled as an ecologist and is defined as unable

to have the right to express his/her opinion through the use of identity frames.

SPEAKER D: “After 20 years of having widely spread and commercialized these crops, we should ask

ourselves: is there less hunger in the world? Farmers have defeated poverty? The yields of the

crops have raised thanks to the transgenic [products]? Negative answers, and the explications are

simple: neither hunger nor the rural poverty nor the productivity depend only on the variety of

seeds that are used” (Hoy.com.ec f), 2012). Again, a ‘moderate’ frame is not found, as the only

argument that the commentator is using is restating the definition of GMOs as organisms that are

not able to increase productivity and therefore to defeat the problem of world hunger.

SPEAKER E: “In summary, the transgenic [products] are exactly equal to the natural products… but

after they have been consumed and eliminated” (Hoy.com.ec f), 2012). This comment uses an

opposing frame with respect to the one used by speaker B, as here the commentator ironically

jokes on the fact that all types of food items are ‘natural’ in the same way, as they all have the

same function of feeding human beings.

Concluding, also in this discussion is not possible to identify a point of reconciliation among the different

frames used by the commentators of the article, as shown in the next page by figure 14.

117


The article published on this date in the newspaper Hoy does not frame GMOs neither in a negative nor in a

positive way: the journalist only describes the statements made by the President Rafael Correa about the

need of changing the Constitution in order to allow the introduction of GMOs and the statements of

Alberto Acosta, which holds the opposed perspective on GMOs. The comments below the article reveal

instead different frames about GMOs:

SPEAKER A: “The transgenic [products] have to continue to be forbidden, for this [reason] we have

voted in favor of the new Constitution. Anyway it is his [of the President] right to ask for any

amendment, and it will be again the population to decide” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). The

commentator reveals to be against the introduction of GMOs. However he does not frame GMOs in

any particular negative way. Moreover, despite his personal opinion, his comment frame GMOs in a

‘moderate’ way, as he appeals to the right of the President to propose any amendment, and to the

right of the population to approve or reject his decisions. This ‘middle’ position is represented by

the red box in figure 15.

SPEAKER B: “[…] The transgenic [products] are a threat to the good life and to health of the citizens

that consume such food items” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). This writer apparently ignores the more

moderate comment of the previous one, and frame GMOs negatively, as damaging to health.

SPEAKER C: “The problem with transgenic [products] is more about ‘productivity’, [which is]

discussible because it is based on reducing losses due to pests because of the resistance to strong

pesticides, to climate, etc. at the expenses of the sterilization of the soil, […]; the independence is

at play, for the subjection to the importations and the patents of the multinationals […] for the loss

Figure 14

118

of the diversity of the species to use only transgenic seeds; so if the legislation changes, it may be

for the benefits of the national farmers, and not of companies and families interested in ‘good

deals’” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). This comment does not make use of only negative or positive

statements, but presents a mix of both of them. In fact, despite recognizing the capacity of GMOs

of being resistant to pests (and therefore to reduce the use of pesticides), he also frames GMOs

negatively in different ways, namely as capable of harming biodiversity and of promoting the

economic interests of only certain social actors. However, the commentator does not exclude a

priori the possibility of a change in the legislation, despite believing that such change should be in

favor of the national citizens, and not of the multinational companies.

SPEAKER D: “This Correa is only a novice in everything, he does not know anything, only knows

about corruption” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). The commentator accuses the President of taking certain

positions only because of personal interests, therefore using a frame that is recurrent among

opponents of GMOs (namely the one that they defend the interest of only a part of society).

SPEAKER E: “Being far from my country… what I am missing more are its natural fruits and not

transgenic as I have them here […]” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). By stating that transgenic products are

not the same as natural ones, the commentator is using a frame that is typical of the opponents of

GMOs, namely their definition as unnatural or artificial.

SPEAKER F: “Finally once I agree 100% with the President, it is necessary to feed the Ecuadorians

before having a dogma of faith in what is dangerous, if it was like that, we already live in a

cemetery, as much of the corn we eat is imported and it is all transgenic. What does the consumer

prefer, a corn that is not fumigated to avoid the attack of insects and that is produced without the

use of dangerous phytochemicals or one that is fumigated n times to be produced? What is more

dangerous?” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). In this comment the writer defines GMOs only positively, by

framing them as being intrinsically able to increase the productivity and to reduce the use of

herbicides in order to be produced.

SPEAKER G: “This discourse is of the childish environmentalists supported by their new alliances:

the free and independent press” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). This commentator shifts the focus of the

discussion from the issue of GMOs to the subjects involved in the discussions about them. This is

done through the use of identity frames, accusing the opponents of GMOs of being childish

environmentalists. This statement reveals also the frame of GMOs as a topic that should be

discussed among ‘experts’ and scientists.

SPEAKER H: “They knew that insulin is a transgenic [product] and if we would apply the Constitution

precisely (as it should be) the President himself should authorize the importation of insulin every

time and through an annoying process. Perhaps the Constitution has a couple of errors. Perhaps is

not certain everything they say about transgenic [products]. Perhaps if we ask to a person with

119

diabetes he is going to tell us that insulin is good” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). This comment tries to

introduce a new perspective on GMOs, by shifting the attention towards their application in the

field of medicine. The frame of GMOs is not clear, as the writer criticizes the decision to ban GMOs

for medical purposes but at the same time does not take a position concerning genetically modified

food items. This comment could be therefore seen as using a ‘middle’ frame.

SPEAKER I: “This newspaper has already made an irresponsible statement by awarding the reason

to the childish ecologists. And all this to go against the President” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). Again in

this comment it is used the frame of GMOs as something that must be discussed among experts,

through the use of identity frames in defining the ecologists as childish.

SPAKER J: “May it be that some private institution or ‘allied country’ want to introduce their

products and ‘qualified personnel’ to manipulate the theme??? […] It is not convenient that they

[the GMOs] are discussed only politically or that the ‘power’ says what is not correct or if it is a

simple ‘mistake’ […]” (Hoy.com.ec d), 2012). In this last comment, the reader recalls a frame that

was earlier used in the discussion, namely that GMOs protect only certain the economic interests.

Concluding, despite the fact that a greater number of statements that use a ‘middle’ frames are present (as

shown by the red boxes in figure 15), a point of reconciliation among the different frames does not seem to

be present, as such moderate definitions of the problem seem to be ignored.

Figure 15

120


This article, whose title is “Correa will amend the Constitution in order to introduce the transgenic

[products]” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2012), does not frame GMOs in a particular neither positive nor negative way.

The only less moderate statement made by the journalist concerns the last sentence, in which he reports

the findings of the research of Séralini as trustworthy, while in other articles and in some of the readers’

comments these have been criticized as lacking scientific validity. Below, the comments of few readers:

SPEAKER A: This reader comments the article by copying and pasting some of the statements

published in a document named “Open letter to the President of the Republic: Transgenic

[products]: let’s speak clearly”, which is a letter that different NGOs have written to the President

to discuss his initiative to introduce GMOs in Ecuador. The sentences reported aim mainly at

discrediting GMOs due to their incapacity of solving the problems of world hunger and poverty by

increasing productivity (Hoy.com.ec b), 2012).

SPEAKER B: “[...] A complex debate are mixed technical and biological aspects, with others of a

different type: interests generated because of the patens, the protection of consumers, the bio-

security, etc. […] the genetic engineering is the best or better way to increment the agricultural

production and, therefore, to face the needs of food in the future. The use of plants with genes

resistant to insects and herbicides allow to reduce the use of insecticides and to achieve a better

yield” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2012). The commentator frames GMOs as able to increase productivity and

to decrease the costs of production (due to a reduction in the use of phytochemicals). However, he

also recognizes that the interests behind the introduction of these organisms is strong (‘interests

generated because of the patens’), a concern that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs. His

‘moderate’ frame of GMOs is shown by the yellow and purple arrows in figure 16.

SPEAKER C: “We should create in Ecuador an organism that controls and studies the quality of all

the products that we Ecuadorian consume or use in any way to guarantee the safety, […[; there

must be a team of scientists [experts] in the theme and to not reduce the subject to a political

matter […] in Ecuador there is a lot of improvisation and sometimes there are obscure interests

[…]” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2012). Despite the negative definition of the fact that currently the topic of

GMOs is being discussed among people that only aims at defending their ‘obscure’ interests,

speaker C also introduces a new perspective in the discussion, by proposing the realization of

further investigation by a team of experts.

As it can be seen by the yellow and purple arrows in figure 16 (in the next page), this discussion is

characterized by a point of reconciliation among the opposing frames, determined by the agreement on the

fact that the economic interests of only certain social actors are hidden behind the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador.

121


The article “The transgenic [products] progress in Latin America, despite their detractors” (Hoy.com.ec c),

2012) frames GMOs as a positive innovation that can save the fate of South America. Such optimistic frame

is evident in different expressions used by the journalist:

“Latin America is one of the biggest granary worldwide of transgenic foods, with millions of

hectares dedicated to varieties more productive and resistant” (Hoy.com.ec c), 2012), whereas the

journalist is defining the transgenic products with positive meanings associated with their capacity

of increasing yield;

The journalist makes use of identity frames to support his view. In fact, the definition of the

concerns of some of the opponents of GMOs as ‘the objections of certain environmentalists’ and of

the statements of the advocates of GMOs as ‘experts’, reveals the consideration of the former ones

as social actors whose judgment is not worth of consideration;

“[Transgenic products] that have contributed to develop a bean that is more resistant to plagues”

(Hoy.com.ec c), 2012). In this case GMOs are framed as more resistant crops, recalling a recurrent

frame used among the advocates of GMOs, namely their capacity to decrease the use of

pesticides/insecticides (due to their endogenous capacity of resistance);

The description of the research conducted by Séralini not as a study that has shown clear and

unambiguous results, but instead as a research which has been widely contested.

Following, the comments of two readers:

SPEAKER A: “[…] The Ecuadorians think that productivity is going to increase, it can be, but to whom

they are going to sell them? […] The government and its President did not want to help us because

they get the money from Monsanto to introduce the transgenic seeds” (Hoy.com.ec c), 2012).

Concerning the frame of GMOs as able to increase productivity the commentator does not take a

Figure 16

122

clear position, but his comment leaves space for a ‘middle’ perspective on the issue. Instead,

speaker A describe GMOs in a clear negative way regarding the topic of the possibility of hidden

economic interests behind their introduction.

SPEAKER B: “There is nothing left than to have the same biotechnology used in the other countries

in which we buy transgenic crops, our production does not cover the internal demand [and] in one

way or the other we are immerged in the transgenic [products]” (Hoy.com.ec c), 2012). The

commentator uses a typical frame used by the advocates of GMOs and used by the journalist

himself, namely their capacity of increasing productivity, for which GMOs are defined as the crops

that will be able to feed the Ecuadorian population.

Concluding, as shown by figure 17, in this discussion a point of reconciliation is not possible among the

different frames used by the journalist and by the two commentators, despite the fact that one of them

initially holds a more moderate position.

6.3.7 Article published on January, 25th 2013

This article, title is: “Ecuador takes over the debate about the legalization of transgenic [products]”

(Hoy.com.ec a), 2013), does not clearly frame GMOs. In fact, the journalist only describes the different

statements of the social actors involved in the debate, using a fact-like presentation of the issue. Following,

the comments of two readers:

SPEAKER A: “[…] this [criterion] of greater productivity is questionable (except for that of less losses

in the crops), among the negative [criteria], we have that the seeds are mainly sterile, because it is

required to be ‘slaves’ of the distributor, an aspect complemented by the ‘right’ of the patent, […] it

would be more convenient to develop appropriate techniques of improvement, included the

genetic mutation, to avoid burdensome compromises, buying only what is necessary” (Hoy.com.ec

Figure 17

123

a), 2013). This comment reveals two ‘moderate’ frames of GMOs. First, the writer does neither

defend nor counterclaims the capacity of GMOs to be more productive, but he contextualizes the

situations in which an increase in productivity is possible and the ones in which it is not. Second, he

hypothesizes a situation in which investigations in the field of genetic mutation are conducted, but

in such a way to limit the economic interests of certain social actors.

SPEAKER B: “If Correa and his government took the wise decision to declare Ecuador free of

transgenic crops, they must maintain this law, but they have to complement it by prohibiting the

commercialization in the country of the transgenic products, since these ones are responsible of

diseases that recently have increased […]. Everything is said in favor of the transgenic [products] is

a pseudoscientific lie behind which only is the desire of money, without caring about the life of the

human beings” (Hoy.com.ec a), 2013). In this comment speaker B ignores the previous, moderate

frames. He instead negatively define GMOs, by framing them as responsible of having negative

effects on health and as the tool used by certain social actors to pursue their own interests.

As it can be seen in figure 18, in this discussion it is not possible to find a point of reconciliation among the

definitions used by the two commentators. This is because, despite the fact that they both agree on the

hidden economic interests behind the introduction of GMOs, speaker B does not consider nor reply to the

proposal of speaker A for a new, more independent investigation on the topic.

6.3.8 Article published on January, 26th 2013

As well as the previous one, this article, whose title is: “Rafael Correa proposes the legalization of the

transgenic [products]” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2013), does not clearly frame GMOs, using a fact-like presentation

of the controversy. Following, the analysis of the comments of the readers:

Figure 18

124

SPEAKER A: “Correa is right, it was a childish ideology to prohibit, above all in the Constitution, the

genetically modified seeds. […] It is absurd that Ecuador closes its eyes in front of science and

knowledge” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2013). This comment reveals the recurrent frame of GMOs as

something that should be discussed among scientists, as the concerns of their opponents of these

organisms are defined as childish, through the use of an identity frame.

SPEAKER B: “Not all the transgenic crops are [able] to increase the productivity […], they are better

to add conditions of resistance to plagues and temperatures […] on the other hand there are

undesired and dangerous mutations […] but the greatest risk is in that there is a shift to

monoculture, that the seeds are sterile (this makes dependent from the multinationals), the rights

of the patent […] Is this what we want?, o there can be an agreement in between?” (Hoy.com.ec b),

2013). This comment frame GMOs in a moderate way. While the writer recognizes that only in

certain cases GMOs are able to increase productivity and that they are always able to resist to pests

and bad meteorological conditions (and therefore they require less use of phytochemicals), at the

same time he also recognizes the risk of dependence from the companies producing these crops.

SPEAKER C: “With all the respect: [it is] not imagination neither lack of scientific accuracy!. […]

GMOs do not increase productivity, all the contrary, they produce between 4 and 10% less […]. I

believe in the progress of science, included the non-transgenic biotechnology that can generate

great contributions, but the rigorous scientific evidence demonstrates that after more than 20

years of failure of transgenic [products], the road to reach the food sovereignty, increase and

sustain productivity is called Agro-ecology […]” (Hoy.com.ec b), 2013). The writer of this comment

is Roberto Gortaire, a person that is very much involved in the public discussions on GMOs, as

explained in the chapter 5. In this comment he uses two frames that are recurrent among the

opponents of GMOs. First, he claims that the opinion of the ecologists is not considered less

accurate than what is defined as the opinion of scientists, therefore he underlines how the opinion

of any social actor is important. Second, GMOs are framed not only as unable to increase

productivity, but as actually responsible of decreasing it.

In this discussion an agreement among the frames used by the commentators is found concerning the

possibility of further investigation on the topic, as shown by the green arrow in figure 19 (in the next page).

125

6.3.9 Polarization in media 2.0

In this subchapter I will analyze polarization of the frames used by the representatives of two social actors

(media and the innocent citizens). Again, the analysis will be based on the four principles that have been

reported in subchapter 2.3 and on the frame dimensions, presented in subchapter 5.2.

The first principle is the principle of dispersion, for which frames are polarized as long as they are different


articles, the following considerations can be made:

Concerning the subtopic of safety, frames are dispersed. In fact, all the discussions in which GMOs

were defined based on this subtopic, the frames were either clearly negative or positive;

Concerning the subtopic of efficiency, it could be claimed that frames are neither dispersed nor

they are not. In fact, out of eight discussions in which GMOs were framed based on this subtopic,

four of them (the 50%) present frames that have been identified as ‘moderate’.

Concerning the subtopic of societal connotations, it could be said that frames are mainly dispersed.

In fact, out of eight discussions in which GMOs were framed based on this subtopic, only two of

them (the 25%) present frames that have been identified as ‘moderate’.



occupied. From the analysis of the articles and of the comments, it can be concluded that frames are not

present in a bimodal form. In fact, seven citizens (23%) used positive frames to describe GMOs and fifteen

(50%) used negative ones. Moreover, four citizens (13%) used ‘middle’ frames and other four citizens (13%)

Figure 19

126

and the newspaper Hoy used contrasting frames (‘middle’ frames together with either positive or negative

ones, or positive and negative frames at the same time).


constrained and if such constrains are extensive in scope. Based on the analysis of the articles and of the

comments, the frames used in general do not respect the principle of constraint. This because, out of the

comments of thirty-two citizens, only five times the commentators use either positive or negative frames

that refer to more than one subtopic (safety, efficiency, societal connotations). The same counts for the

newspaper Hoy, because considering all the eight articles, only in one of them were used frames referring

to more than one subtopic.


number of people using the same frames and falling under the same sector of social actors. In this case the

social actors analyzed were two, i.e. the media and the ‘innocent’ citizens. Regarding the former one, in the

previous subchapter I have already show how polarization different newspapers use contrasting frames of

GMOs, both within their articles (as in the case of the newspapers El Comercio and Hoy) and among them.

Therefore, concerning this social actor the principle of consolidation is not respected. Regarding the latter

one, appropriate considerations cannot be made. This is due to the fact that the writers of the comments

are indeed citizens, but some of them could fall under the sector of ‘academic institutions’ or ‘political

institutions’. Simply, the lack of information does not allow to classify them appropriately under the correct

sector of social actors. However, even assuming that all the commentators could fall under the sector of

‘innocent citizens’, as aforementioned the frames they use are so in contrast that they do not respect the

principle of consolidation.

6.4 LIVE DISCUSSIONS

In this subchapter I present the analysis of recordings of three live, real-time discussions as a means of

exploring the performative elements involved in framing and polarization that characterize the policy

controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. While the second and third discussions explicitly address the introduction

of GMOs in the Ecuador, the first one is centered on the general future of agriculture in Ecuador and

elsewhere in South America.

The discussions were carried out in the Spanish language, but for reasons of practicality the statements of

the social actors involved are reported already translated in English. For the same reason, the statements of

the debaters have not been reported entirely. Nevertheless, the texts reporting the original discussions are

reported in the appendixes of this thesis (transcripts 1, 2 and 3 in appendixes 2, 3 and 4), and the citations

127

of each speaker are referenced to these discussions by referring to both the specific transcript (Tr.) and

exact number of the line(s).

6.4.1 Public discussion on October, 17th 2012

The public discussion here presented has taken place during the program ‘La Cabina’ transmitted by the

Public Radio of Ecuador. The discussion mainly focused on the different types of agricultural systems that

should be promoted in the country, while the issue of GMOs was addressed as a part of this broader

debate. In fact, if the discussion genuinely focused on comparing modern industrial agricultural systems

with organic/ecological ones, then GMOs could be seen as intrinsic to the model of the prior: industrial-era

agriculture. Despite the focus of this discussion does not focus explicitly only on GMOs, I think that its

analysis would highlight how the discussions on the topic of GMOs are part of a broader debate on the type

of agricultural model to be fostered in the country.

In this public discussion have participated four speakers, which are directly or indirectly involved in the

controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. These have been presented by the anchorwoman of the program

Giovanna Tassi as: (1) Jessica Vasquez, an agricultural technician and engineer, other than a farmer and

manager in the Federation of Agriculture Centers; (2) Fausto Falconì, an agricultural engineer specialized in

soil management; (3) Juan José Paniagua, a farmer; (4) Luis Gomero, the national coordinator of the

network for alternative agriculture of Peru (Tr. 1, lines 16-27). Giovanna Tassi also openly revealed, during

the discussion, her own bias towards ecological agriculture and more specifically against transgenic

technology, therefore she cannot be seen only as the moderator of the discussion. Finally, Mrs. Vasquez’s

participation was very limited in time and content, so it does not appear in this analysis.

The discussion was transmitted live on October, 17th 2012 by the radio program La Cabina of the Public

Radio of Ecuador. This section will highlight the most important claims of the participants, reporting their

statements only when considered relevant for the objectives of this research.

The discussion was opened by a statement of the anchorwoman Giovanna Tassi, that introduced the day’s

program as based on:

“[…] themes related with food security […] that put under discussion the matrix of [the way of]

thinking that one has as an individual and as a country […]. Because some dogmas that they have

made us to believe […] are put under discussion and, well, it emerges that these dogmas have

been… false! In the sense that these have been dogmas for a certain group of people that viewed

the world and agriculture in a certain way, [that is] an exploitation of […] the poor mother earth

128

because of economic reasons. But this way of living is a way of living that is not sustainable […]” (Tr.

1, lines 1-9).

Already from this statement, the anchorwoman framed certain (unsustainable) agricultural systems as

political devises utilized as a means of advancing certain economic interests. As it will be visible later on in

this analysis, the use of transgenic products is considered as part of these types of agricultural systems.

The first person consulted by Mrs. Tassi is Mr. Falconì, that answered by confirming the fact that

conventional types of agriculture are able to harm the environment in different ways:

“[…] they kill the soil, they kill insects, they kill mushrooms, they kill life! […]” (Tr. 1, lines 46-47).

In his explicit reference to life and death, Mr. Falconì employed the frames of conventional methods of

agriculture as harmful for the environment. This frame was supported by the use of the rhetorical

convention of pathos (the expression ‘they kill life!’), useful in provoking a strong emotional response in his

audience (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). It is also interesting the use that this speaker made of the rhetorical

tool of ethos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), to prove his trustworthiness as a speaker. In fact, Mr. Falconì went

on claiming the he did not want to be referred to as an ingeniero, a term that is used to identify a social

class representing a departure from traditional means of living to a more Western type of living, based on

modernization (Tr. 1, lines 40-53). Mr. Falconì explained that the type of agricultural science taught by the

universities played a central role in promoting industrialized agriculture, and second that this orientation:

“[…] created with a very big bias, [a food production based on] killing and killing and killing!” (Tr. 1,

lines 44-46).

Further on in the discussion Mr. Falconì re-called this idea that ingenieros should consider set aside their

academic titles to learn a different type of knowledge from the farmers or, in general, from rural people.

These statements employ the rhetorical tool of ethos, other than being a frame of conventional agriculture

as a model of production that excludes the knowhow of important social actors, i.e. the farmers.

In an act of affirmation, Mrs. Tassi re-stated Mr. Falconì’s claim that ecological agriculture was the only

mean of food production that did not mine the soil (Tr. 1, lines 54-68). Mr. Falconì continued:

“[…] Nevertheless, conventional agriculture has always been based on certain premises that ended

up to be completely false […]. First that they were going to solve the hunger in the world […]. After

seventy years we have more hunger, we know that this is a different problem, [a problem] of

distribution, right? And another of the great lies that they [the proponents of industry agriculture]

told us is that organic agriculture is inefficient and that conventional agriculture raises productivity

[…].Organic agriculture is a lot more efficient, a lot more profitable and a lot more productive. […]

129

Therefore we have to face all these pseudo truths with which they tricked the whole planet […]”

(Tr. 1, lines 75-86).

In this statement were present different frames that are usually recurrent among the opponents of GMOs

and that here are used to discredit conventional agriculture, namely: (1) behind agriculture there are

hidden interests of powerful people; (2) conventional agriculture is not able to solve the problem of hunger

in the world, but that this is used only as an excuse; (3) conventional agriculture is not able to raise

productivity.

After the phone call of a person (SPEAKER A) who expressed indignation for the exclusion of what he

described as the opinions of the farmers and for the unhealthiness of conventional foods (Tr. 1, lines 101-

105), Mrs. Tassi, introduced another frame that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs when

interviewing Mr. Gomero, by stating:

“[…] to tomatoes, for example, are added hormones in order to make them bigger, they put

antibiotics [and] hormones to naranjilla plants [a type of tropical fruits typical of Ecuador] […]. To

make the fruits and vegetables look prettier […] they put things that in reality are harmful for the

health [of consumers] and for those who cultivate them” (Tr. 1, lines 106-118).

In this statement other two frames that are also typical among the opponents of GMOs can be found,

namely the description of the products that come from conventional agriculture as unhealthy and as

something completely unnatural.

Mr. Gomero continued the conversation:

“[…] we have to revaluate our agro-biodiversity, to meet this benefit of the healthy agriculture and

in addition of an agriculture that is friendly with the environment. And in this perspective I think

that the ecological agriculture is an option for development. […] If there is a diversified agriculture,

there will be a diversified gastronomy […] and our nutrition will be complete and we will not be

dependent only from a package of products that is generally managed by big corporations. And this

is who benefits, a powerful group [of people], and it does not benefit small producers that are the

basis of [food] security and food sovereignty […]. Moreover I think that we are at the moment [in

which we have] to recognize the effort that is done by small and medium producers, […] because

they had the historical responsibility for conserving and maintaining the agro-biodiversity […] and

that this group is the one that concretely contributes with about 65% of the foods for our countries.

Nevertheless is the sector that has received the least concrete help from the national politics.

Nevertheless is the [sector] that has suffered a pressure for the imposition of a technology, as the

[one of the] agriculture of the Green Revolution or [of] the agriculture of the chemical [products]

130

[…]. And here comes the need of approving laws in favor of organic agriculture, laws to definitely

prohibit the entry of transgenic [products] in our countries because I believe that this technology,

as well as the technology of the Green Revolution, is a threat for humanity, is a threat to agro-

biodiversity, is a threat for health, is a threat for constructing social and environmental

sustainability in mega-diverse countries as it is Peru, as it is Bolivia, as it is Ecuador […]” (Tr. 1, lines

123-151).

In this intervention, for the first time in the discussion, it is possible to see a clear connection between the

topic of conventional agriculture and the topic of GMOs. In fact, Mr. Gomero started by defining ecological

types of agriculture as the only ones (1) that are able to provide food items that are healthy,

environmentally friendly, respectful of biodiversity and (2) that are able to free the farmers from the

economic interests that characterize conventional agriculture. Then, Mr. Gomero made what can be seen

as a comparison between this method of agriculture, the Green Revolution and GMOs, which were framed

as unhealthy and as able to hurt both biodiversity and sustainability. Concerning these latter frames it can

be noticed the repetitive use of the word threat, that can be seen as the rhetorical tool of pathos, in order

to provoke a strong emotional effect in the reader (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217).

At this point of the discussion a brief conversation was triggered by a phone call of a person (SPEAKER B)

that complained- and asked information about the high prices that characterize organic products (Tr. 1,

lines 154-163). Mrs. Tassi connected another question to the one risen by the speaker, namely she

questioned why organic agriculture meets so much resistance at the political and scientific level (Tr. 1, lines

168-171). The answers were given by Mr. Paniagua, that claimed that organic agriculture is unjustly

accused to not be able to increase productivity (while in the reality it is), but that, at the same time, this

type of agriculture needs indeed to invest in technological development (Tr. 1, lines 178-188). However,

both Mrs. Tassi and Mr. Paniagua agreed on the fact that ecological types of agriculture are the only ones

ensuring a sustainable production, unlike conventional ones (Tr. 1, lines 189-214).

After a phone call of another person (SPEAKER C) that restated the importance of considering the opinions

of the farmers which are currently excluded from the debate and the environmental damages provoked by

conventional agriculture (Tr. 1, lines 216-226), and a brief of Mrs. Tassi with Mrs. Vasquez (Tr. 1, lines 227-

252), Mr. Falconì restarted the discussion:

“[…] The point is that they do not inform us, they deform us. […]. The whole structure [of the

agricultural studies] that we receive comes from the second World War. The war machinery, after

the second World War, remains without a job. Therefore they adapt the technology of poisons and

[of such] machinery to agriculture, because they did not know how to get money from it. And

conventional agriculture is based on death, is based on war machinery. We have to begin to

131

understand where it comes from. […] We [the agricultural engineers] are […] mercenaries that

come up to institute a system and to oblige the farmer to introduce this system, and [the] product

of this are the terrible consequences […] The youths abandon [agriculture] because it is something

that does not allow them to receive profits and […] up to now we have not talked about what it

means to eat products [that are] not only poisoned, but also absolutely undernourished […]”(Tr. 1,

lines 286-296).

In this intervention Mr. Falconì made use of two rhetorical tools. First, he explicated the origin of

conventional agriculture from the machinery that was using for military reasons, using the tool of pathos

(Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). Second, he compared himself and his own colleagues to a group of mercenaries

that have to learn from farmers; in this way, by using the rhetorical tool of ethos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217),

Mr. Falconì underlined his awareness about the fact that engineers are the ones that have to learn from

farmers and his personal will to do so. In this statement we also find two recurrent frames of conventional

agriculture: that it excludes the opinions of farmers (which are the most important actors) and the it

produces unhealthy products.

After this statement and after many different interventions of people (SPEAKERS D, E, F) that asked for

suggestions on how to cultivate certain products with environmentally friendly methods (Tr. 1, lines 305-

349), the intervention of SPEAKER G recalled the topic of transgenic products:

“[…] the situation is that we, all the Ecuadorians, have to get together to avoid that these

transgenic [organisms] enter in [the country]. As we know […] the situation is in practice

manipulated by the monopolies, because of their own economic benefit. [...] There are many

proves already that transgenic [products] are not convenient for us, they do not benefit us not even

from an economic point of view […]. We have to manage agriculture with an organic system […]”

(Tr. 1, lines 363-375).

In this statement the speaker recalled a frame that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, namely

that they are not beneficial to the normal citizens or farmers from an economic point of view, but that they

are only promoted because of the interests of powerful people. Furthermore it is interesting to notice how

this speaker mentioned, as one of these monopolies, PRONACA (whose role in the controversy of GMOs

has been analyzed in chapter 5). Moreover, it is worth to mention that the anchorwoman kept on agreeing

with this speaker while he is speaking, revealing her opinion towards this topic (Tr. 1, line 368).

After this intervention, Mr. Gomero answered to a question that Mrs. Tassi had previously asked, namely

why public agricultural policies always promote conventional forms of agriculture and not organic ones. Mr.

Gomero replied that, despite the fact that organic agriculture has proved to be able to increase productivity

and to be environmentally friendly, what always prevail are the economic interests behind conventional

132

agriculture, which are connected to the commercialization of pesticides and herbicides (Tr. 1, lines 379-

405). Again, Mrs. Tassi agreed with this frame (Tr. 1, lines 406-408). Moreover, Mr. Gomero continued by

complaining about the fact that it is not sufficient that the governments design new politics that,

theoretically, support ecologically friendly methods of production; according to Mr. Gomero what is

actually necessary is the governmental support from an economic point of view through, for example,

subsidies (Tr. 1, lines 409-435).

After a brief conversation among the speakers about general agricultural topics (Tr. 1, lines 436-463), Mrs.

Tassi reintroduced the topic of GMOs, by reading a letter sent by a person (SPEAKER I) that she agreed

with:

“[…] We are governed by agricultural corporations. The agricultural biotechnology has seen the

necessity of creating genetically modified foods to offer possibilities of increasing the quality and

the efficiency of the crops […], to obtain better fibers, to reduce the costs of production and to

improve the nutritional contents of food items. However, as said by the official [web] page of Green

Peace, transgenic crops do not feed the world, as the 99,5% of farmers do not cultivate them. At

the same time, it says that the industrial agriculture uses synthetic fertilizers and agrochemicals

that contaminate our soils and waters, necessary resources to produce healthy food items today

and in the future. This fact contributes to the climate change [on one side], [while] on the other

side it denounces that only ten multinational [companies] control almost the 70% of the world

market of seeds, which means that the farmers have a small capacity of choice […]” (Tr. 1, lines

465-475).

In this email the speaker gathered different frames that are typical among the opponents of GMOs. In fact,

these were described as organisms that (1) are not capable of increasing productivity; (2) are connected to

the use of chemical products that harm health and contaminate the environment (therefore

counterclaiming the frame for which GMOs are able to decrease the use of chemical products); (3) that are

tools used by big companies to create dependency in the market. After reading this email, Mrs. Tassi not

only agreed with its content, restating that GMOs are tools used by these companies to create dependency,

but also added that these mechanisms lead to the erosion of the national patrimony of seeds and therefore

of biodiversity (Tr. 1, lines 475-483).

Afterwards, Mrs. Tassi asked for the opinion of Mr. Falconì about the qualities and the shortcomings of

GMOs (Tr. 1, lines 481-483), who gave the following answer:

“[…] it is not only a problem of production, of technology, but it is a problem of the trend of the

land and of commercialization, therefore I think that it is a structural problem of agriculture. […]

But talking about your question, a quite […] connected link has to be made. The Green Revolution,

133

the revolution of the industrial agriculture, began seventy years ago and the origin was this

conversion of the war industry. It began based on three points: the chemical fertilizations, the

mechanization, the pesticides […] and the certified seeds […]. This is the pillar of agriculture. In fifty

years they have […] devastated the fields of the world […]. The famous corn belt, that is the

example of the Green Revolution in the United States, it is at this moment a place that it almost

does not produce. […] Therefore this is the first premise. The second one is that transgenic

[products] are part of this whole chain. The transgenic [products] neither are that new, they have

twenty-five years and in practice they did not solve anything. There are very consistent reports

about, for example, transgenic soy, its pretext to increase productivity: [but] when making an

analysis, nothing raises. […] Therefore without considering all the connotations of health,

contamination of biodiversity, [etc,] the problem is that neither there is the guarantee that it

increases productivity. It worries me a lot what this country wants to do. If huge transnational

companies, have created only four types of transgenic products […] we want to do here transgenic

[products] with a technology that cannot be compared by far with the one that they have. […] It is a

seed that is going to have a bunch of repercussions that are absolutely not controllable […].

Therefore […] [with] this pretext of making [our] own technology, I think that we are putting a lot at

risk and I think that we really have to consider that there are other ways to improve productivity, as

the [one of] organic agriculture […]” (Tr. 1, lines 484-521).

In this statement, Mr. Falconì recalled many of the frames already used in this discussion. He started by

making a comparison between the Green Revolution and GMOs which, according to him, have both

harmed the environment, health and biodiversity without being able to increase productivity. Afterwards,

he underlined how it is not true that the technology to produce these organisms is safer (as claimed by

some advocates of GMOs), as these organisms are still not controllable. For all these reasons, Mr. Falconì

concluded to be against not only the introduction of GMOs, but also a national investigation about them, as

in his opinion such investigation should focus on other, more environmentally friendly, methods of

production.

After the intervention of Mr. Falconì and the interventions of other people (SPEAKERS J and K) that restated

the fact that first GMOs defend the economic interests of only certain social actors (Tr. 1, lines 531-538)

and, second that they have negative effects on the environment (Tr. 1, lines 540-548), one citizen (SPEAKER

L) tried to propose a ‘moderate’ frame for which neither organic nor conventional agriculture must be

described as bad ones, as everything depends from the way in which technology is used.

Then, Mr. Paniagua provided the last relevant statement in this discussion:

134

“[…] there is a problem at the global level. People are demineralized. […] What happens? As our soil

is demineralized, we have problems of health […] the transgenic [products], the conventional [food

items] are the ones that mainly cause these problems. Urge, urge in this moment that this

generation that is here on earth, we have to save the planet. […] We need universities to go to the

field, not farmers [to go] to the universities […]. The organic agriculture […] in Costa Rica […] could

feed the whole world and we would still throw half [of the products]. […] The problem of poverty

[…] is an idea of the government. This mentality needs to change […]” (Tr. 1, lines 561-605).

In this statement, Mr. Paniagua proposed again various recurrent statements among the opponents of

GMOs, namely that they are dangerous for health, that their discourse is excluding the opinions of the most

important group of social actors (the farmers) from which universities should learn and that they are not

needed to solve the problem of world hunger, as this is cause by a wrong distribution and not by a lack of

food. What is relevant here is the rhetorical tool of pathos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) used by Mr. Paniagua.

In fact, he used strong expressions at the emotional level such as ‘saving the planet’ and he concluded by

saying that organic agriculture is able to foster “[…] life, […] food security, […] peace, stability, security […]”.

After this intervention and the conclusions of Mrs. Tassi, the discussion finished. It can be seen how the

frames used by the debaters are repetitive, and the ones used to frame conventional agriculture and the

ones used to describe GMOs are essentially interchangeable. This shows how the discussion about GMOs in

Ecuador is part of a broader discussion about the direction that the country wants to take in terms of the

type of production models to use. In the next page, table 1 illustrates schematically all these frames.

135

MRS. TASSI MR. FALCONÌ MR. PANIAGUA MR. GOMERO

Conventional agriculture and GMOs protect the hidden economic interests

of only certain social actors (opinion supported by SPEAKERS G, I,

J)

Conventional agriculture and GMOs protect the hidden economic interests

of only certain social actors (opinion supported by SPEAKERS G, I,

J)

Conventional agriculture and GMOs protect the hidden economic

interests of only certain social actors (opinion supported by SPEAKERS G, I,

J)

Conventional agriculture and GMOs harm the environment

(opinion supported by SPEAKERS C and K)

Conventional agriculture and GMOs harm the environment

(opinion supported by SPEAKERS C and K)

Organic agriculture is the only type of agriculture that is sustainable

Organic agriculture is the only type of agriculture that does not hurt the

environment

The opinion of farmers is being excluded

(opinion supported by SPEAKERS A and C)

The opinion of farmers is being excluded

(opinion supported by SPEAKERS A and C)

The opinion of farmers is being excluded (opinion supported by SPEAKERS A and

C)

Conventional agriculture cannot solve

the problem of world hunger

Neither conventional agriculture nor GMOs cannot solve the problem of

world hunger

Conventional agriculture cannot

increase productivity (opinion supported by SPEAKER I)

Only organic agriculture can increase productivity

Only organic agriculture can increase productivity

Conventional agriculture produces unhealthy foods

(opinion supported by SPEAKERS A and I)

Conventional agriculture produces unhealthy foods


Conventional agriculture and GMOs produce unhealthy foods


Conventional agriculture and GMOs produce unhealthy foods


Conventional agriculture produces unnatural foods

GMOs threaten biodiversity Conventional agriculture and GMOs

threaten biodiversity

The technology currently used to

produce GMOs is not safer

Investigations should be done on organic agriculture, not on GMOs

Table 1

136

6.4.2 Public discussion on October, 31st 2012

The public discussion here presented has taken place during the program ‘La Cabina’ transmitted by the

Public Radio of Ecuador and was entitled: “GMO/transgenic products: lights and shadows, myths and

truths” (Tr. 2, lines 1-4). Participants included three national experts that are involved in the controversy of

GMOs in Ecuador. These included, as they have been presented by the anchorwoman Giovanna Tassi: (1)

Dr. Cesar Paz y Miño, researcher on the topic and responsible of the department of the biomedical research

laboratory at the University of Americas in Quito; (2) Elizabeth Bravo, which is involved in the controversy

as a member of the NGO Acción Ecológica and (3) Stephen Sherwood, an American trained plant

pathologist and professor in Knowledge, Technology and Innovation at the University of Wageningen (the

Netherlands) and organic farmer in Quito (Tr. 2, lines 6-15).

The discussion was opened by a question asked by the anchorwoman of the program, Giovanna Tassi:

“Why to talk about transgenic [products] scares [people] so much and causes so much concern?”

(Tr. 2, lines 14-15).

Below are reported the answers of the debaters in the chronological order in which they have taken place

and their related analysis.

Mrs. Bravo started her intervention by claiming that it is not true that this is a topic that people fear to talk

about, and that this is proved by the fact that it is a theme that is widely discussed, both at the national and

at the international level. Afterwards, she continued:

“[…] there are different types of moratoria against transgenic [products]. Now, why? Transgenic

[products], meaning transgenic foods and transgenic crops, that are the ones that mainly cause the

controversy, are alive organisms, they are seeds […] that are manipulated [and in which] are

introduced […] genes that come from very infective organisms […]” (Tr. 2, lines 6-35).

Related to this topic, Mrs. Bravo provides the dramatic example of Peru, a country in which human genes

have been apparently injected in a type of rice that afterwards was served to children suffering of

gastrointestinal problems (Tr. 2, lines 35-48). After reporting this example, Mrs. Bravo concludes:

“[…] [about] transgenic [products] we could say that [they] are un cocktail of genes injected in products,

which eventually could reach the human food chain” (Tr. 2, lines 48-49).

In this intervention Mrs. Bravo defined GMOs in two main ways: (1) as unnatural products, by underling

how they are manipulated, by labeling them as cocktails of genes and by providing the very rare example of

the introduction of human genes in rice; (2) as organisms that can provoke negative effects on human

health, by underling how they come from very infective organisms and by hypothesizing the fact that they

137

can reach the human food chain. These strong expressions reveal the use of the rhetorical tool of pathos, in

order to provoke a strong emotional effect in the reader (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217).

After the comment of Mrs. Bravo, Mr. Paz y Miño intervened:

“Indeed a transgenic organism is an organism that, in an artificial way, has been modified in its

genetic material […]. Therefore indeed there is not much of a discussion concerning the topic of

health […]. Where [the transgenic products] generate the greater discussion is their application in

the food. Why? Because here there are opposing evidences […]. Therefore when there is a different

opinion at least among the people that are involved in the scientific work, the perspective and the

logic should be: ‘well, let’s do more investigations to see who is right’. This regarding the already

existing products, but I think that the discussion should go a little further, not [focusing] only on the

existing [products], but [also] on the potentiality of a technology, as it is DNA biotechnology, to

develop matters that could even be useful in solving problems related to food […]. But the question

would be if this constitutional lock does not complicate the development of the national science.

Thus, from the perspective of the researchers it complicates [things], because no one is going to do

investigations […], simply because they are prohibited, and this in a certain way affects the

scientific development of a country that necessitates to improve its scientific development.

Therefore with all the possible security measures, we should re-propose the theme […] to see if

with the progress of biotechnology, together with the progress of the technology of DNA, that is

increasingly safer […] now we can better evaluate everything regarding the manipulation of genes

[…]. Let’s evaluate the existing [GMOs] but let’s [also] evaluate with national resources the

possibilities of a technology that being every time safer could be beneficial for Ecuador. And this is

the proposal of a group of scientists: […] we think that this is a constitutional lock that impedes the

investigation and the development of a technology that could be beneficial” (Tr. 2, lines 51-94).

In this comment Mr. Paz y Miño started by trying to reduce the extremeness of the previous statements of

Mrs. Bravo, by proposing another definition of GMOs (“organism that, in an artificial way, has been

modified in its genetic material”), which reduces the idea of these products as completely unnatural ones;

at the same time, he reassured the listeners that such technology is increasingly safer. Second, Mr. Paz y

Miño introduced the topic of GMOs used in the field of medicine, on which, as it will be possible to see later

on in the analysis of this discussion, the three debaters seemed to agree. Third, Mr. Paz y Miño called for

the need of investigations financed by the State in order to study the effects of these products, a solution

that seems to be one of the only point of agreement among the different speakers involved in the

controversy, as previously shown in chapter 5 (despite the fact that, in this particular discussion, the

speakers did not find an agreement on this point). Mr. Paz y Miño proposed this solution after having

explained that to conduct research is the most logical thing to do whenever scientists do not agree among

138

each other, therefore using the rhetorical tool of logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). In doing so, he also

framed the current Constitution as the cause of the block of investigations in the country.

Thus, Mrs. Bravo replied to Mr. Paz y Miño:

“[…] I want to start [by] addressing if it is true that the technology now is safer. I do not want to talk

about the medical field […], but in the agricultural field they are not safer […]” (Tr. 2, lines 96-99).

In this first part of her comment, Mrs. Bravo recalled two of the frames used by Mr. Paz y Miño. First, she

stated that her concerns are not about the GMOs used in medicines, and by doing so she agrees on their

frame as safe organisms, earlier provided by Mr. Paz y Miño. However, she complained about the safety of

these organisms when used in agriculture, by using another type of logic behind her argument (and

therefore a different type of logos). In fact, she presented two cases: the case of transgenic crops

developed in order to have a higher resistance to herbicides and the case of transgenic crops developed in

order to be more resistant to pests and insects. Regarding the first type of GMOs, she claimed that these

organisms are able to develop some super-weeds that can be eliminated only through the use of a greater

and stronger cocktail of herbicides; regarding the second type of GMOs, she claimed that they are able to

kill also beneficial insects, for example bees. Therefore, she concluded that this technology has already

been proved to be dangerous. Moreover, she made a comparison among the agricultural systems that

make use of GMOs and the ones that make use of an intensive type of production, claiming that both are

responsible of using more herbicides than other types of agricultural systems (Tr. 2, lines 96-160). This

connection is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, and in this discussion is used also by the

anchorwoman Mrs. Tassi.

At this point the third debater, Mr. Sherwood, intervened:

“Regarding the [use in] medicine, [I think] the same. I believe that there are opportunities, I am not

very informed, I think that Cesar [Paz y Miño] is the most adequate person to comment [this]. For

sure, in agriculture, when we begin to release functional genes into the environment I worry, we

have less control, but more than this, I feel that the problems in agriculture […], I feel that there are

many things that we can do in terms of soils, water, traditional improvement, creativity, markets,

the human relationships to improve agriculture […]” (Tr. 2, lines 183-189).

In this comment, only the frame on transgenic products used in the medical field is recalled from the

previous comments, and Mr. Sherwood said that he agree with Mr. Paz y Miño and Mrs. Bravo that

transgenic applications in medicine do not appear to represent a serious environmental concern. However,

in the rest of the comment he tried to shift the discussion to concerns over GMOs use in agriculture that he

139

felt should be prioritized instead of focusing the attention on GMOs, a strategy that has been recalled by

Mrs. Bravo later on in this discussion (Tr. 2, lines 183-204).

The anchorwoman, Mrs. Tassi, intervened in the discussion by asking a question to Mr. Paz y Miño:

“Here we question very much the work of laboratories and listening to you, if all scientists were

working honestly… But unfortunately there are […] big groups like Monsanto that have a big group

of people investigating for the interests of Monsanto, that do not think about the well-being of the

humanity. Unfortunately, [they] think at the well-being of Monsanto. And when you see that these

people participate in the global summits of climate change, of agriculture, and they impose the

agenda because they are big in terms of interests, economic interests […] there are doubts […] in

the ethic of the scientific investigation” (Tr. 2, lines 218-227).

Here Mrs. Tassi recalled the recurrent frame among the opponents of GMOs: hidden economic agenda is

driving the technology.

The response of Mr. Paz y Miño revealed the attempt of finding a middle ground between the need of

investigation for the development of science and the possible economic interests behind such research:

“I totally agree. The problem, that I come back to bring up, it is not […] Monsanto […]. I care about

the development of science in Ecuador. […] The topic of the existing transgenic [products] is a topic

that includes a lot of matters: political [ones], economic [ones], interests of those who produce the

seeds, [interests of] those who produce pesticides […]. […] Let’s remove the companies, for a

moment. Let’s assume they do not exist. What do we have left? There is left a challenge as a

country, and it is the development of [new] technologies that allows us to solve our problems. […]

Every time we have a technology that is better understood […] [and that] [is increasingly] safer. […]

Therefore […] I agree, transnational [companies] have their own interests […]. […] For this same

reason may we have some development of the science that is in our [national] interests. Let’s

remove them from here! […] But then which solutions do we give from the perspective of

production? […] The national production of soy is of 10% compared to the necessities, and the 90%

[of] imported [soy] for sure is transgenic. […] We have the possibility to improve the national

products, but, again, we have an article of the Constitution that does not allow us to do anything

with national products, with national seeds that we could modify, and not necessarily the

traditional ones! […] For the lack of production of the country we have to give a solution! […]” (Tr.

2, lines 228-284).

In his response, Mr. Paz y Miño proposed multiple frames. On one hand, he concurred with two frames

common among the opponents of GMOs: (1) many different aspects need to be considered in the

140

controversy of GMOs, beyond merely scientific consideration; (2) economic interests of certain

transnational companies may underlay research. Meanwhile, he insisted that GMOs are essential to

addressing the national priority of production and productivity, a recurrent frame among the advocates of

GMOs. He also restated the definition of the technology used to produce GMOs as increasingly safer and

more secure. Mr. Paz y Miño concluded by making, again, the proposal of conducting national and

independent investigation in the field of GMOs, in order to avoid the risks of a monopolization of the data

by big transnational companies.

At this point of the public discussion it was given the opportunity to the listeners of the radio program of

calling and interacting in the discussion. The first listener calling was actually Roberto Gortaire, which is a

persona that is deeply involved in the controversy, as previously described in chapter 5. He introduced a

new point of view:

“[…] I want to talk from the point of view of the consumer […]. If to us, the consumers, in a

supermarket they tell us to choose among one banana that has been modified and that has genes

of bacteria or viruses, and at the side they place a banana that has been cultivated from a rural

agriculture without phytochemicals, without pesticides… What do you think the consumer will

chose? […] What I want to say is that for those who think that transgenic [products] are not an

option for Ecuador, we have an alternative […]: what comes from the organic agriculture and the

ecologic agriculture. We are not the anti-technique, the anti-investigation, the anti-development…

On the contrary, we are asking to the country […] investigation and development of the knowledge,

but in ecologic and organic technologies […]” (Tr. 2, lines 296-302).

Mr. Gortaire responded directly to the proposal of Mr. Paz y Miño, by claiming that investigations should

indeed be done, but concerning different types of agriculture (the ecological and the organic one), that,

according to him, reflect what consumers want. Later on in the, Mrs. Bravo and Mr. Sherwood, have picked

up on this argument.

After this intervention, the anchorwoman Mrs. Tassi proposed another question:

“Is it necessary, is it a must to genetically manipulate to make things better? […]” (Tr. 2, lines 303-

305)

The first to answer was Mr. Sherwood:

“[…] For me the transgenic technology in agriculture, I am not talking about medicine, is an

obsolete technology, […] for me the new technology is that one that works with the ecosystem. It is

a biology much more complete […] and also a technology that does not work with science out of

the social [field]. […] They say that the problem of the world is a lack of production, a lack of food…

141

I want to say that I have seen studies […] that say that today, if we would like, we could feed the

population of 9 billions of people of 2050 […]. If you have 1 billion starving […] but you have more

than one billion of over-weight or obese people […], this shows how in reality it is a myth that the

problem is a lack of production […]. I think that we need another type of science […]. We need a

science that […] works with the ecosystems and not against the ecosystems […]” (Tr. 2, lines 309-

336).

After having restated to not disagree with the use of transgenic products in medicine, Mr. Sherwood

presented three perspectives on GMOs. Firstly, the technology of transgenesis was described as working

against the ecosystems, therefore here we see the recurrent frame of GMOs as unnatural products.

Secondly, contrasting the frame used by Mr. Paz y Miño, he claimed that the problem of lack of food (and

therefore of production) is not grounded in facts, thereby placing into question the urgency of transgenic

technology. Thirdly, by claiming for the need of a science which take into account all the different social

aspects of agriculture, Mr. Sherwood is framing the agricultural systems producing GMOs as not able to do

so.

Mrs. Bravo agreed with the frames proposed by Mr. Sherwood and continued:

“[…] It is not a technology [to be used] for a long period […]. The difference for example with the

rural seeds is that if they are well treated and managed they can last forever […]. In the field of

investigation there are many things that can be done, including biotechnology […]. I believe that we

have to improve our biodiversity, but not by using transgenic [products]. […] I only want to

conclude with the topics of consumers and banana. […] For example in Europe, that is our main

market, […] European consumers are not willing to consume transgenic products […]”(Tr. 2, lines

364-389).

Other than agreeing with how Mr. Sherwood had previously framed the problem, Mrs. Bravo added two

negative descriptions of GMOs: first, they were described as not able to last as natural seeds would do;

second, by referring to the intervention of Mr. Gortaire, she justified his comment on consumers by

reporting the example of the European consumers, which would not agree on consuming Ecuadorian

products if cultivated with the technology of transgenesis.

At this point the Mrs. Tassi re-proposed her question:

“[…] seeds must be improved, but why you have to do it in a transgenic way? There is not another

way to strengthen seeds […]?” (Tr. 2, lines 395-401).

Mr. Paz y Miño was the first answering this question:

142

“[…] We need to refer to history, don’t we? Why a transgenic technology is used now is the answer

to a difficulty that came across during the normal management of plants […]” (Tr. 2, lines 402-404).

Here Mr. Paz y Miño tells the story of old researchers that were able to reach the maximum productivity of

wheat, but that also came to a point at which the barrier of such maximum productivity could not be

overcome.

“Therefore the answer to this is that if we want more production […] this [productive] barrier could

be broken with the technology of DNA. […] The use of these techniques have to serve the people,

science cannot escape from helping the people, it cannot develop independently, for this I totally

agree with the proposal of Steve […]. It is very clear for us the topic of the dependency, of the

interests that exist, but for this same reason the answer is: […] let’s engage in a type of national

scientific and technological development, not only of the government but of the [whole] state, with

a national policy that allows the scientific development [that is] honorable for the country, because

the scientific development that we have is tragic […]. There are a lot of prejudices in relation to

biotechnology that are impeding that we take off as a country in investigation. Therefore if we were

honorable we should say: we do not believe to anybody and with [our] own investigations, with a

technology developed by ourselves, with our own criteria we have a position not only on the theme

of transgenesis but also about all that concerns the technology applied to the solutions of the

problems of the people and then therefore we may feel serene” (Tr. 2, lines 404-469).

In this comment Mr. Paz y Miño started by proposing two opposing frames compared to the ones used by

Mr. Sherwood. First, he gave historical reasons why GMOs should be used, while Mr. Sherwood had just

finished to talk about the failure of the previous agricultural models and how these failures should lead to

the reflection of why transgenesis is not an innovative choice. Second, he restated the need of increasing

productivity, while Mr. Sherwood has just mentioned studies that prove how such an increase is not

necessary. However, the opposition of the perspectives of the two debaters seemed to decrease in the last

comments of Mr. Paz y Miño, when he reclaimed to be conscious of the hidden economic interests behind

GMOs, but even more when he stated that investigations should be made, as in this case he did not refer

anymore only to the investigations concerning the transgenesis, but he expanded the proposal of such

investigations to different fields of technology.

At this point of the discussion, Mrs. Tassi read an intervention that a citizen (SPEAKER B), made about the

possibility of dividing the two topics, the one of agriculture and the one of economic interests. This because

such separation would allow the consideration of transgenic products, which in the speaker’s view

represent an innovation that would benefit science (Tr. 2, lines 470-472).

After, Mrs. Tassi, by asking Mr. Paz y Miño a question, triggered the discussion reported below:

143

- Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Listening to you, Doctor, this is a theme of science per se, or better, it is

necessary to think scientifically? You are the only scientist among the four of us that are here”;

- Stephen Sherwood: “We are three scientists”;

- Giovanna Tassi: “Well, different ones, but he, every day, is there with the microscope, doing

analysis”;

- Stephen Sherwood: “This is exactly part of the problem, to think that science is limited to

microscopes. There are other types of science […]”;

- Giovanna Tassi: “But what I mean, does it goes beyond the ethical theme?”;

- Cesar Paz y Miño: “There is always an ethical topic! It always has to be an ethical topic!”;

- Giovanna Tassi: “This is what I wanted to ask, it is possible to separate the ethical theme from

science?”;

- Cesar Paz y Miño: “Never! [Despite] there has been an attempt to separate them”.

In the aforementioned tit for tat among the debaters, it can be noticed the concern of one of them, Mr.

Sherwood, about the shared way of thinking that the only scientists to include in the debate are the ones

studying biotechnology. His intervention revealed the recurrent opinion among the opponents of GMOs

that the opinions of important groups of social actors are being excluded from the resolution of the

controversy of GMOs.

At this point of the discussion, three people, through their phone calls, intervened in the conversation. The

first phone call was done by Diego Nevarez (SPEAKER C), who claimed to have been one of the opponents

of the ban of GMOs in the constitution when this had been discussed in the parliament. His main argument

was similar to the one of Mr. Paz y Miño, namely that Ecuador must invest in independent researches in

order to supply to the needs of the growing population (Tr. 2, lines 491-511).

In the second phone call, another person (SPEAKER D) asked why so many efforts are not being made in

order to investigate the agro-ecological systems of production, which are not being supported by the state

despite the fact that they have proved to be good for human health and for the resilience of the

ecosystems against climate change. Moreover, the speaker claimed that scientists should be more

conscientious, that should think about the negative health effects that are already affecting entire

countries and that the Ecuadorian citizens want food that is healthy and safe (Tr. 2, lines 514-529).

The third person (SPEAKER E), who said to be part of a national movement of ecological producers,

connected the topic of GMOs to the one of the Green Revolution, by claiming that this had already been

144

used as an excuse to save agriculture and productivity. As already mentioned in this thesis, this is a

connection that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs. Therefore, she asked if it is not possible to

investigate other forms of agriculture (Tr. 2, lines 531-544).

Concluding, there is also the intervention of two other people through the chat of the radio program. One

of them (SPEAKER G) framed very negatively GMOs, by claiming that they are unnatural products and that

they have already caused diseases and deaths in other countries; therefore he asked that all the citizens

that want to consume natural products should be called to decide about this topic (Tr. 2, lines 547-550).

This intervention revealed different frames that are recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, namely that:

they have negative consequences on heath, that they are unnatural products, and that the opinions of the

citizens is not being appropriately considered.

After these comments, gathering all the concerns of the people that have intervened, the anchorwoman

restated a similar question to the previous one:

“Therefore the theme of science per se, associated with the [one of] ethic and with the [one of]

morality, the theme of sovereignty, [the theme] of the erosion of the patrimony, also the genetic

and agricultural one of the country […]: they affect [us] or not?” (Tr.2, lines 552-554).

The first answering was Mr. Sherwood:

“Unfortunately the freedom of academics [and] of scientists is very limited: in practice we work for

private interests […]. Therefore today to talk about responsible scientists is problematic. But I also

want to say that here we are not debating transgenic [products], we are not debating

biotechnology, [but] we are debating the present and the future of the food systems of Ecuador,

and […] I see it in two ways: an industrial way […] and an agriculture that works with the

ecosystems […]. I think this is the debate. […] And all the problems that we have today […] are

caused by the past technology […]. This industrial model has collapsed, and at the level of science

we have to recognize it and to begin to organize ourselves with other types of sciences […]. It is

neither the government nor the scientists that are responsible, in a democratic country […] the

consumer has to be responsible. […] We have to rescue the role of the consumer as an important

actor in the country […] and there science has to serve these consumers, and not the opposite […]”

(Tr. 2, lines 555-582).

Mr. Sherwood begins by restating the frame that the hidden economic interests behind GMOs and behind

science in general are always very strong. Afterwards he refers to a frame that he has already used earlier

in this discussion, namely that the focus on GMOs or biotechnology will not lead anywhere, as the

discussion should be broader and include different topics and aspects on agriculture. Finally, he appealed

145

to the consumer as an expression of citizenry, calling them to be conscious that they are the final

responsible of every decision made. Here Mr. Sherwood was essentially advocating that citizens must step

and take part in ‘creative political participation’, namely the one of ‘political consumerism’ (McFarland,

2012: 25-32). This last type of frame could be seen as what Benford and Snow (2000: 615-617) describes as

‘motivational framing’.

Mrs. Bravo continued using similar frames:

“[…] Ecuador needs to be a pioneer in scientific investigation, I believe it can be so, because

Ecuador is the country with more biodiversity per unit of area in the world […]. If we talk about

investigative autonomy, we have to think that the transgenic technology is all patented […] we have

to pay patents, but we have a biodiversity that can be studied, strengthen, etc… […] I think that the

only way to understand transgenic [products] is to talk about what already exists, I want to use the

case of the second and the third producers of transgenic [products] that are Argentina and Brazil

[…]. The transgenic technology of the transgenic soy is a technology that concentrates the land and

at the same time is expansive. […] Therefore [soy in Argentina] has not contributed to the food

sovereignty and on the other side neither it has increased production. […] Also, regarding the

theme of ethic […]. It is spread this idea that every scientific study that is anti-transgenic [products]

is done by corrupted people, by people that want to manipulate all the data, which does not make

a lot of sense, does it? […] The culpable of all the problems of transgenic [products] are the NGOs

[…]. A little more ethic is needed in how science is evaluated, isn’t it? […]”(Tr. 2, lines 584-665).

Mrs. Bravo recalled two initial frames used by Mr. Sherwood: (1) about the shift from the attention on

transgenic products to the attention on a different type of science, for example a science that focuses on

the study of the great biodiversity that is present in Ecuador; (2) about the hidden economic interests

behind the scientific studies done on GMOs. She also connected this last frame to another one that is

recurrent among the opponents of GMOs, namely that all the anti-GMOs opinions are being excluded from

the debate on the controversy. Furthermore, other anti-GMOs frames were recurrent in the intervention of

Mrs. Bravo, namely the one that they are not able to increase productivity, that they are threatening food

sovereignty and that their production is strictly connected to a method of production that is intensive (and

therefore harms the environment).

At this point of the discussion there was another interruption due to a phone call of a person (SPEAKER H).

First, he reflected about the fact that Ecuador should be a country envied by the others because is the only

one defending the rights of the land and of the people against the economic interests of certain companies.

Then, he asked clarifications about the relationship between the current debate on transgenic products and

146

the laws that should be approved by the Parliament concerning agro-biodiversity, seeds and agro-ecological

development (Tr. 2, lines 668-677).

Mrs. Tassi recalled the intervention of SPEAKER H and asked a related question:

“[…] It can be made a division among what is agriculture, or better the topic of transgenesis applied

to agriculture and seeds and all this, from what is transgenesis applied to medicine for example? It

can be separated and for example it can be said perhaps here in agriculture is much more complex

and dangerous, [while] in [the field of] medicine a little less? […]” (Tr. 2, lines 678-684).

The answer came from Mr. Paz y Miño:

“Actually I have started like this my intervention, dividing the theme between what concerns health

[…] and what concerns agriculture […]. I would like to talk for a little bit about the position of

science, I am going back to my ideological basis that I have managed all my life that are equity,

redistribution and use of ecology. There, in the works that the researchers do, there are of course

two visions. Some will support the economic, financial vision and we have other researchers that

we are critical of this vision and that instead the investigations that we do are […] related to the

necessities of people, to the necessities and problems including the [ones of] environment, right? I

do not have to enumerate the works that we have done about the topic, but I am going to

reference three [of them]: the theme of glyphosate […], the theme of mining […] and the theme of

pesticides, and the theme of hydrocarbons is also a fourth one. All these are evidences that there

are researches committed to the health of people and that the investigations that [they] do serve

to the social denounces, included the theme of transgenesis […]: the transgenesis in itself is not the

problem, but [the problem is] how transgenesis is going to be used in relation to the necessities of

people and in function […] of the necessities of the country. If the country realizes that this is not

useful for anything, then very well. But we do not have to start [by saying that] it is not useful at all.

[…] The transgenesis is a tool that could serve and justly to solve the problems of Ecuador and here

I forget all the rest: the Monsanto, the pesticides […]. There is a technology that we are leaving

behind for an inconsistence of information. The study of the French, of Séralini, is also questioned

by good scientists. […] The primary elements to create transgenic [products] for sure we have to

buy them, as we buy the 90%, the 80% of corn that we import […]. For this same reason the answer

has to be a national answer to a problem that we evidently have” (Tr. 2, lines 685-723).

In this comment, Mr. Paz y Miño first used the rhetorical tool of ethos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), by using

arguments that prove his trustworthiness as a scientist that work to help people and not for personal

interests. However, by claiming that the study of Séralini has been questioned by scientists ‘of quality’, he

revealed how some of the anti-GMOs scientists’ opinions are not worth of consideration. For this reason,

147

he restated that the best way to solve the current controversy is by conducting a national investigation on

the topic.

At this point of the discussion, the intervention of another person (SPEAKER I) in the chat of the radio

brought in the discussion an important reflection. In fact, after asking a question about why the majority of

the opponents of GMOs are present in Europe and not in the USA (Tr. 2, lines 723-728), Mrs. Tassi asked:

“[…] What are we going to do?” (Tr. 2, lines 728-730).

The first trying to answer to this question was Mr. Sherwood:

“[…] First I would say that there are a lot of people opposing this technology in the United States

[…]. For me Ecuador has all it needs to transform [agriculture] today, without a new technology,

even if I agree that technology always has to be innovated. Today Ecuador could transform its food

systems, making them more sustainable, more productive, more resilient […] with what we

[already] have […]. The problem of Ecuador is not a lack of production, Ecuador has more

overweight and obese [people] than undernourished ones […]. There is a lot of potential, a lot of

already existing practical sciences in the country that we are not currently using. For me we have to

invest in this […]. And when I read this law proposal about agro-biodiversity, seeds and agro-

ecological development I see an inversion in the Ecuadorian technology and I feel that there lays

the potential and I feel that we should be debating this and how to do this, instead of fighting

against the foreign interests that come to take our markets, our fields, food systems and our

biological resources”(Tr. 2, lines 731-757).

Other than responding to the question of Mrs. Giovanna, Mr. Sherwood re-proposed three opinions that he

had already presented in the discussion, namely that: (1) investigations should be done on new types of

sciences and technologies that emphasize environmental sustainability; (2) that there is not a lack of

production (but the problem is a redistribution of resources) and (3) there are hidden economic interests

behind the introduction of GMOs in the country.

The answer apparently did not satisfy Mrs. Tassi, that restated the question:

“And therefore, now, what do we do? Or better, where do we lead the discussion? How to do so [in

such a way] that we do not get into this mechanism that does not help anybody because there are

two positions, and each one talk and they do not understand each other?” (Tr. 2, lines 758-760).

Mrs. Bravo tried to answer to this question:

“Exactly. […] Really each one states his/her position and none of them is going to change […]. I

agree very much with the proposals that Steve makes, that we have a great potential in this country

148

and we have to make use of it. Regarding the agricultural theme and the consumable goods, the

political ecology has a branch of science that is also rising, it has a very interesting instrument of

work that is called social metabolism. Therefore it evaluates the flows of import, the internal flows

and the flows of export of an agricultural system, or better the systems are seen as open systems.

Therefore, the greater number of flows of import a system has, the less ecological it is. Therefore,

let’s think for example at an agricultural system based on transgenic [products]. It is a system,

speaking in terms of energy, a lot higher [in consumption], and, as Steve says, I do not want that

the economy will have to pay for this […]. Concerning the topic of transgenic [products] there is a

great polarization among good scientists that are in favor of- or against [GMOs] and it is not correct

to disqualify neither a position nor the other one, unless they have economic interests […]” (Tr. 2,

lines 761-791).

In this comment, Mrs. Bravo started by recalling the statement of Mr. Sherwood, namely that

investigations should be done on what it is already present in Ecuador, and not about transgenesis. Then,

she introduced a completely new topic, the one of social metabolism, a field of study that could be used in

order to analyze the convenience of legalize GMOs in the country. Finally, her previous, ‘more extreme’

opinion that behind the studies of GMOs there are always economic interests here seemed to become

more moderate, as she recognizes that GMOs are defended by some scientists ‘of good quality’.

Mr. Paz y Miño replied to the intervention of Mrs. Bravo:

“[…] I totally agree that the mercenary science cannot exist in countries as our own one, and that

we have different necessities and that we have problems of food, we have problems of production

[that are] totally different, we have different necessities, we have different visions. […] I repeat, I

defend technology as an extra tool that could support the development of this country […]. A

country that needs equity, that needs justice, that needs reciprocity and redistribution of the

wealth. It cannot be possible that the 20% of the population manages the 80% of the land,

therefore what are we talking about? […]” (Tr. 2, lines 793-810).

Mr. Paz y Miño began by recalling the opinion of Mrs. Bravo that the economic interests of certain

scientists should be marginalized. However, he also re-stated his perspective on the fact that there is

indeed a lack of food and production, by contrasting what Mr. Sherwood has previously said. Finally, he

connected this topic to topic of justice and equity, that are apparently disconnected from the rest of the

statement, but seemed to be used more as the rhetorical tool of pathos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), in order

to introduce topics that are emotionally touching.

Afterwards, Giovanna Tassi proposed another question:

149

“But there is also a matter of the model [of production] […] because I believe that before Ecuador

had wheat but now it does not have it because it was imposed the cultivation of other things. So

[what] I want to say [is this]: is Ecuador the result of an imposition of an agricultural model that

answered to the necessities of the period? […] Can we have both food sovereignty and […] food

security?” (Tr. 2, lines 811-815).

This question revealed the worry of Mrs. Tassi about the different economic and political interests that are

at play in the discussions about the agricultural systems to be used in Ecuador.

Mr. Sherwood was the one answering:

“I would say that food sovereignty in Ecuador already exists […]. And facing the problem of

transgenic [products] in agriculture, I feel that it is the right answer to the wrong question, and we,

as scientists, have to start to bring up new questions and to stop to search for solutions and to

begin to ask and to come back to this scientific institution” (Tr. 2, lines 816-823).

Again, Mr. Sherwood here was representing the proposal that different types of investigation should be

made, not only the ones about transgenesis.

Mrs. Tassi replied to the comment of Mr. Sherwood:

“[…] When you bring up questions you bring up a paradigm, that is where to start the reflection

from. That is, if you start from the reflection […] of the global multitude that talks only about the

production in massive terms, I think that here we are wrong because Ecuador could [never]

produce massive quantities, neither if it would like, because of the morphology of the country […].

Therefore let’s hope that we achieve to keep talking about these themes […], putting on the table

the pros and cons and managing to find a way, a new way” (Tr. 2, lines 824-831).

In this comment it can be noticed how Mrs. Tassi connected the topic of GMOs to the one of intensive

agriculture, a link that is recurrent among the opponents of GMOs.

After this comment, Mr. Paz y Miño intervened by making clear that:

“[…] the answer has also to be inclusive, and the biotechnology of DNA is a tool that has to be

considered as well” (Tr. 2, lines 832-833).

He therefore restated the importance of science and of conducting research on transgenesis. Nevertheless,

when asked by Giovanna Tassi if the farmers are not important as well, he agrees with her that they are

indeed.

Mrs. Bravo however re-proposed her different opinion:

150

“Well […] it is not a scientific debate, is it? And [I want] to say that DNA and […] transgenic

[products] are not an extra tool. In the countries where the transgenic [products] have been

adopted it has been a journey with no return, for example in Paraguay […]. [Here, since when]

transgenic cotton had been approved […] there was not non-transgenic cotton [anymore]. It

disappeared!” (Tr. 2, lines 836-841).

This last comment of Mrs. Bravo revealed a perspective that is even more extreme, as GMOs are framed (1)

not as a scientific topic (but more a topic that should be discussed among the more interested groups of

social actors, i.e. the farmers) and (2) not as something that should be even investigated, as they do not

present any new opportunity and instead lead to a one-way direction of agriculture. Moreover, they GMOs

were indirectly described as able to harm biodiversity, through the example of Paraguay.

Mrs. Tassi recalled this frame of GMOs as organisms able to harm biodiversity:

“Yes it is an erosion of the national patrimony of seeds […]. And because of this, [there is] the

danger of these big companies that hybridize seeds so that there is not the possibility for a farmer

to come back to sow but he will always have to buy […]”(Tr. 2, lines 842-847).

Other than the frame of GMOs as able to harm biodiversity, Mrs. Tassi used another frame that is recurrent

among the opponents of GMOs and that had been used various times in this conversation, namely that

GMOs are used by companies to protect their interests by enslaving the farmers. Mr. Sherwood connected

his argument to this comment of Mrs. Tassi:

“And I worry that our President Correa has gone to North Carolina in the United States to search

science and technology. My advice to the President is to go to Ecuador to search science and

technology, because yes, it exists. He does not need to go to the United States to search for

solutions […]”(Tr. 2, lines 848-852).

In his last comment, it can be seen of Mr. Sherwood restated the need of conducting investigations on what

is already present in the country, without the need of investigating in transgenesis.

The last comment before the end of the discussion was the one of Mr. Paz y Miño:

“Sure, but for sure we also have good answers in Ecuador, including its own proposal to create a university

dedicated to biodiversity, but the study of biodiversity will have to include the study of DNA with all the

techniques available to study this biodiversity and to see if including this [the transgenesis] it is useful for us

to solve human problems” (Tr. 2, lines 854-858).

151

Mr. Paz y Miño as well restated his point: he would accept the investigations on other types of agricultural

production, but such investigations must include the research on DNA and transgenesis to be conducted as

well.

In the next page, table 2 summarizes all the contrasting frames of GMOs used in this public discussion,

providing a comparison among the frames of this topic used by the different speakers.

152

MRS. TASSI MRS. BRAVO MR. PAZ Y MIÑO MR. SHERWOOD MR. GORTAIRE

GMOs are unnatural products (frame

supported by SPEAKERS G and H)

GMOs are unnatural products as they work ‘against the ecosystems’

GMOs have negative effects on health

(frame supported by SPEAKER G)

GMOs can be used in the medical field GMOs can be used in the medical field GMOs can be used in the medical field

Investigations should be done on the already existing biodiversity of Ecuador

and on how to improve it, not on GMOs, because this is a journey with no return

Investigations should be done both on the organic/ecological agricultural

systems and on transgenesis (frame supported by SPEAKER C)

Investigations should be done on the current, practical alternatives already

existing in Ecuador, not on GMOs (frame supported by SPEAKERS D and E)

Investigations should be done on the ecological/organic

agricultural systems

The Constitution is blocking the

investigations

The proposals done in the Constitution represent the correct re-direction in the agricultural model that Ecuador should

implement

The technology used to produce GMOs is

not safer The technology used to produce GMOs is

safer

The production of GMOs require a

greater use of pesticides

The production of GMOs is related to an intensive agricultural production

The production of GMOs is related to an intensive agricultural production

There are hidden economic interests behind the introduction of GMOs


There are hidden economic interests behind the introduction of GMOs, but

the topic of science and economic interests must be separated

(frame supported by SPEAKER B)


There is a problem of lack of food There is not a problem of lack of food

GMOs do not increase productivity GMOs increase productivity (frame

supported by SPEAKER C)

Important social actors are being excluded from the debate (frame

supported by SPEAKER G)

There is the necessity of not excluding actors from the debate

The government is excluding important social actors from the debate

GMOs do not last, natural seeds do

Consumers do not want GMOs Consumers do not want GMOs and are

responsible of opposing them Consumers do not want

GMOs

GMOs have negative effect on the environment and on biodiversity

GMOs have negative effect on the environment and on biodiversity

The introduction of GMOs would be

costly according to the study of social metabolism

Table 2

153

6.4.3 Public discussion on February, 26th 2013

The public discussion here presented has taken place during the program Minga por la Pachamama,

transmitted by the Public Radio of Ecuador. In this debate, three main speakers that are involved in the

controversy of GMOs in Ecuador have participated, namely: (1) Cesar Paz y Miño, researcher on the topic

and responsible of the department of the biomedical investigation of the University of Americas in Quito;

Stephen Sherwood, a member of the NGO Ekorural, professor of the University of Wageningen (the

Netherlands) and organic farmer in Quito; (3) Myriam Paredes, professor at the University FLACSO of Quito

and part of the Comisión de Consumidores, of the Colectivo Agroecológico. In the public discussion was also

present Mr. Gortaire, with the role of presenting- and mediating among the actors.

The recording of the discussion presented few audio problems, therefore few times, especially in the

breaks between one speaker’s intervention and the next one’s, the recording was cut off. However, the

interventions of the speakers were almost fully grabbed, therefore the public discussion was considered to

be relevant for the objectives of this thesis.

The discussion started with a brief general presentation and with a brief awarding of the persons involved

in the discussion made by Mr. Gortaire, that claimed also that:

“[…] the fundamental intention [of this encounter] is to trigger a confrontation as much as possible

[…]” (Tr. 3, lines 25-29)

After this brief introduction, the first intervention was done by Mr. Paz y Miño:

“[…] Already many of you know me and know which is my orientation, and I am going to do a very

brief summary of what I think about this theme […]. This is a topic that I manage because it seems

to me that is much more accessible, much clearer, that an alive organism […] which has been

reproduced in an artificial way […] with the purpose of obtaining certain characteristics that

interests us […]. And this is the peculiarity of this, that is artificial. Therefore, this allows us to do

many things […]. Why did I put here a new proposal for the transgenic [products]? Also because on

February, 25th will be forty years since the appearance of the first transgenic [product], that is, we

have forty years of experience in this. […] [There is] a limited information of the public about

transgenic [products], which creates a bunch of myths and this has to do with the development of

biotechnology, bio-security for the treatment of these transgenic organisms, and this for me

compromises a change in the vision about transgenic [products]: that we talk as a country about

the qualities of transgenic [products], because they have many qualities, and we stop the scientific

development with the constitutional lock that currently exists to prohibit to Ecuador [the use of]

transgenic seeds. And therefore this, at least for me […] is the necessity of modifying a law that is

154

absurd from the perspective of the application of transgenic technology. […] The global surface

cultivated with modified organisms reaches 170,3 millions of hectares, this has been an increase of

6% with respect to the previous year, and since when transgenic [seeds] started to be sowed […]

more than half of the surfaces [are located] in developing countries: 52% of what is produced is of

the developing countries […]. [About] the use [of transgenic products], I can focus on three things:

the agro-industry, the environment and health. About health almost nobody complains, because

the benefits are extremely impacting, the vaccines, the hormones, the medicines, etc… About the

environment, concerning […] bioremediation there are enough people that say that is ok, despite

there are people that say that bacteria should not be used in a place, etc… The theme of agro-

industry I think is the most complex, because we are talking about freeing transgenic [products] in

the environment, and this brings a series of consequences […]. Therefore, what is wanted with the

theme of transgenic [products] with the current diction is to improve the productive characteristics,

for sure of the farms; the resistance to diseases through the genetic manipulation; animal models

of human diseases (the transgenic animals like bio-reactors for the synthesis of proteins of great

nutritional value, therapeutic [value], nutritious [value], etc […]. And therefore what are the

problems? Here [in the power point presentation that Mr. Paz y Miño is showing] I have put some:

multiple integration of the gene that we are putting […]; undetermined place of integration […];

assortment […]. Therefore here I summarize […] this problem of the normal transmissions, and

what it is being said right now, that a transgenic [product] could transmit the characteristic in an

horizontal way, or transmit to its descendants and these as well [could] create more transgenic

[products]. Therefore this is the conflict that is ongoing from the genetic point of view […]. There

are some in favor, others [are] against. [The problem concerns] a political vision for sure: what do

we want as a country, we want to depend, we do not want to depend, what are we going to do

with the pressures of international [companies], etc… [The] vision of the ecologists [is]: transgenic

[products] are associated with transnational [companies], [with the] dependence of the product:

this is an issue that at least I think that we should free us as a country by proposing new things

ourselves. All transgenic [products] are bad? [This] is one of the questions […]. Therefore here [in

the power point presentation] are the criteria in favor […] that more or less can be summarized in

the theme that DNA integrates itself in the individual, [and that] this DNA produces changes and

therefore is bad: it is going to produce tumors, it is going to produce diseases, it is going to produce

allergies. Therefore there is a series of experimentations and scientific proves that demystify this

theme and this is a little what I am going to suggest with a [power point] slide. Here you have

enough things but what I want is to contemplate an issue about this of the DNA integration in the

individual […] is a thing that is simple logic: all the food items have for sure a DNA […]. A gene is a

part of one million, that is nothing, of the DNA that we are eating. The digestion denaturalizes the

155

DNA, this is proved, and the DNA of the food items never comes to incorporates itself to our

organisms, because in this case we would have incorporated everything we eat. Therefore, what is

a mythological part? […] Therefore, questions of the economic impacts, affectation of the

ecosystem, affectation on health, allergies, change of nutritional profile, resistance to antibiotics

[…] is what has been suggested when you put a transgenic [product] above all in the environment

[…]. Notable damages has not been observed, less pesticides around the insects that have been

approved, each GMO analyzed separately, no generalizations on GMOs, no generalizations, we

have to talk case by case of what happens with all this. […] No effects on health have been

detected, and continuous controls are recommended. And the last thing […] by doing an analysis of

the bibliography […] [among] the articles […] that have been approved, the general conclusion is

this one: of seventeen studies on humans […] only three studies evaluate the clinical outcome of

the use of transgenic [products], two studies report a significant lower level of pesticides among

children that consume organic diets (also this is an important issue) and the studies in adults did

not find any difference of bio-markers in any vital liquid nor tissue and not even clinical

deficiencies. […] Therefore look, not only we are not being a country free of transgenic [products]

or transgenic seeds […], [as] we have seventy transgenic products [that are] circulating in additives,

flours, medicines, hormones and cotton, but also in other countries [this] is not prohibited, it is

regulated, and this is our proposal. First to regulate [this], and then that we do [our] own

investigation, that we do not believe to anybody if they tell us is bad, I do not believe them, I do not

believe them. Let’s make [our] own investigation […]”(Tr. 3, lines 30-103).

In this long intervention, Mr. Paz y Miño used different positive frames of GMOs that he has used both

during his interview and during the public discussion conducted on October, 31st. These included the

definitions of transgenic products as organisms that (1) in general have demonstrated to have positive

qualities; (2) are able to increase productivity; (3) have an endogenous higher resistance to diseases; (3)

cannot provoke any type of horizontal nor vertical contamination; (4) have been proved not to have

negative effects on health. At the same time, Mr. Paz y Miño accused the Constitution of blocking the

scientific development of the country, while claiming for the authorization of national, independent

investigation on GMOs. However, Mr. Paz y Miño also recognized that GMOs still face technical issues that

must be solved, but this opinion only strengthened his idea that investigation should be conducted in the

country. During his intervention, Mr. Paz y Miño used different types of logical reasoning or logos

(Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) to support his statements. First, he compared the health effect that could have

the DNA of a transgenic product to the ones provoked by any DNA of any ‘regular’ food item, explaining

how if the latter one does not have any effect on health because is denaturalized during the digestion, the

former one will not have any effect as well. Second, he referred to the fact that in Ecuador citizens are

already consuming (imported) transgenic products, therefore to ban their production would be illogical.

156

After the intervention of Mr. Paz y Miño, was the turn of Mr. Sherwood:

“[…] I want to talk about the agricultural part, because personally I am not worried about the work

of transgenic [products] regarding the topic of health, [that are made] in laboratories, under

control. My preoccupations are if we release functional genes in the environment, in the

ecosystems, [in the] food systems, that we cannot control. I am going to focus on this theme. […]

My studies have been on the agricultural modernization and its impacts, above all concerning

themes of health, of its effect of pesticides, effects on human health and also effects on

ecosystems. […] I am not talking in theory, I have been cultivating the land since [I was] young, I

keep on cultivating it and I am not very idealistic, I am quite practical, I am not a childish ecologist,

has our President has said. Instead, my worry is the social change […]. In the university where I have

studied and worked a lot on the theme of introducing the first generation of transgenic [products],

in my country [the United States] […], honestly I was in love with this technology […] and yes it was

functioning at the level of the cultivation of potatoes, [but] it was not functioning at the political

level nor at the level of insects. Mi following job was to study insects […], to see the mechanisms of

resistance and then [to see] how we could manage the resistance to maintain susceptible

populations in this population” (Tr. 3, lines 104-131).

Afterwards, Mr. Sherwood told an anecdote about the transgenic potatoes that McDonald’s has retired

from the market, due to the dissatisfaction of its consumers, and used this anecdote to remind the

audience about the power of consumers (Tr. 3, lines 131-140). Then, presenting a book published by the

NGO Acción Ecológica, Mr. Sherwood focused on other concerns for the use of GMOs:

“I think that yes, as the doctor Paz y Miño has mentioned, there are a lot less references on the

theme of health […]. It is going to take many generations to define- and to have any point about

health. I want to mention five myths. First, listening to the President last week, the President

Correa said that transgenic [products] are going to increase production four times. I have data of

the last sixteen years of the United States of what has happened through time, studying

transgenesis, principally corn and potatoes. There is not increase of production per area, above all

when we consider productivity. What we can tell is that we have increased the use of herbicides

[…], productivity has remained the same or has fallen, above all due to the costs of herbicides […].

To the ones that believe that they decrease the [use of] pesticides […], [I tell] there is no evidence

of this […]; rather, the use increases […]. And there are conditions of dependency, because facing

reasons that we can discuss, in the insects they are related to resistance but also in the control of

weeds […]. And there is an interesting theme because now they are saying that the transgenic

[products] are going to help in handling this issue of climate change. There was an interesting

article, last year, in the magazine Nature, that is the most scientifically rigorous at the global level,

157

and they say that there is no effect […]. Why are we taking this risk when there are safe

mechanisms like the soil management, the management of organic material, that do not imply

ecological problems and possibly problems of health? And about themes that they are controllable

in the ecosystems and in the environment, we can discuss [this]. But I think that no [they are not

controllable], and this is the main worry: what is going to happen when these genes begin to enter,

in relatives, for examples of the potato, in a center of origin as Ecuador. Therefore for me there are

two worries, one is moral, the ecological contamination without being able to control, freeing

functional genes in the ecosystem is problematic […] and the political part, the part against a public

good, the seeds, the crops and with them the hand of the private [sector]. I have listened people

here saying that it does not matter, [that] we are going to control Monsanto […]. I do not agree, I

do not think that Ecuador can control the biotechnological industry. Canada and the United States

did not achieve [this control], it is not achieving it China, it is not achieving it Brazil, and I do not

think that Ecuador is going to be able to control these companies. […] I am not convinced that

Ecuador can control the private industry. For me this is a risk that is not necessary […]. The

Ecuadorian consumers eat every year and drink eight millions of dollars […] this is an important

power. […] At the moment in which the Ecuadorians decide not to buy transgenic products, already

they are not going to have a market […]”(Tr. 3, lines 143-192).

As well as Mr. Paz y Miño, Mr. Sherwood used different frames of GMOs, this time negative ones, that he

had used during the public discussion conducted on October, 31st. These included the definitions of

transgenic products as organisms that: (1) are not able to increase productivity; (2) present problems of

contamination; (3) present problems of dependency and consequent resistance both in the case of insects

and in the case of weeds; (4) increase the use of chemical products in the field; (5) represent a risk from the

point of view of the markets and of the consumers. Therefore, the only point of reconciliation among this

intervention and the previous one was the agreement of Mr. Sherwood with the use of transgenic products

for medical purposes. Mr. Sherwood made use as well of some rhetorical tools. First, by using the rhetorical

tool of ethos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), he underlined his trustworthiness as a speaker by recalling the

time when he was young and, as a researcher, had been initially fascinated as well by this technology. This

strategy helped Mr. Sherwood to deny the idea for which he is an convinced ecologist that opposes GMOs

regardless. Second, he used the rhetorical tool of logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), in order to prove the

impossibility for Ecuador to be able to contrast the interests of multinational companies, as bigger and

reputedly more powerful countries have not been able to achieve this goal, so neither will be Ecuador.

After Mr. Sherwood, Mrs. Paredes intervened, focusing more on the law of food sovereignty (LORSA),

which includes the article that prohibits the use of transgenic crops and seeds:

158

“[…] I want to make clear that in this law it is not prohibited absolutely the consumption of

transgenic [products] in Ecuador […]. Therefore, the Ecuadorians are consuming already many

transgenic products. What the law indeed asks and demands is that these foods that contain

transgenic products may be appropriately identified, which does not always happen. […] I only want

to make this clear because I believe that the principal discussion from which the debate rose was

about the modification of article 26, where transgenic seeds and crops are prohibited. Ecuador, for

example, imports a great quantity of transgenic soy for the feeding of animals, as chickens […], but

this soy needs to enter [in the country] destroyed, it cannot enter entire because obviously the

seeds could be used again. Therefore I want to make this clear because in reality my discussion is

about transgenic seeds and crops, which is the part of the constitution that they want to change

right now […]. Therefore I am going to talk from the theme of food sovereignty, because I believe

that we have not even managed to assimilate the theme of food sovereignty, and we are already

talking about changing the Constitution. Because I believe that many of us have heard the theme of

food sovereignty, but very often we confuse it with food security. Why to do a law of food

sovereignty in Ecuador, when we had program of food security for more than fifty years in the

world, promoted very much by the FAO, and also Ecuador itself within the government has kept […]

programs of food security. Therefore, like that, [with] a law of food sovereignty we could be doing

many things with respect to food. Basically, because food sovereignty does not only take into

account the access to food items, but also the forms of production of foods. Is because of this, that

the law prohibits the transgenic seeds and crops… it is inside the law of food sovereignty, right?

Because it is taking into account the forms of production and not only the access to food. This is a

thing that must be, let’s say, very clear so that we know why we are now talking about transgenic

[products]. Before no, it was not discussed in this sense, right? And, to begin, why was it

prohibited? Well, therefore I would like to tell you that based on food sovereignty that are various

paragraphs in this law, that consider not the access to food, as the most important [topic] of the

law, but the conditions that can lead to food sovereignty, which is promoting a change in society:

not a change in the form of feeding, not a change in the access to food, but a change in the

aggregations of society. Therefore, basically [while] some would say [that it concerns] a change in

the model [of agriculture]… many others would say: ‘No, it is not a change of model but a change in

the internal aggregations of society’. Now, how these relationships are going to change? I am going

to come across various points that the law of food sovereignty mentions, and that are related to

which are the conditions prior to begin, if you want to talk about if we need or not, in Ecuador,

transgenic [products] in forms of seeds or crops. One of the first preconditions is the appropriate

access to quantity and quality of land, without debts that condemn the receiving families to the

acceptance of technological packages and commercial compromises that are not in harmony with

159

their reality: in other words, not simply hand over land to people, but to not hand over land as a

debt so [that they are] completely tied to accept a technological package that in addition is tied to

the productive linking. This is one of the first preconditions for food sovereignty. The second one is

the access to the factors that allow the reproduction of the fertility of the soil. That is, here we all

know, or at least we have an idea, that it is not important for us to buy a land, if in this land we do

not have, for example, in the city, [public] services […]. Well, in the field, a soil that is without

services of water […] of irrigation for example, a soil that is infertile […] nobody wants to buy it […]

if it is a farmer. Therefore this is the second condition of food sovereignty: how to access a soil that

is fertile and in addition to create conditions so that this fertility may reproduce itself. […] The other

thing is that the fertility of the soils is very much related with the quantity of diseases that attack

the crops, right? Therefore, once that we do not treat a basic problem as the access to land, and

afterwards, [the access to] fertile land, we are not tackling the principal problem of production. The

Ecuadorians still eat from the 60% to the 75% of products that come from small farms. And the

fertilities of the small farms are the ones that will give us food sovereignty in the future. Is because

of this that we are talking about these conditions of food sovereignty. […] It does not matter that

we have, let’s say, the super and very important transgenic [products] that could tolerate a bunch

of problems of climate, but if we do not have land, if we do not have fertile land, if we do not have

access to services, with very much difficulty we are going to be able to talk about the rise of

production. We have not been able to do it through the Green Revolution for more or less seventy

years, why should we do it now from one day to the next one? Therefore a main problem that is

happening now is that we are not accomplishing the preconditions of the law of food sovereignty

and we, as well as part of the government, are jumping to talk about a technology that is said to be

latest model of technology, etc… when in reality we do not even have the basic conditions of

production. Therefore this is one of the reasons why various movements that are not necessarily

ecological [ones], honestly, I did not hear that much the ecologists as the people that come from

the farmers’ organizations being very worried about the theme of transgenic [products] when they

hear that [food sovereignty] has not been accomplished yet, the debt that the President speaks

about has not been paid first and already he is talking about transgenic [products]! […] We are not

discussing the theme of transgenic [products] in general. We are discussing why Ecuador, as a

country that has been clearly a country of agricultural production for consumption [and]

agricultural rural production, is talking about a quite broad theme as transgenic [organisms] in

crops and seeds, when we are not still capable of managing our own diversity, for example, to

protect and to see how we advance with this current diversity. […] For example, a very important

question that I have for the doctor Mr. Paz y Miño is: which are the parts of the Constitution that

limit the investigation of transgenic [products] for health [reasons]? That I still do not achieve to

160

identify which is this limitation that the Constitution has, because I feel that the article of the

Constitution that prohibits transgenic [organisms] in seeds and crops does not influence the

interests of the transgenic investigation in the theme of health, right? The other [thing] that I

wanted to mention from the presentation of the doctor is that, if the DNA does not enter in our

body […], it does not become part of our body… pesticides do, and we have a lot of evidence that

seeds are not the great business of the industries that produce transgenic seeds, industries do not

make profit out of seeds, [they] make profit in selling their chemical products, right? Fertilizers as

well as pesticides. And the doctor Paz y Miño has made very important studies here in Ecuador on

the effects of glyphosate […] on human health. Then well, the glyphosate is one of the herbicides

that is most used and the use of glyphosate in Brazil has almost doubled with transgenic soy

[…].The transgenic [products] are a technology that has developed in a very particular country, that

are mainly the United States, it is a country that was in a transition where it needed to reduce the

labor in the field, a condition that is completely contrary to the one we have in Ecuador, where

instead we need to increase the use of labor in the field, right? […] it is a technology created for

specific needs, for a specific country, or a specific social and economic reality that is not […] the one

of Ecuador. Therefore, it is not a technology for small farms, right? […] With respect to [the topic of]

finance, I only know that for the industries of transgenic [products] is very important that new

countries adopt the transgenic technology because they not only, let’s say, have patented the final

product but also the intermediate processes of the transgenic technology. In other words, we

would have to pay, as Brazil does it, for […] all that is necessary in the intermediate [period of time]

to those big industries that have developed the technology. I am not an expert in development of

transgenic [products], but this is what has occurred in Brazil, I do not know for which reasons or in

which way Brazil is less, let’s say, sovereign than Ecuador. I do not know how we are going to

manage [this problem] here in Ecuador. […] Concerning the banks of seeds, it exists a bank of seeds

in Ecuador, is managed by the National Institute of Agricultural and Livestock Investigations [the

INIAP]. The problem of transgenic [products] is […] what we call […] cross-pollination, is to say that

the pollen goes and pollinates […] the different plants […]. This pollen can travel until twenty

kilometers […] and when it is transgenic pollen it can contaminate all the seeds, even the native

ones of a country. And finally yes, […] the transgenic technology is created specifically for the

monoculture, why? In the case of the United States, what they need are millions of hectares or

what they call the deserts of corn, right? Almost everything that it is eaten in the United States, to

give an example, contains corn. It has been proved that corn is in almost everything […] in different

types of forms […]” (Tr. 3, lines 193-310).

In this long intervention, Mrs. Paredes recalled different frames previously used by Mr. Sherwood, namely

that GMOs (1) make use of a greater quantity of chemical products during their cultivation; (2) are used by

161

multinational companies for economic interests, which could not be limited by the government of Ecuador;

(3) are able to contaminate other plants (thus threatening biodiversity); (4) are a technology that is

appropriate only for monocultures, which are not suitable for the morphology of Ecuador; (5) could be used

for medical purposes (because in this case they are produced under control). However, the logical strategy

or logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) used by Mrs. Paredes, differed from the one used by Mr. Sherwood. In

fact, the whole discourse of Mrs. Paredes was focused on a correlated topic to the one of transgenic

products, i.e. the one of food sovereignty. Mrs. Paredes in fact first listed all the conditions that are

essential for the fulfillment of food sovereignty in Ecuador, which in turn is essential for the wealth of all

those small farms that produce the great majority of the food consumed in Ecuador. Afterwards, she

demonstrated how the fulfillment of food sovereignty in Ecuador and the introduction of transgenic

products are essentially incompatible. Additionally, Mrs. Paredes provided a comparison among Ecuador

and United States, focusing on how these two countries have different needs, that cannot be satisfied in

either case with the cultivation of GMOs.

After Mrs. Paredes, Mr. Sherwood intervened again. Once having recalled an episode of his career as a

researcher in which both Monsanto and the American farmers were convinced that using transgenic

products was the best option and in which they managed to have their perspective heard from the

American government, Mr. Sherwood continued:

“I do not trust very much our capacity of regulating the power that has this industry of

biotechnology and its motivations of sales. And for me Ecuador should invest in a new technology,

and for me GMOs are an old technology […] are at least twenty-five years since when I have started

working with transgenic [products], and for me it is an obsolete technology. We have to look for

technologies that work with the ecosystems and not against it. […] In reality my worry is not that

much about transgenic [products], [it] goes beyond transgenic [products]. We should have already

learned from the great disaster that we have in the Unites States [and] also in Brazil […], and [we

should] look for an innovative Ecuadorian technology that goes beyond all these limitations that we

have identified in transgenic [products] and in agriculture […]” (Tr. 3, 311-331).

In this intervention, other than repeating the frame for which GMOs are being used only because of the

economic interests of certain companies and this despite the fact they hurt the environment, Mr.

Sherwood provided a new logical reasoning or logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) for not approving the

investigations on GMOs in Ecuador. In fact, while previously Mr. Sherwood had been contrasting the idea of

making a national investigation because of the fear that the interests of powerful multinational companies

would not be controllable, now he claimed that if Ecuador wants to invest in innovative technologies, it

should not invest in GMOs, which represent an old type of technology due to the fact that they have been

investigated for more than twenty-five years.

162

After Mr. Sherwood was the turn of Mr. Paz y Miño:

“[…] I begin from what my colleagues have been asking me […]. First, fortunately the Constitution

does not have any part […] about the investigation on transgenic [products] on health […]. It is

specific on the theme of seeds and plants. Therefore for me […] there is a terrible moral

contradiction, that says: ‘I prohibit seeds, I prohibit investigation, but let’s bring everything we

want. […] Therefore our proposal […] is: we have the option of developing [our] own investigations.

Here I answer to the question of Stephen as well: I am not naïve [about the fact] that Ecuador is

going to win against Monsanto, nor against any of the transnational [companies] of this magnitude,

but yes we can have an […] autonomous science, a national science that allows us to put sufficient

barriers for the technological and scientific colonialism. And if we do not do this, we are gypped.

Therefore this makes me answer the question that you did as well, the theme of investigation in

Ecuador, that is, if we not aim at doing investigation in everything we can do investigation on,

including the transgenic technology, we will be subjected to the transnational [companies], both if

we want it or not. Therefore rather, our instrument in this moment is to develop [our] own

investigation that could allow us to have the sufficient foods for… included [for] saying to the

President himself: ‘This is not convenient for us’ […]. [This] has always been the proposal: may we

investigate, may we have the sufficient argument for saying, with our strength of investigation: ‘this

is convenient’ as a country. The transgenic [products] or the transgenic technology are an extra

tool. In this I completely agree with Stephen that there is a technology that we could develop, very

well! But the transgenic [products] are an extra tool. And we have to employ it in a smart way. If

this shows to me […] that transnational [companies] will oppose us, very well! But yes we have the

capacity of developing [transgenic products] here. [For example] the research that is being done in

ESPOL on banana trees […] is a demonstration that we can develop [GMOs] here, on our own. [We

can develop] products that are useful for people. [And] if we can demonstrate that they are not

useful to people, that they are bad, that health is being harmed, then we have to oppose [them]

[…]. But as there is no evidence, our obligation is to conduct investigation and with a national

investigation, thus maintaining an honorable position as a country, as we have kept in other various

aspects of international policy of the country. Therefore I aim at the investigation as a form to free

us and [as a way] to be sovereign […]” (Tr. 3, lines 332-360).

All this intervention of Mr. Paz y Miño aimed at restating and defending a frame that he has already

presented earlier in the discussion, namely that GMOs can be a tool used for benefiting the country of

Ecuador, that should and could be investigated in an autonomous and independent way.

163

After a brief discussion between one member of the audience and Mr. Paz y Miño about the possibility and

the cost of creating a center of investigation of transgenic [products] in Ecuador (Tr. 3, lines 362-366)., Mr.

Paz y Miño continued:

“[…] There are different positions. […] The deductions that I have made come to the conclusion that

the discussion is still open because nobody has said the last word in the theme of transgenic

[products] and health. […] The issue is about how science has to serve people, and therefore from

this perspective we have to defend the scientific work for the people. Because of this I oppose

patents and the issues regarding financial benefits […]. But yes I support the theme of investigation

and the work in transgenic [products], because it can be an instrument that benefits people […]”

(Tr. 3, lines 366-376).

Again, Mr. Paz y Miño aimed at restating and defending the frame for which GMOs can be an opportunity

of scientific development for Ecuador, and therefore this country should promote investigations in this

field.

Afterwards, Mr. Sherwood replied by reframing what according to Mr. Paz y Miño is a need of the country,

namely the investigation on GMOs:

“[…] We do not need GMOs, [as] there are many ways of doing these things, and they do not

require to take so many risks. […] Let’ use science for the sake of using science! This means being

idiots, honestly. Another thing that I want to mention is that the problem of this planet is not to

feed the world. Today we have sufficient production to feed the population of 2050 […]. The

problem is not a source of production, neither the world problem is undernourishment: as the

doctors in this room know, there are more fat and obese [people] in this planet than

undernourished [ones]. And we know that the problem of overweight is worse in terms of

economy, environment and above all of health. And if I am not mistaken seven of the first ten

causes of death in this country are related with overweight and inactivity. […] We have to go

beyond this idea that food items are lacking. We have too many food items and too much of a

wrong system of production […]. A smart scientific system of agriculture should improve the fertility

of soils through time, not make it worse […].” (Tr. 3, lines 377-390).

Mr. Sherwood started by restating his position towards the inutility of investigating GMOs. This time he did

so by using the tool of ‘identity frames’ (Gardner, 2003), and describing as ‘an idiot’ whoever wants to use

science only because of the assumption that science is good anyways. Moreover, he introduced a frame

that he had already used in the discussion of October 31st, namely that GMOs are not needed to solve the

problem of world hunger, due to the fact that this derives from a wrong distribution of resources and not

from a lack of production. Moreover, he made the connection between GMOs and, in general, the

164

conventional agricultural methods that have been used so far, by framing both as being part of a ‘wrong

system of production’. This connection was made by many people involved in the controversy, as

aforementioned in the analysis of the public discussion transmitted by the Public Radio on October, 17th.

Mrs. Paredes intervened in the discussion:

“Regarding the demonstration or not of the effects of transgenic [products]: I […] have been part of

a group of investigation on the effects of pesticides on human health, and the pesticides that have

been mainly used in the production of potato here in Ecuador […], for sure pesticides that [are] now

completely prohibited but that are still [being] sold […]. Before there was no investigation because

there was no money to do real investigation, serious investigation, investigation […] of thirty years

to see that really a technology can affect human health. We saw that after fifty years of having

introduced these pesticides […] the effects were devastating, the 65% of the rural population in the

province of Carchi is affected by these pesticides that mainly influence the neurological system and

the nervous central system […]. Therefore what I want to say is that I want to put again over the

table the theme of the precautionary principle: if we can demonstrate that something is going to

take thirty years to be demonstrated, if in thirty years it is going to cost for us to demonstrate that

we are going to have problems […], why, if we have more important problems to solve in Ecuador,

we have to accept a new technology that is still not approved? […] We do not have the resources to

finance this type […] of investigation. Something that worries me is how we […] are willing as a

country, and, let’s say, [this is] suggested very much by the government, to spend great quantities

[of money] in one type of investigation and not in others. That is, it is a completely political issue. I

do not know why we are here if the President in the lasts weeks has already said that the

transgenic [products] are going to be free in the country. Therefore, do we have any power? This is

my question. Can we do something or are we here only let’s say because we are interested in

learning more of what has already been decided? Therefore this is something that we decide

ourselves and this is what I want to invite you to do: to inform more people and to tell them please

to investigate […]” (Tr. 3, lines 391-418).

In this intervention Mrs. Paredes restated her opinion for which the promotion of GMOs is carried out to

promote the interests of only certain groups of social actors. However, here she also added that these

interests are supported by other, political interests in Ecuador. Moreover, to convince the audience about

the fact that the effects of GMOs cannot be said to be innocuous on health, she used a logical reasoning or

logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217), making a comparison between GMOs and pesticides. As the latter ones, in

the past, had been said to be innocuous and, afterwards, have revealed to be dangerous, Mrs. Paredes

claimed that the same could happen in the case of the former ones.

165

Mr. Paz y Miño replied to this intervention:

“[…] The experience of other countries that is being mentioned all the time it has not been proved

yet […]. I have experienced this, forty years of my life, talking about the experience of others, and is

because of this that this country concerning science is almost zero, and this bothers me, because I

have always heard the same […]. Therefore, I have at least rebelled myself concerning this issue and

I have done work in investigating on issues that have affected people. It is true that I have studied

the glyphosate, the damages of pesticides, the radiations, etc. With the idea that this has to be

useful for people and without considering the trend of what the others had already made or not.

Therefore, from this perspective I believe that we have an obligation to investigate […]. If the

government gives money for the investigation in areas that demonstrate benefits for the people,

we have to oblige the government to give us money for investigation that benefit people. I do not

like when I hear that Monsanto wants to sell everything, that Monsanto is going to give us

glyphosate, […]. Well, let’s stop Monsanto! Let’s stop them with the investigation, developing our

products […]. It is very easy to say: you know what? Let’s stop! […] And let’s not buy [transgenic

products] from them! But we have not proposed anything concrete! […] They say [to do] agriculture

in a different way? Very well, as long as they make sure that this agriculture is going to give us food

for everybody, not only one part! Because if we are going [to talk] about this, the theme of the

tendency of land as it is in Ecuador, 80% of the land is [in the hands of] the 20% of owners of the

population! Therefore the interests about land in this country also have to be managed. […] As a

country we have to have concrete proposal of scientific, technological development that allow us to

free us from Monsanto, from DUPONT, from whoever, as long as we have alternatives that benefit

people” (Tr. 3, lines 419-440).

In this intervention, Mr. Paz y Miño was restating his opinion for which investigation on GMOs should be

done. However, in order to answer to the counterclaims of Mr. Sherwood and Mrs. Paredes (that claim that

investigation should be done in different agricultural models), this time Mr. Paz y Miño used a different

logos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). In fact, he accuses these different types of agricultural models to not have

been able to prove to be beneficial for people, and to hide as well economic and political interests behind

their promotion. Mr. Paz y Miño also used the rhetorical tool of ethos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) by

recalling the fact that he has been investigating in this field for many years, conducting research that has

proved to be beneficial for people.

Mr. Sherwood replied to the intervention of Mr. Paz y Miño:

“[…] I want to mention that technology is not […] good or bad, is a system of power. When we

invented the car we invented as well the car crushes […]. We have to think at the technological

166

consequences […]. Today we are capable of being the main actors of the planet. For the first time in

the human history […] we can be important actors, of such a level that we can destroy the earth

[…]. We have to begin to be a little more strategic […]. Biotechnology is a power, but we have to

work with certain types of biotechnology that fosters resilience […] but also [that] leaves the power

to the local actors, so that they can allocate locally the decisions and experience the consequences.

Today we have something that we call an irresponsible organization in science and [in] the making

of decisions: people that make decisions do not experience the consequences […]. For me this type

of technology is a wrong path for agriculture. At the same time I am not talking about health […]

[and] I am not talking against biotechnology honestly, I am glad that this country wants to invest in

biotechnology. But I feel that there has to be a responsible organization with science and [with] the

development of technology” (Tr. 3, lines 441-467).

Mr. Sherwood restated his opinion for which the investigation should be done in a more sustainable type of

science, and he did so by positioning his argumentation in a broader debate. Such debate is the one

concerning the type of science and technology in general, regardless of the focus on GMOs. This focus of

the discussion is addressed by many opponents of GMOs, as previously shown by the analysis of the public

discussion conducted on October 17th and transmitted by the radio program La Cabina.

After this intervention, Mrs. Paredes briefly repeated the importance for the people to investigate

themselves, as neither the advocates of GMOs nor certain scientists are going to reveal their negative

effects (Tr. 3, lines 468-493). The discussion ended with a document read by one of the people present in

the audience, which focuses on the great damages that GMOs can have, mainly on health (Tr. 3, lines 494-

516). The emotional impact or pathos (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217) of this document is strong, as GMOs are

described as ‘a large-scale experiment’. The reader closes the discussion by advising the audience that

Ecuador is not going to be able to compete with ‘a monster’ such as Monsanto, therefore this country

should not invest in GMOs, neither in their investigation.

In the next page, table 3 summarizes all the contrasting frames of GMOs used in this public discussion,

providing a comparison among the frames of this topic used by the different speakers.

167

MRS. PAREDES MR. PAZ Y MIÑO MR. SHERWOOD

GMOs are characterized by many general positive

features

The Constitution is a lock for scientific development of

the country

GMOs can be used for medical purposes because they are produced under control

GMOs have great advantages in the medical field GMOs can be used for medical purposes because

they are produced under control

GMOs can increase productivity GMOs cannot increase productivity

GMOs increase the use of pesticides GMOs have an higher resistance to diseases, therefore

reduce the use of pesticides GMOs are made for being more resistant to

diseases, but they increase the use of pesticides

GMOs face technical issues

GMOs can contaminate seeds and crops through cross-pollination

GMOs cannot provoke vertical nor horizontal contamination

GMOs can contaminate seeds and crops, hurting the environment

Ecuador will not be able to control the interests of multinational companies and should invest in

different technologies (frame supported by the person in the audience)

Ecuador can conduct independent investigation, to avoid the fear for the control of multinational

companies

Ecuador will not be able to control the interests of multinational companies, and should investigate in

a new type of technology

The effects that GMOs can have on health cannot be determined yet, but negative effects have been

already shown (frame supported by the person in the audience)

The most reliable studies have shown that GMOs do not have negative effects on health

The effects of GMOs on health are still uncertain

GMOs provoke problems of dependency in both

insects and weeds

The introduction of GMOs represent a risk from the

perspective of the market and of consumers

GMOs do not limit climate change

GMOs are related to monocultures, which are not appropriate for Ecuador

There is not a problem of lack of food

GMOs are promoted by certain people because of economic and political interests

GMOs are promoted by certain people because of economic interests

GMOs are promoted by certain people because of economic interests

Table 3

168

6.4.4 Polarization in live discussions

In this subchapter I will examine polarization of the frames used by the representatives of the social actors

that have participated to the analyzed live discussions. Again, the analysis will be based on the four

principles that have been reported in subchapter 2.3 and on the frame dimensions, presented in

subchapter 5.2.

The first principle is the principle of dispersion, for which frames are polarized as long as they are different


frames used in the discussions it can be claimed that frames are dispersed. This is due to the fact that all

the frames used can be classified as either negative or positive frames, independently from the subtopic

(safety, efficiency or societal connotations) they refer to. The only, rare exceptions are represented (1) by

the intervention of a citizen (Speaker L) in the discussion of October, 17th 2012, who proposed not to frame

as ‘bad’ neither organic nor conventional agriculture, as they have both negative and positive sides, and (2)

by the intervention of another (SPEAKER A) in the discussion of October, 31st 2012, which proposed to

subsidize the investigations both on transgenic technology and on other types of agricultural systems.



occupied. From the analysis of the frames used in the discussions, it can be concluded that frames are not

present in a bimodal form. This because of two reasons. First, all the speakers except three (Mr. Paz y Miño

and SPEAKERS A and C in the discussion of October, 31st 2012) used positive frames of GMOs. Second, even

Mr. Paz y Miño and SPEAKERS A and C themselves used both positive and negative frames of GMOs.


constrained and if such constrains are extensive in scope. Based on the analysis of the articles and of the

comments, the frames used respect the principle of constraint. This because, out of all the seventeen

speakers that were negatively describing GMOs (or the agricultural systems related to their production),

eleven of them (65%) have used negative definitions referring to two or more subtopics (safety, efficiency,

societal connotations). This considering as the 100% of the population the debaters and the citizens

together. Instead, considering as the 100% of the population only the debaters, all of them used negative

definitions referring to two or more subtopics. On the other side, Mr. Paz y Miño has also used positive

definitions referring to two frame subtopics (safety and efficiency).


number of people using the same frames and falling under the same sector of social actors. In this case the

sectors analyzed were three: (1) the political institutions (represented by both Mr. Paz y Miño and Mr.

Gortaire), (2) the NGOs and social movement (represented by Mr. Gomero, Mrs. Bravo, Mr. Sherwood and

169

Mrs. Paredes) and (3) the academic institutions (represented by Mr. Paz y Miño, Mr. Sherwood and Mrs.

Paredes). Unfortunately, the information available on Mr. Paniaugua and Mr. Falconì were not sufficient to

define them as representatives of any of the social actors. Concluding, for all the social actors, the only one

for which the principle of consolidation applies is the one of NGOs and social movements. In fact, in this

case all its representatives shared the same negative frames of GMOs. On the contrary, in the case of the

other two social actors, their representatives used contrasting frames.

170

7. DISCUSSION CHAPTER

This chapter aims at: (1) answering the three specific research questions to reach the objective of this

research; (2) reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of the conducted research.

7.1 THE MAIN SOCIAL ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE POLICY CONTROVERSY

In this subchapter I will answer the first specific research question of this thesis, namely: who are the main

actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to each other, and what are their positions and

frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the on-going controversy. From the

research conducted on the field and from its analysis (reported in chapter 5), it can be stated that the main

sectors of social actors involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador are five: (1) the social

movements and NGOs, (2) the academic institutions, (3) the political institutions (4) the agro-food industry

and (5) the media.

The first sector include the following NGOs and social movements: the Red de Guardianes de Semillas,

Acción Ecológica, FENOCIN (Confederación Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas, Indígenas y Negras),

the Colectivo Agroecológico, Ekorural, the Comisión de Consumidores, and UTOPIA. All these organizations

and networks have shown to share very similar interests and positions (both within the organizations and

among the organizations) concerning the theme of GMOs and, more in general, the type of agricultural

systems to foster in the country of Ecuador. In fact, the major point of agreement among these

organizations is the idea that an agricultural system based on transgenic technology would not improve the

agricultural situation of Ecuador, but would instead put at risk the health of the citizens, the wealth of the

farmers and the environment of the country. Therefore, in chapter 5 all of them have been identified as

anti-GMOs or opponents of GMOs. Such classification has been used only for the sake of clarity of this

thesis, as it is very practical, especially for the analysis of the mechanisms of polarization. However, from

different interviews it has been possible to see how these organizations do not want to propose themselves

and neither to be classified as anti-GMOs, for two main reasons: first, they rather present themselves as

‘pro agro-ecology’, or ‘pro health’ or ‘pro environment’, using therefore positive connotations; second,

some of them expressed the concern that such a classification would automatically lead to a closure from

the advocates of GMOs. Despite the fact that all these social movements and NGOs share very similar

perspectives on the problem, their assessment of the possibilities of agreement with the advocates of

GMOs are different. In fact, their statements vary from complete opposition to the use of GMOs (in both

the fields of agriculture and medicine, as well as in imported food items) to opposition only to the use of

171

GMOs in agriculture, until these organisms have been proved to not have negative effects of any type and

to be the only possible choice for solving the agricultural related problems of the country.

The second sector is represented by the academic institutions, which cannot be classified neither as pro-

GMOs nor anti-GMOs. These institutions include: the FLACSO (Facultad de Latinoamericana de Ciencias

Sociales), the UDLA (Universidad de las Américas), the UCE (Universidad Central del Ecuador), the ESPOL

(Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral), the USB (Universidad Simón Bolívar) and the USFQC (Universidad

San Francisco de Quito). The employees of these universities that have been interviewed have recognized

all these institutions to play an important role in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador. Moreover,

during the interviews the speakers were often indicating one university or the other as a pro- or anti-GMOs

institution. Despite this fact, none of the people interviewed have been able to say that his or her own

university holds an official position towards the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. Instead, all the people

interviewed claimed that within their institution the debate on GMOs was still open, as the positions of the

different Professors or departments towards this topic are conflicting among each other. Therefore,

regarding the academic sector the only ponderous consideration that can be made is that the frames of

GMOs are strictly personal. This is due to the fact that none of these academic institutions has taken yet an

official position towards the topic of GMOs. However, it can also be seen how currently various

relationships are being developed between, on one side different social movements/NGOs or political

institutions and, on the other side different universities. An example is the collaboration among the

FENOCIN and the USB or the cooperation between the President Rafael Correa and Mr. Paz y Miño, the

responsible of the department of the biomedical investigation of the UDLA.

The third sector involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador is the one of the political

institutions, namely: the INIAP (Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias), the

government, the SENESCYT (Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología), COPISA

(Conferencia Plurinacional e Intercultural de Soberanía Alimentaria), the MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente) and

the MAGAP (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería, Acuacultura y Pesca). As in the case of the academic

institutions, none of the political institutions holds an official position on the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador. All the people interviewed as part of this sector have in fact claimed that the internal debate is

still unsolved, and that this does not allow the institutions to release an official statement.

The fourth sector is the agro-food business. Despite the fact that it was not possible to obtain any interview

with any representative of this sector, many of the other people interviewed have identified this sector as

the one influencing the government in order to change the current Constitution and to allow the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. As already said in chapter 5, the company PRONACA S.A. is one of the

most influential and powerful social actors within this group.

172

The last sector regards the media. For time constraints this sector has been reduced to a group of six

newspapers, namely: El Telégrafo, El Comercio, El Diario, El Mercurio, Crónica, and Hoy. While analyzing the

articles published in these newspapers, it has been possible to see that the only one that could be

considered a pro-GMOs newspaper is El Telégrafo, while the majority of the other newspapers where

publishing either only articles holding a negative perspective on GMOs or articles revealing contradictory

opinions. Interestingly, one of the writer of the articles published in the newspaper El Telégrafo is Cesar Paz

y Miño, a person playing a role in different sectors of social actors involved in the controversy, namely: the

academic institutions, the political institutions and, as just mentioned, the media.

As it can be seen, while the social movements and NGOs hold more official perspectives towards the issue

that, moreover, are often shared both within the organizations and among the organizations, the political

and academic institutions are still debating the issue internally. This situation could be interpreted as a

positive sign, due to the fact that between-population polarization is indirectly proportional to within-

population polarization, as explained by Di Maggio et al. (1996: 694). Therefore, the fact that within the

majority of the social actors or their sectors the perspectives are contrasting decreases the possibility of

polarization among them (and, consequently, the likelihood of a dialogue of the deaf).

7.2 MECHANISMS OF FRAMING

In this subchapter I will answer the second specific research question of this thesis, namely which are the

framing mechanisms used during public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador in newspapers,

on-line discussions and live debates. The theoretical concepts explored in subchapter 2.3 of this thesis and

the empirical data collected and analyzed in chapters 5 and 6 will be used as the basis of the answer to this

question.

7.2.1 The use of frames and rhetoric

Concerning the main frames that are being used in the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador, they can be

summarized based on the following, three subtopics of GMOs they refer to: their safety, their efficiency

and their societal connotations.

Regarding the subtopic of safety, the following definitions show the opposition among the frames used to

describe GMOs (which are also represented graphically in figure 20):

GMOs are defined either as natural or unnatural products. In the first case, the opponents of GMOs

use definitions that recall to unnatural procedures with which these products are created. In the

173

second case, the advocates of GMOs focus their attention on the fact that transgenic products are

products that are being manipulated as it happens in the case of all the other agricultural products,

for example through the technique of crossbreeding;

GMOs are defined either as able or unable to provoke negative effects on health. The supporters of

both opinions recall different scientific studies that have been able to prove either the

dangerousness or the harmlessness of the products. Interestingly, concerning this frame, the same

scientific studies (e.g. the one of the French researcher Séralini) are presented from opposing

perspectives;

GMOs are defined as either able or unable to reduce the use of phytochemicals during their

cultivation;

The technology used to produce GMOs is defined either as increasingly safer or as unsafe;

GMOs are defined as able or unable to harm biodiversity through environmental contamination.

Concerning the subtopic of efficiency, the following definitions show the opposition among the frames used

to describe GMOs (which are also represented graphically in figure 21, in the next page):

GMOs are defined as either able or unable to reduce the use of herbicides during their cultivation;

GMOs are defined as organisms that would fit either in a ‘new’ or in an ‘old’ agricultural model of

production. Concerning the former frame, GMOs are described as innovative products that would

contribute to the progress of agriculture. Concerning the latter frame, GMOs are described as

organisms that have already been proved to be unable to solve the problems of production,

hunger, environmental damage, etc. Therefore, they are framed as an already obsolete agricultural

tool. According to these two frames, the article in the Constitution of Ecuador which prohibits the

cultivation of GMOs is framed either as a tool to halt the use of these obsolete methods of

production and to foster the use of new, more sustainable methods or as an obstacle that is

blocking scientific development and progress;

GMOs are defined either as able or unable to increase the productivity of the crops (and therefore

as able or unable to solve the problem of world hunger);

Figure 20

174

Concerning the subtopic of social connotations of GMOs, the following definitions show the opposition

among the frames used to describe GMOs (which are also represented graphically in figure 22):

GMOs are defined as a tool used by multinationals to increase their profits. Interestingly, this frame

is often shared by the advocates and the opponents of GMOs. However, the former ones usually

agree on the fact that the power of multinationals can be kept under control;

GMOs are defined a topic that should be discussed either only among scientists or among different

social actors. Connected to this latter frame, there are the ideas that (1) consumers are clearly

opposing the consumption of GMOs, however their opinion is not being heard and (2) markets such

as the European one, in which consumers have shown an aversion to GMOs, would stop buying the

Ecuadorian products, leading to negative economic consequences.

Concluding, it is important to underline how, for each topic, the pictures represent two opposing

definitions of GMOs, for example: GMOs are either natural or unnatural products. However, such

definitions have been used only for reasons of clarity, to show the reader how the same subject (GMOs)

can be defined in two opposing ways. Nevertheless, in reality the process of framing is not based on a

positive/negative difference between two definitions. Instead, as aforementioned in this thesis, framing

regards the selection of particular aspects of an issue in order to make them more salient in the eyes of the

reader/listener. Accordingly, whenever GMOs were described, for example, as either natural or unnatural

products, most of the time the term naturalness was not even mentioned by the speaker. Instead, different

expressions were used in order to implicitly define GMOs as either natural or unnatural products. An

example of this is the description of GMOs on one side as food items that are being produced with the

similar techniques that have been used for centuries in agriculture (from the article published on

Figure 21

Figure 22

175

September, 16th 2012) and on the other side as food items whose shape is too perfect and colorful to be

real (from the article published on March, 22nd 2013 in Crónica).

Moreover, all the opposing definitions of the same issue, that have been given by, among others, politicians

and scientists, confirm what demonstrated by Fischer (2003: 56) and reported in subchapter 2.3 that

neither science nor politics can be conceived as ‘objective’ and universal anymore and that the language

they use to describe certain issues becomes the political reality itself.

Concerning the differentiation among constitutive and strategic frames as described in subchapter 2.3.

starting from the considerations of Schön and Rein (1994: 23-36), it is not possible to differentiate the

aforementioned frames within the categories of constitutive and strategic. This because it is impossible to

be sure about the fact that a certain frame is used in a conscious/strategic way or in an unconscious one, as

they will both always be present and their distinction would require an artificial operation.

Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the use of different elements of rhetoric that have helped the social

actors in supporting their different frames and definitions of transgenic products. These are reported

below:

The use of ethos, i.e. the trustworthiness of the speaker (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). This tool has

been used in different ways in six occasions, both in newspapers articles (Crónica, 22/03/2013,

Crónica 03/05/2013 and El Diario, 13/09/2012) and in the three live discussions analyzed. A

repetitive use of this rhetorical tool has been for example the one of the pronoun ‘our’, to create a

feeling of trust among the readers, as the journalists are positioning themselves at their ‘same

level’;

The use of pathos, i.e. the emotional effect created by the discourse (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217).

This tool has been used in the different ways in ten occasions, both in newspapers (El Mercurio,

08/10/2012; Hoy.com, 23/09/2012; Crónica, 22/03/2013 and 22/03/2013; El Telégrafo,

22/11/2012, 07/10/2012 and 04/11/2012) and live discussions carried on October 17th 2012 and

October, 31st 2012. Exemplificative uses of this rhetorical tool included the use of descriptions of

GMOs that are impacting at an emotional level; the connection among the need of GMOs and the

resolution of the problem of hunger in the world; the connection between the introduction of

GMOs in Ecuador and (1) the solution of many different problems that affect this country or (2) the

need to fill the gap of modernity and development that currently prevent this country to becoming

a developed one;

The use of logos, i.e. the logic of the argument itself (Gottweis, 2012: 216-217). This tool has been

used in contrasting ways in fourteen occasions, both in newspapers articles (El Telégrafo,

16/09/2013, 16/09/2013, 24/09/2013, 30/09/2013, 16/09/2013, 04/09/2013) and in the live

176

discussions carried on October, 31st 2012 and on February, 26th 2013. Examples of the use of this

rhetorical tool are the logical argument for which different types of agricultural models have not

been able to prove to be beneficial for people, therefore investigation should be now done as well

in the field of transgenesis versus the logical argument for which, if Ecuador wants to invest in

innovative technologies, it should not invest in GMOs, which represent an old type of technology

due to the fact that they have been investigated for more than twenty-five years.

The following considerations can be made considering these three rhetorical tools in the light of (1) frame

polarization and (2) the empirical data of this research. The main finding is that in interactive public

discussions about topics for which opposite frames are presented, rhetoric seems itself to be part of the

process of framing and therefore cannot be used in a ‘hidden’ way.

First, the tool of ethos seems to be used by debaters to defend themselves from the negative identity

frames used against them. Therefore, the instrument of ethos is used by the speakers to construct their

identity frames in the eyes of the listeners or to reconstruct them after they have been shown in a bad

light. On the other hand, the tools of pathos and logos are used by the debaters to describe the issue itself

in different ways (either emotionally or more scientifically); subsequently, such descriptions become

themselves part of a process of framing and reframing.

Therefore it could be claimed that, whereas in non-interactive discussions (media web 1.0) these three

rhetorical tools are used by the singular speaker as a hidden strategy of persuasion, in an interactive public

discussion (web 2.0 and live discussions) they become part of the debate itself. Thus, in the latter case the

risk of them being simply accepted by the listeners decreases, because they are brought to light by the

other debaters, they are sometimes contested and consequently reframed.

Concluding, it seems that when comparing non- interactive and interactive discussions about policies that

have not been yet approved, in the latter one it decreases the risk of the use of rhetoric as an art of

persuasion in creating ‘interpretative packages’ that can influence citizens’ way of seeing things (Voltmer

and Koch-Baumgarten, 2010: 7). Accordingly, at least concerning the policy controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador, one of the conditions to foster in order to guarantee the absence of this risk is the inclusion of

different speakers to intervene and therefore to be able to reframe what has been previously said. This

operation could be done: (1) in the newspapers, by always giving the citizens the possibility of commenting

the articles, and this implies the use of only web 2.0 pages; (2) in the radio, by always giving the citizens the

possibility of calling and interacting by email; (3) in general, by organizing discussions so that at least two

debaters (holding opposite perspectives on a problem) are present.

177

As earlier explained in subchapter 2.3, two other rhetorical tools that are often used in convincing the

audience about a certain frame are the of scenography and the ‘coordination’ among the different actors

responsible of communicating an issue. Unfortunately for the findings of this thesis, this rhetorical tool

cannot be analyzed, as the live discussions analyzed were provided in a audio-format, therefore it was not

possible to analyze the visual features characterizing the discussions. The latter rhetorical tool refers to the

‘coordination’ among the different actors that are responsible of the communication about the same

political issue, in order to avoid contradictory messages that would undermine the legitimacy of a certain

frame (Stayner, 2007: 48-49). Concerning this latter rhetorical tool, it is interesting to report the attitude of

the people working for different governmental institutions that have been interviewed. In fact, the people

interviewed as representatives of the three main Ministries that are involved in this controversy (the

MAGAP, the MAE and the SENESCYT), were not willing to talk in the name of the institutions, or they gave

very vague answers when asked about the opinion of the institution they work for. This behavior could be

interpreted as symptomatic of an ‘order’ given by the Ministries to their functionaries of not taking a clear

position towards the introduction of GMOs, in order to not provide contrasting statements within the same

Ministry or among different Ministries.

7.2.2 Collective action frames

In subchapter 2.3 I have also analyzed the characteristics of collective actions frames, starting from the

work of Benford and Snow (2000: 611-639). From the analysis of the interviews of the members of either

NGOs or social movements involved in the controversy of GMOs in Ecuador, the following considerations

can be made about the characteristic features of collective action frames:

The use of diagnostic framing, which involves the members of a movement seeking to identify the

sources of causality of what they define as a problematic situation (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615-

617), reflects the use of the frames that are the most recurrent ones among the opponents of

GMOs. These include the frames of GMOs as: (1) the end of rural agriculture and therefore of

society as a whole (Mr. Gortaire); (2) organisms that can have negative impacts on the

environment, health and society because of the high use of chemical products that they require

(Mrs. Bravo); (3) organisms that are not able to increase productivity, to better resists to plagues

and to reduce the use of chemical products (the member of FENOCIN); agricultural tools whose

economic advantages would only increase the wealth of a certain part of the society (Mr. Carrera).

Therefore, it can be seen how the main definitions of GMOs used by social movements focus on

describe them as organisms that would not bring any of the advantages claimed, but only various

typologies of threats;

178

The use of prognostic framing, which implies the articulation of plans for tackling the problematic

situation (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615-617), presents recurrent strategies among the different

social movements or NGOs. These include: (1) demonstrating the negative features of GMOs by

presenting scientific data/evidence, often with the direct intervention of academics in the debates

(Mr. Gortaire, a member of Ekorural, Mrs. Bravo, Mr. Carrera, the member of FENOCIN); (2) to have

an impact at the political level, by influencing part of the decision-makers (Mr. Gortaire, the

member of FENOCIN, Mr. Carrera); (3) to spread the information among the citizens, in order to

both inform them and incentivize them to be part of a social movement or NGO (Mr. Gortaire, a

member of Ekorural, Mr. Carrera); (4) to avoid the presentation of the NGO/social movement as

anti-GMO, to avoid a ‘closure’ from the other social actors involved in the debate (two members of

Ekorural); (5) to influence the media by proposing the benefits of alternative systems of

production, such as the one of agro-ecology (Mr. Gortaire); (6) to focus the discourse on the mega-

biodiversity that characterize the country of Ecuador, which is not worth to be put at risk only

because of economic interests (Mr. Suquilanda); (7) to create a network of relationships among the

different NGOs and social movements that hold the same perspective on GMOs, in order to

increase the number of actors opposing their introduction in the country (the member of

FENOCIN);

The use of ‘motivational framing’, which serves at providing rational reasons for engaging in

collective action (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615-617), was not possible to identify in any of the

interviews analyzed.

Concerning the characteristic features of collective action frames, in the light of (1) frame polarization and

of (2) the empirical data of this research, the following considerations can be made:

It does not seem possible to make use of diagnostic framing in a constructive way, i.e. in a way that

can help to reduce frame polarization. This because all the diagnostic frames were respecting the

principle of dispersion of frame polarization, as they were all using very negative definitions of

GMOs;

It seems possible to make use of prognostic framing in a constructive way only in one case, as the

prevention of the classification as pro-GMOs or anti-GMOs to avoid an immediate ‘closure’ among

the social actors could indeed help in circumventing a bimodal division of them (advocates- vs.

opponents of GMOs). However, on the other hand, the other types prognostic frames used were

either (1) respecting the principle of dispersion of frame polarization, as they were all making use

of very negative definitions or (2) fostering the consolidation within the ‘NGOs and social

movements’ by strengthening the relationships among their representatives and therefore by

179

homogenizing their frames. Regarding this latter case, generally speaking it could be therefore

hypothesized that the avoidance of the formation of a common frame of a problem among the

representatives of one social actor or sector is likely to decrease the polarization of frames among

this social actor/sector and the other ones.

As already mentioned in subchapter 2.3, the analysis of the variable features would go beyond the goals of

this thesis; moreover, the time constraints of this research would have not allowed an to conduct this type

of research. Nevertheless, a comment can be made regarding the ‘variation in interpretative scope and

influence’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 618) of the frames used by the NGOs and social movements analyzed.

In fact, it can be seen how all the NGOs and social movements do not focus specifically on the topic of

GMOs. Thus, as it can be noticed by the analysis of the interviews and of the public discussions, the NGOs

and the social movements themselves tend to discuss about a broad set of agricultural problems and about

the agricultural models to be promoted in the country, not (only) on GMOs. Therefore, the frames that they

use, in general, can be identified as being ‘master frames’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 618).

For the same constraints, as already mentioned in subchapter 2.3 it is not possible to conduct an analysis of

the processes that (1) play a role in generating- and interfering in the development or (2) either enable or

limit their diffusion. The only brief considerations that can be made are about the ‘contested processes’,

which include: counter-framings done by movement opponents/bystanders/media and the framing

contests within a social movement or NGO (Benford and Snow, 2000: 626). Concerning the former ones, it

can be said that the NGOs and the social movements indeed find themselves in the situation of having to

defend their frames of GMOs against the counter-frames done by other social actors through the media.

Such ‘contests of framing’ are sometimes carried out through the use of media themselves, as shown by

the discussions transmitted by the Public Radio of Ecuador or by the intervention of Mr. Gortaire in a

discussions carried out under an article published on January, 26th 2013 on the online version of the

newspaper Hoy. Concerning the framing contests within a social movement or NGO, what can be deducted

from the analysis that has been done is that such contests are indeed in action in the different groups

analyzed. This was visible, for example, from the interviews of the two members of Ekorural, which had

different opinions on the possibility of agreement with the advocates of GMOs, or from the interviews of

the members of Acción Ecológica. These interviews have revealed the presence of internal processes of

framing construction, before an ‘official frame’ of a movement or of an NGO is presented ‘externally’.

However, the study to which degree such processes take place goes beyond the purpose of this thesis.

Again, as already explained in subchapter 2.3 it is not possible to analyze the conditions that constraint or

facilitate the process of framing in Ecuador, as such analysis would have required a separate study on the

targets of the social movements/NGOs and, more in general, of the values that characterize the Ecuadorian

culture. However, it is possible make some general considerations about the implications of the framing

180

processes of one social movement/NGO on the framing of another one. These, according to Snow and

Benford (2000: 630-631) take place in three main ways. The first way is the ‘political opportunity’, whereas

social movements, by claiming the need of- and the opportunity for a collective action, are actually stating

that the opportunity for such collective action indeed exists (Gamson and Meyer, 1996 as cited in Snow and

Benford, 2000: 631). Concerning the situation in Ecuador, it can be claimed that one of the objectives of

social movements and NGOs is indeed to create political opportunities in which their voice can be heard,

and the recurrent strategy to do so is to influence the decision-makers at the political level, as revealed by

different interviews.

The second way is the ‘individual and collective identity’ whereas the participation within a movement

provokes a relative enlargement of individual identity “at a general level, by situating […] actors in time and

space and by attributing characteristics to them […] and, at a more concrete level, during the course of

identity talk among adherents and activists and [during] other movement activities” (Hunt et al., 1994, as

cited in Snow and Benford, 2000: 632). Concerning this process, the consideration that can be made is that

most of the members of social movements/NGOs that have been interviewed have revealed that the

perspective on GMOs in firstly discussed within the movement and only after it is revealed to the

‘externals’. These internal debates are places of confrontation in which the individual members have to

share and re-construct their own frames in order to create a final frame, which is shared among all the

members and which become the ‘official’ frame of the social movement that will be promoted.

The third way is represented by the ‘specific-movement outcomes’, whereas framing processes are

important for the achievement of the objectives of a social movement (Capek, 1993; Diani, 1996; Reese,

1996; Walsh et al., 1993; Zdravomyslova, 1996; Zuo and Benford, 1995 as cited in (Snow and Benford, 2000:

632). In the case of the framing processes of GMOs in Ecuador, their importance for the achievement of the

objectives of the social movements can be noticed by considering how often different frames are used

based on the different audiences or targets (as explained in different interviews), a strategy that helps the

social movements/NGOs to achieve their goals more easily.

7.3 MECHANISMS OF POLARIZATION

In this subchapter I will answer to the third specific research question of this thesis, namely what

mechanisms increase or decrease polarization during the public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador.

At a more empirical level of analysis, from the examination of the interviews and of the public discussions

about the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, it can be seen how the only topic on which the different social

181

actors seem to agree is the fear that transgenic products represent a tool that is used by multinationals for

economic reasons and that their admission in the country would increase the dependency of Ecuador in the

agricultural sector. Nevertheless, while the opponents of GMOs often talked about the fact that the

interests of multinationals will be able to harm both the local farmers and the whole agricultural system,

the advocates of GMOs believe that the national government will be able to control such interests. Still,

despite the different motivations involved in the controversy, the underneath objective seems to be the

same one: to maintain Ecuador an independent country. Such concern is also formally stated in the

Constitution of Ecuador, where the article 3 states that one of the State’s prime duties is: “Guaranteeing

and defending national sovereignty” (National Assembly Legislative and Oversight Committee, 2008: 11).

Moreover, both the advocates and the opponents of GMOs claim for the need of investigation in the

agricultural sector, as the productivity of the country is described as not sufficient to fulfill the needs of its

citizens. On one side, the advocates of GMOs push for investing in research on transgenesis; on the other

side, the opponents of GMOs claim that investigations should be conducted on ecological productive

systems and on other fields of biotechnology. Accordingly, the only point of agreement that seems to be

possible among them is a double-investigation financed by the State, as proposed by Mr. Gortaire and as

agreed upon by many other people interviewed. Such investigation, conducted in an autonomous and

controlled way, would allow a comparison among the effects of different types of agricultural systems, and

therefore to a final choice that would consider the proposal of the different social actors. At the same time,

it would not impede the scientific development of Ecuador, but, instead, would foster it in different fields

of research.

At a more theoretical level, the following considerations can be made regarding the four principles of frame

polarization. First, concerning the principle of dispersion, it can be hypothesized that to decrease

polarization by decreasing dispersion people should focus on the subtopic of societal connotations. In fact,

when the discussion focused on this subtopic the dispersion would be always lower than when the

discussion would focus on the subtopics of safety and efficiency. Accordingly, it can be theorized that

dispersion is more easily avoided when the discussion focuses on the secondary effects caused by- or on

the consequences of a wicked problem than on the description of the problem itself.

Second, concerning the principle of bimodality, it can be said that in the discussions on GMOs in Ecuador

such principle is currently not respected, as the majority of the frames of GMOs used are negative. This

division might be incorrect because this thesis only considered a relatively small number of newspapers,

interviews and discussions. Nevertheless, this finding is useful for recommending a greater involvement of

the social actors in knowing each other’s perspectives instead of assuming them. This would help the social

actors to find allies in coping with the wicked problem and would might reveal the presence of a greater

number of people sharing similar frames of the issue. Such bigger presence might increase even more the

182

percentage of the number of the people opposing the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador, leading therefore

to a division among people that is not present in a bimodal form.

Third, the previous analysis of the principle of dispersion can be used to reflect about the principle of

constraint. In fact, it has been previously claimed that, in order to decrease polarization, people should

focus on the subtopic of societal connotations, particularly on the frame about the economic interests

behind GMOs. As concerning this frame the majority of the social actors seem to be able to find a ‘middle’

ground for discussing the issue, in the future the shift of the discussion from other subtopics (efficiency or

safety) to this one will probably also decrease polarization in the discussion according the principle the

constraint. This because, in the case of this particular frame, the advocates of GMOs will likely use frames

that are not extensive in scope with the positive frames that they usually used. On the contrary, they will

likely use frames that are shared with the opponents of GMOs (and that, paradoxically, are extensive in

scope with their general negative frames).

Fourth, concerning the principle of consolidation, the analysis of the empirical data has shown how the

frames were consolidated only in the case of the sector of social actors ‘NGOs and social movements’. This

finding is interesting, as often the people interviewed assumed that other social actors would have an

official position towards the issue, while instead this was not confirmed by the statements of the people

part of these same social actors. Therefore, as earlier said for what concern the principle of bimodality, this

finding is useful for recommending a greater involvement of the social actors in knowing each other’s

perspectives instead of assuming them. In fact, to bring to light the ‘ignored’ low within-population

polarization might help in decreasing the ‘assumed’ between-population polarization.

7.4 STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE RESEARCH

On one hand, concerning the strengths of this research, the following statements can be made:

This research has studied the mechanisms of frame polarization starting from the creation of four

new principles. While before such principles were applied to the study of opinion polarization, they

have been adapted to the study of framing. This adaptation represents a novelty in the field of

polarization, and such principles could be used in the future for other investigations on the same

topic;

While studying the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador, this research has used an holistic

approach that considered different types of public discussions: live public discussions, discussions

carried out through the use of the media and discussions that gave citizens the possibility to

interact on the web. This assortment of data has been enriched by conducting interviews with

183

different representatives of the social actors involved in the controversy. This variety of data

allowed me to support the findings and the hypothesis I have made in a consistent way;

During the research on the field that I have conducted in the country of Ecuador for a period of two

months, I have also participated to various events organized by the citizens and concerning the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador (e.g. reunions among the members of NGOs and a public march

against the GMOs). This in order to examine if the findings of this thesis could be supported- or

enriched by an additional type of data, i.e. the ones collected through participant observation

(despite the fact that such data at the end did not reveal to be useful for the purposes of this

research).

On the other hand, concerning the weaknesses of this research, the following statements can be made:

As mentioned in subchapter 1.1, this research assumes that to prevent a dialogue of the deaf (so

that debaters at least to listen to each other’s point of view) is a desirable outcome, regardless the

context in which the discussion is taking place. This assumption could be counterclaimed by people

that believe that, in certain controversies, to avoid a dialogue of the deaf is not a desirable

outcome. Moreover, this thesis did not address the case in which the dialogue of the deaf is an

objective of one or more of the social actor(s) involved, whereas polarization might become

endogenous in the dialogue;

When analyzing the discussions carried out through media, this research only considered

newspapers, and not other typologies of media. This small selection does not allow to make

general claims about frames and polarization used in the media;

As earlier mentioned in subchapter 7.1, the terms advocates- or pro-GMOs and opponents or anti-

GMOs have been used only for the sake of clarity of this thesis, as it is very practical, especially for

the analysis of the mechanisms of polarization. However, many social actors (especially the ones

classified as anti-GMOs) do not agree with this classification, as (1) they believe it leads to an

automatic closure from other social actors and (2) this is sometimes used as a strategy to negatively

frame people as anti-progress or fearful;

This research has focused on the topic of GMOs, therefore the analysis of the discussions

concentrated on the frames of GMOs. However, as mentioned multiple times in this thesis, the

discussions on GMOs are part of a broader debate about (1) the agricultural model that has to be

fostered in the country and about (2) the right of citizens to food sovereignty. Therefore, to focus

the analysis on GMOs means to look only at one small part of a policy controversy that involves a

variety of topics;

The research has focused on the public statements of the representatives of the main social actors

involved. This choice only allowed to study the explicit and public motivation behind the position of

184

each person, but not the private nor implicit ones. Accordingly, such choice did not allow to

understand how such individuals, over time, come to organize into colluding and competing groups

and networks;

Whenever analyzing the empirical data in the light of the principle of bimodality, the results shown

the presence of a greater number of people using negative frames of GMOs than of people using

positive ones. If in the case of the analysis of the newspapers such results might be indicative (even

if the number of articles analyzed was too small to make a realistic estimation), in the case of the

interviews such results might not even be realistic. Instead, such results might be due only to a

greater availability of the members of NGOs and social movements to be interviewed, rather than

to a real estimation;

The use of sectors of social actors have been applied, other than in the case of clearly identifiable

institutions (i.e. academic or political institutions) also in the case of social movements or civil

society. These have been categorized together with NGOs despite the fact that social movements

do not have a clear ‘status’ as NGOs do. Such operation has been possible because this thesis

assumes social movements to self-organized social networks of people.

185

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This thesis examined the policy controversy of GMOs in Ecuador in order to investigate the mechanisms of

interaction and polarization among the different frames used during public discussions about this topic.

Such objective has been reached first through an initial description of the theoretical concepts of (1) wicked

problems and the dialogues of the deaf; (2) the shift from government to governance and (3) the processes

of framing and the mechanisms of polarization. This review has provided the framework for the analysis of

different types of public discussions about GMOs in Ecuador, in order to answer to three specific research

questions that are reported below, together with their answers.

The main findings that this combination of theoretical review and empirical analysis have uncovered are

the following:

1. Who are the main actors involved in the controversy, how do they relate to each other, and what

are their positions and frames with regard to the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador and the on-going

controversy? The main sectors of social actors involved in the policy controversy of GMOs in

Ecuador are: the social movements and NGOs, the political institutions, the academic institutions,

the agro-food industry and the media. These actors interact in order to solve a wicked problem

with the highest degree of wickedness, due to (1) the unavailability of the knowledge about both

the problem and its possible solutions; (2) the conflicting values at play and (3) the dispersion- and

contestation of the power among the social actors. This situation currently leads social actors to

use competitive strategies instead of collaborative ones. However, to focus on the hidden

economic interests behind GMOs and on the possibility of a double national investigation will may

be a possibility of implementing collaborative strategies and avoiding a dialogue of the deaf;

2. Which are the framing mechanisms used during public discussions on the introduction of GMOs in

Ecuador in newspapers, on-line discussions and live debates? The main frames used during the

public discussions in Ecuador concern three subtopics of GMOs: their safety, their efficiency and

their societal connotations. While for the two former subtopics a possibility of agreement among

the social actors does not seem possible, the focus of the discussion on the latter one seems the

only way to decrease frame polarization;

3. What mechanisms increase or decrease polarization during the public discussions on the

introduction of GMOs in Ecuador? By studying the discussions in the light of the four principles of

frame polarization, it seems that this one could be decreased by focusing on the subtopic of

societal connotations and by bringing to light the currently ‘ignored’ low within-population

186

polarization that characterizes each social actor. Moreover, frame polarization could be decreased

by increasing the interactive discussions to the detriment of the non-interactive ones.

Despite the possibility to use the findings of this thesis to decrease the wickedness of the problem and the

frame polarization, to reach this goal further research is recommended in the following fields:

An analysis of the willingness of the social actors involved to prevent that a determined controversy

becomes a dialogue of the deaf. In fact, in case a dialogue of the deaf is the objective of one or

more social actor(s), other strategies should be searched in order to convince them about the

importance of avoiding this to happen;

The role played by media in the controversy has been partially analyzed, because only newspapers

have been studied. Further research is recommended on different types of media and on how to

foster the interactivity of the discussions when these ones happen for example through the use of

the TV;

As mentioned several times, the discussions of GMOs are part of a broader debate about

agriculture and food sovereignty. An analysis of the discussions taking a broader perspective and

not focusing only on GMOs would might lead to different findings;

Further research is recommended on the positions and interests of the advocates of GMOs in

Ecuador, whose interviews were lower in number if compared to the ones of the opponents of

GMOs;

Further research is recommended on the private and implicit positions of the people involved in

the controversy. This would allow to better understand the social dynamics and interests behind

people choices of either supporting or opposing the introduction of GMOs in Ecuador. Accordingly,

this analysis might bring to light deeper problems than a simple misunderstanding/dialogue of the

deaf among the people involved. It could, for example, reveal a network of interests behind certain

positions that is indeed the reason for the apparent misunderstanding;

The implementation of the interactivity of the discussions that is hoped for by this thesis would not

be meaningful in case it would not be supported by the real consideration of the opinions of the

participants. With this I mean that different social actors can indeed be included in the discussions

about an issue, but there is always the risk that such inclusion will not allow their various opinions

to be considered during the related policy-making process. Such risk is determined by the

detention of the power by the decision-makers or politicians, which can take the decisions while

ignoring the different contestations expressed. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct an

187

investigation on which strategies could be used in order to avoid a situation in which the

participation of different social actors is used only as a façade.

Concluding, it is desirable that the findings of this research will be applied in the context of Ecuador, and

that the results of such application will be made available for an assessment of their relevance and

accuracy. In case they would reveal to be useful, their application could transferred in other contexts that

are currently dealing with similar controversies.

8.2 REFLECTIONS ON THE RESEARCH

In this section I will briefly reflect on my experience as a researcher, addressing the difficulties I have met

during my research and the main pitfalls of the choices I have made in order to write this thesis.

The conceptual framework of this thesis has been based on the main policy topics of wicked problems,

dialogues of the deaf, framing and polarization. This initial choice has led me to have to consider the

statements made by the singular persons and to analyze them based on the instrument of polarization.

Accordingly, the singular persons or the social actors have been studied based on their pro- or anti-GMOs

framing. This type of analysis did not allow me to focus on the underneath network of powers and interests

that are hidden behind the statements that people make. Instead, it only allowed me to analyze what I

would describe as ‘the surface of events’, that is, what people say. In reality, to study what people actually

do despite their statements, would enrich this research of a whole new perspective on why a dialogue of

the deaf will possibly be in place in the future. Moreover, the study of peoples’ statements is controversial

as what they state might have implications for their positions, their jobs, their role in a university or NGO,

etc.

Accordingly, the methodology chosen for this research focused on the analysis and collections of different

types of data (interviews, discussions, articles) that were able to reveal only what people say, and not the

possible contradictions between what is being said and what is being done.

Therefore, it could be concluded that the study carried out by this thesis is quite theoretical. Accordingly,

an analysis of the ‘practices’ that are at play in the controversy of GMOs might lead to a different

comprehension of the controversy itself and could help for example in answering another important

question, namely if the people involved in the controversy are really willing to find an agreement with each

other, despite what they say.

188

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acción Ecológica (2013). “Quiénes Somos” in Acción Ecológica, from:

http://www.accionecologica.org/iquienes-somos (last visited on 11/09/2013).

Acosta, A. (2012). “Ecuador: ‘Los transgenicos no solo son una amenaza para la vida, son un mal negocio

para el pais’, afirma Alberto Acosta” in Elecuatoriano.net, from:

http://elecuatoriano.net/2012/09/27/ecuador-los-transgenicos-no-solo-son-una-amenaza-para-la-vida-

son-un-mal-negocio-para-el-pais-afirma-alberto-acosta/ (last visited on 26/09/2013).

Admin (2012). “Ecuador digest: President pushes acceptance of genetically modified crops” in Cuenca High

Life, from:

http://www.cuencahighlife.com/post/2012/10/16/ECUADOR-DIGESTPresident-backs-constitutional-

change-for-genetically-modified-crops.aspx (last visited on: 17-05-2013).

Aguirre Sala, J.F. (2013) “La participación ciudadana mediática para descentralizar al Estado” in Araucaria,

Vol. 15, No. 29, pp. 33-53. Universidad de Sevilla.

Acquaah, G. (2007). “Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding”. Blackwell Publishing.

Avaaz.org (2012). “GMO-free Ecuador!” in Community Petitions, from:

http://petition.avaaz.org/en/petition/GMOfree_Ecuador/ (last visited on 17-05-2013).

Beck, U. (2006). “Living in the world risk society” in Economy and Society, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 329-345. Taylor

& Francis Group, Routledge.

Benford, R.D and Snow, D.A. (2000). “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and

Assessment” in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 611-639. Annual Reviews.

Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2010). “Rethinking the State” in The State as Cultural Practice, No. 5, pp 81-

100. Oxford University Press.

Biron, C.L. (2013). “Contra desregulación de transgénicos” in ElComercio.com, from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/carey_l-_biron/desregulacion-transgenicos_0_887311354.html (last visited on

21/07/2013)

Bonilla Bedoya, S. (2012). “Los transgénicos: desempolvando un viejo debate” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/item/los-transgenicos-desempolvando-un-viejo-

debate.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

Borja, R. (2012). “Alimentos transgénicos” in El comercio.com, from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/rodrigo_borja/Alimentos-transgenicos_0_787121432.html (last visited on

20/07/2013).

Btj-Forum (2010). “Biotech round the world: Ecuador’s oil versus GMO ban?” in Biotechnology Journal, Vol.

5, No. 2, pp. 144-145. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.

Castells, M. (2007). “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society” in International

Journal of Communication, Vol. 1, pp.238-266. USC Annenberg Center.

189

Chacón, A.A. (2007). “Desarrollo de un plan de marketing para la introduccion y comercializacion de

concentrados de carne de pollo marca mr. Pollo”, Thesis dissertation, pp. 1-145. Escuela Superior

Politecnica Del Litoral.

Cormode, G. and Balachander, K. (2008). “Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0” in First Monday:

Peer-reviewed Journal on the Internet, Vol. 13, No. 16, from:

http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972 (last visited on 21/08/2013).

Cottle, S. (1998). “Ulrich Beck, ‘Risk Society’ and the Media: A Catastrophic View?” in European Journal of

Communication, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 5-32. Sage Publications, Inc.

Crónica a) (2013). “200 participantes en foro de transgénicos” in Crónica, from:

http://www.cronica.com.ec/index.php/loja/item/58671-200-participantes-en-foro-de-transg%C3%A9nicos

(last visited on 23/07/2013)

Crónica b) (2013). “Colectivo promueve el no uso de transgénicos” in Crónica, from:

http://www.cronica.com.ec/index.php/loja/item/66739-colectivo-promueve-el-no-uso-de-

transg%C3%A9nicos (last visited on 19/07/2013).

Crónica c) (2013). “¿Quiénes somos?” in Crónica, from: http://cronica.com.ec/index.php/nosotros (last

visited on 19/07/2013).

Cuvi, J. (2012). “Transgénicos” in ElComercio.com, from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/juan_cuvi/Transgenicos_0_781722010.html (last visited on 22/07/2013).

Dahlgren, P. (2009). “Media Alterations” in Media and Political Engagement. Citizens, Communication and

Democracy, No.2, pp. 34-56. Cambridge University Press.

Deleg Pacheco, H. a) (2012). “Los transgenicos II-parte” in El Mercurio, from:

http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/353532-los-transgenicos-ii-parte.html (last visited on 21/07/2013).

Deleg Pacheco, H. b) (2012). “‘Los Transgenicos’ ¿Por que? I-parte” in El Mercurio, from:

http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/353090-los-transgenicos-por-que-i-parte.html (last visited on 22/07/2013).

Devos, Y.; Maeseele, P.; Reheul, D.; Speybroek Van, L. and Waele de, D. (2008). “Ethics In The Societal

Debate On Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest For Sense And Sensibility” in Journal of

Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 21, pp. 29–61. Springer.

Di Maggio et al. (1996). “Have Americans’ Social Attitude Become More Polarized?” in American Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 690-755. The University of Chicago Press.

Eeten, Van M.J.G. (1999). “ ‘Dialogues of the deaf’: on science in policy controversies” in Science and public

policy, Vol. 26, pp. 185-192. Beech Tree Publishing.

El Comercio.com a) (2012). “El Gobierno quiere debatir sobre transgénicos in ElComercio.com, from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/negocios/Gobierno-quiere-debatir-transgenicos_0_766123477.html (last

visited on 19/07/2013).

190

El Comercio.com b) (2012). “Rusia suspende importación de maíz Monsanto tras informe sobre

transgénicos” in ElComercio.com, from: http://www.elcomercio.com/mundo/Rusia-suspende-importacion-

Monsanto-transgenicos_0_781121901.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

El Comercio.com a) (2013). “Ecuador asume debate sobre legalización de transgénicos” in ElComercio.com,

from: http://www.elcomercio.com/sociedad/Ecuador-asume-debate-legalizacion-

transgenicos_0_853714720.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

El Comercio.com b) (2013). “Los Transgénicos, A Debate” in ElComercio.com from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/editorial/editorial-transgenicos-debate_0_859714051.html (last visited on

23/07/2013).

El Diario, (2013). “El Diario: Manabita de libre pensamiento” in El Diario, from: http://www.eldiario.ec/ (last

visited on 08/08/2013).

El Mercurio a) (2012). “Asamblea discute proyecto de ley de agrobiodiversidad” in El Mercurio, from:

http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/351206-asamblea-discute-proyecto-de-ley-de-agrobiodiversidad.html (last

visited on 22/07/2013).

El Mercurio b) (2012). “Quiénes Somos” in El Mercurio, from: http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/quienes-

somos (last visited on 19/07/2013).

El Telégrafo (2012). “Un sisgénico que busca inmunidad contra sigatoka” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/item/un-sisgenico-que-busca-inmunidad-contra-

sigatoka.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

El Telégrafo (2013). “Reforma constitucional ya se analiza informalmente” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/actualidad/item/reforma-constitucional-ya-se-analiza-informalmente.html

(last visited on 22/07/2013).

Encyclopædia Britannica (2013). “Genetically modified organism” in Encyclopædia Britannica, from:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/genetically-modified-organism-GMO (last visited on

12-05-2013).

Enlace Ciudadano 287 (2012). “Rafael Correa, Enlace Ciudadano 287 - 1 de Septiembre del 2012” in

Youtube.com, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEPAJvXtL2U (last visited on: 20/08/2013)

Europa (2013). “Precautionary principle” in Synthèses de la legislation, from:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/precautionary_principle_en.htm (last visited on 03-06-

2013).

FAO (2009), “Food prices remain high in developing countries” in Media Centre,

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/12660/icode/ (last visited on 16-05-2013).

Fenocin (2008). “Historia” in Fenocin, from: http://www.fenocin.org/historia.html (last visited on

11/09/2013).

Fischer, F. (2003). “Public Policy as Discursive Construct: Social Meanings and Multiple Realities” in

Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, pp. 73-93. Oxford University Press.

191

Gardner, R. (2003). “Identity Frames” in Beyond Intractability, University of Colorado, from:

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/identity-frames (last visited on 05-09-2013).

Gottweis, H. (2012). “Political Rhetoric and Stem Cell Policy in the United States: Embodiments,

Scenographies, and Emotions” in The Argumentative Turn Revisited. Public Policy as Communicative

Practice), pp. 211-235. Duke University Press.

Groundswell international (2013). “Advocating for Consumer Rights and GMO Labeling”, from:

http://www.groundswellinternational.org/sustainable-development/ecuador/advocating-for-consumer-

rights-and-gmo-labeling/ (last visited on 17-05-2013).

Hajer, M.A. (2009). “Authoritative Governance: Policy-making in the Age of Mediatization”. Oxford

University Press.

Head, B.W. and Alford, J. (2008). “Wicked Problems: The Implications for Public Management” in 12th

Annual Conference, pp. 1-26, 22-28 March 2008 in Brisbane, from:

http://www.irspm2008.bus.qut.edu.au/papers/documents/pdf2/Head%20-

%20Wicked%20Problems%20HeadAlford%20Final%20250308.pdf (last visited on 01-06-2013).

Hermida, C. (2012). “Transgénicos, ciencia y cultura” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/transgenicos-ciencia-y-cultura.html (last visited

on 22-07-2013).

Hisschemoller, M. and Hoppe, R. (1995) “Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem

structuring in policy design and analysis” in Knowledge and Policy, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 40-60. Springer

Netherlands.

Hoy.com.ec (2009). “Ecuador construye socialismo con base 'revolución ciudadana', según Larrea” in

Hoy.com.ec, from: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/ecuador-construye-socialismo-con-base-

revolucion-ciudadana-segun-larrea-328869.html (last visited on 19/07/2013).

Hoy.com.ec a) (2012). “Científicos demuestran el peligro de los transgénicos” in Hoy.com.ec, from:

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/cientificos-demuestran-el-peligro-de-los-transgenicos-

562182.html (last visited on 08/08/2013).

Hoy.com.ec b) (2012). “Correa enmendará la Constitución para permtir uso de transgénicos” in Hoy.com.ec,

from: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/correa-enmendara-la-constitucion-para-permtir-uso-de-

transgenicos-562577.html (last visited on 10/08/2013).

Hoy.com.ec c) (2012). “Los transgénicos avanzan en Latinoamérica a pesar de sus detractores” in

Hoy.com.ec, from: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/los-transgenicos-avanzan-en-latinoamerica-a-

pesar-de-sus-detractores-562652.html (last visited on 13/08/2013).

Hoy.com.ec d) (2012). “Rafael Correa dice que prohibición constitucional de transgénicos es un 'error'” in

Hoy.com.ec, from: http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/rafael-correa-dice-que-prohibicion-

constitucional-de-transgenicos-es-un-error-562511.html (last visited on 10/08/2013).

Hoy.com.ec e) (2012). “Transgénicos: el debate se enciende en Bruselas” in Hoy.com.ec, from:

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/transgenicos-el-debate-se-enciende-en-bruselas-562246.html


192

Hoy.com.ec f) (2012). “Transgénicos: los ecologistas dicen no” in Hoy.com.ec, from:

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/center-transgenicos-los-ecologistas-dicen-no-center-


Hoy.com.ec a) (2013). “Ecuador asume debate sobre legalización de transgénicos” in Hoy.com.ec, from:

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/ecuador-asume-debate-sobre-legalizacion-de-transgenicos-


Hoy.com.ec b) (2013). “Rafael Correa propone la legalización de transgénicos” in Hoy.com.ec, from:

http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/rafael-correa-propone-la-legalizacion-de-transgenicos-


Irwin, A. (2006). “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance” in Social

Studies of Science, Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 299-320. Sage Publications, Inc.

ISAAA, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (2012). “Global Status of

Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012” in ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Executive Summary.

Koons-Garcia, D. (2004). “The Future of Food: What Will We Eat Tomorrow?” in Feature films, from:

http://archive.org/details/The_Future_of_Food (last visited on 16-05-2013).

Kroger, R.O. and Wood, L.A. (2000). “Doing discourse analysis: methods for studying action in talk and

text”. Sage Publications, Inc.

López Bustamante, L. (2012). “Los Transgenicos” in El Mercurio, from:

http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/350363-los-transgenicos.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

LORSA (2009). “Ley Orgánica Del Régimen De La Soberanía Alimentaria”. Registro Oficial, Suplemento 583.

Malagoli, C. (2007). “Economia delle imprese agroalimentari”. MMVII Arane editrice Srl.

Mayorga Puma, S. (2012). “Reformas a los transgénicos” in ElComercio.com, from:

http://www.elcomercio.com/cartas_a_la_direccion/Reformas-transgenicos_0_769723172.html (last

visited on: 19/07/2013).

McFarland, A. (2012). “Why Creative Participation Today?”, in Creative Participation. Responsibility-taking

in the Political World, pp. 15-33. Paradigm.

Mendoza Andrade, V. a), 2012). “Los transgénicos y el arroz” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/los-transgenicos-y-el-arroz.html (last visited on

21/07/2013).

Mendoza Andrade, V. b) (2012). “Los transgénicos y el hambre” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/los-transgenicos-y-el-hambre.html (last visited on

20/07/2013).

Monsanto (2012). “Do GM Crops Increase Yield?” in News and views, from:

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx (last visited on 16-05-2013)

193

National Assembly Legislative and Oversight Committee (2008). “Healthy environment” in Constitution of

the Republic of Ecuador, from: http://www.mmrree.gob.ec/pol_exterior/constit_eng.pdf (last visited on 17-

05-2013).

Paz y Miño, C. a) (2012). “Desmitificar los transgénicos” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/desmitificar-los-transgenicos.html (last visited on

20/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. b) (2012). “Los transgénicos y la academia” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/los-transgenicos-y-la-academia.html (last visited

on 20/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. c) (2012). “Senescyt y los transgénicos” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/senescyt-y-los-transgenicos.html (last visited on

21/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. d) (2012). “Transgénicos, ¿a quién creemos?” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/transgenicos-a-quien-creemos.html (last visited

on 20/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. e) (2012). “Transgénicos, una cuestión científica” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/transgenicos-una-cuestion-cientifica.html (last

visited on 20/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. f) (2012). “Transgénicos y pruebas científicas” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/transgenicos-y-pruebas-cientificas.html (last

visited on 20/07/2013).

Paz y Miño, C. (2013). “40 años de los transgénicos” in El Telégrafo, from:

http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/opinion/columnistas/item/40-anos-de-los-transgenicos.html (last visited on

20/07/2013).

Redacción Ecuador (2012). “En Ecuador no hay un debate abierto sobre los transgénicos” in

ElComercio.com, from: http://www.elcomercio.com/pais/Ecuador-debate-abierto-

transgenicos_0_793120804.html (last visited on 22/07/2013)

Redacción Sociedad (2012). “El aporte de los transgénicos y sus efectos generan debate” in El Telégrafo,

from: http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/item/el-aporte-de-los-transgenicos-y-sus-efectos-

generan-debate.html (last visited on 22/07/2013).

Roberts, N. (2000). “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution” in International Public

Management Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 1-19. International Public Management Network.

Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning” in Policy Sciences, Vol.

4, pp. 155-169. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Schön, D.A. and Rein, M. (1994). “Policies Controversies as Frame Conflicts” in Frame reflection : toward the

resolution of intractable policy controversies, No. 2, pp. 23-36. Basic Books.

194

Semillas de Identidad (2008). “Transgénicos en Ecuador” in Semillas de Identidad, from:

http://semillasdeidentidad.blogspot.com/2008/07/transgnicos-en-ecuador.html (last visited on

24/09/2013).

Sherwood, S.; Arce, A.; Berti, P.; Borja R.; Oyarzun, P. and Bekkering, E. (2013). “Tackling the New

Modernities: Modern Food and Counter-movements in Ecuador” in Food Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 1-10.

Silverman, D. (2011). “Interpreting qualitative data: a guide to the principles of qualitative research”. Sage

Publications Ltd.

Sojos, C. (2012). “Transgénicos” in El Mercurio, from: http://www.elmercurio.com.ec/352021-

transgenicos.html (last visited on 20/07/2013).

Solano De La Sala Torres, A. a) (2013). “Cómo afectan los transgénicos en la salud humana” in Crónica,

from: http://www.cronica.com.ec/index.php/opinion/item/65394-c%C3%B3mo-afectan-los-

transg%C3%A9nicos-en-la-salud-humana (last visited on 21/07/2013).

Solano De La Sala Torres, A. b) (2013). “Posibles causas del bajo rendimiento educativo de nuestros hijos” in

Crónica, from: http://www.cronica.com.ec/index.php/opinion/item/66183-posibles-causas-del-bajo-

rendimiento-educativo-de-nuestros-hijos (last visited on 21/07/2013).

Ugarte, H.A. (2012). “Ley elimina el latifundio y veta a los transgénicos” in eldeber.com.bo, from:

http://www.eldeber.com.bo/nota.php?id=121015233320 (last visited on 20/08/2013)

Vaus, de D. (2001). “What is research design?” in Research Design in Social Research, pp. 1-16. SAGE

Publications.

Voltmer, K. and Koch-Baumgarten, S. (2010). “Introduction. Mass Media and Public Policy – is There a

Link?” in Public Policy and the Mass Media: The Interplay of Mass Communication and Political Decision

Making, pp. 1-9. Routledge.

Wikipedia a) (2013). “El Comercio (Ecuador)” in Wikipedia, from:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Comercio_(Ecuador) (last visited on 19/07/2013).

Wikipedia b) (2013). “El Mercurio (Ecuador)” in Wikipedia, from:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mercurio_(Ecuador) (last visited on 19/07/2013).

Wikipedia c) (2013). “El Telégrafo” in Wikipedia, from: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Telegrafo (last

visited on 19/07/2013).

Wikipedia d) (2013). “Hoy (Ecuador)” in in Wikipedia, from: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoy_(Ecuador)


Zacune, J. (2012). “Resistance To Monsanto In Latin America” in Combatting Monsanto Grassroots

resistance to the corporate power of agribusiness in the era of the ‘green economy’ and a changing climate,

pp. 15-17. La Via Campesina, Friends of the Earth International and Combat Monsanto.

Zambrano Cabrera, B.L. a) (2013). “¿En dónde nos perdimos?” in El Diario, from:

http://www.eldiario.ec/noticias-manabi-ecuador/254679-en-donde-nos-perdimos/ (last visited on

20/07/2013)

195

Zambrano Cabrera, B.L. b) (2013). “Especies invasoras II” in El Diario, from: http://www.eldiario.ec/noticias-

manabi-ecuador/242221-especies-invasoras-ii/ (last visited on 21/07/2013).

Zwaan, P.J. (2012). “Struggling with Europe: How initiators of horizontal forms of governance respond to EU

formal rules”, Doctoral dissertation, pp. 1-256. Wageningen University.

196

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW CHECKLIST

1. Which are the main social actors in Ecuador that are involved in the discussions on the topic of GMOs in

Ecuador?

2. Your personal perspective on GMOs

3. Your work:

3.1 Do you work for a governmental organization? If so, which one?

3.2 Your role in such organization:

3.3 The perspective of such organization towards the topic of GMOs:

4. Are you part of any social movement or NGO? If so, which one?

4.1 Your role in the social movement/NGO:

4.2 The perspective of such social movement/NGO towards the topic of GMOs:

5. The different perspectives on GMOs:

5.1 The perspective on GMOs of the social actors involved in the discussions on the topic of GMOs

in Ecuador:

5.2 The possibilities of agreement on GMOs between you and one or more social actors listed:

5.3 The possibilities of agreement on GMOs between the organization/movement/NGO you are

part of and one or more social actors:

6. The interaction among the different social actors:

6.1 How do you interact with the other actors in the debate and what strategies do you use to get

your perspective heard?

6.2 How does your organization interact with the other organizations in the debate and what

strategies does it use to get its perspective heard?

197

APPENDIX 2: TRANSCRIPT 1

This appendix presents the transcript of the live discussion that has been carried out on October, 17th 2012

during the program ‘La Cabina’ transmitted by the Public Radio of Ecuador. Following, the transcription of

the discussion in the original language in which it has been performed. Note that the transcription is not an

integral version of the public discussion, as only the statements that have been considered relevant for the

analysis conducted in subchapter 6.4 have been reported.

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Hoy día vamos a hablar justamente de temas relacionados con la seguridad 1

alimentaria porqué se está dando el segundo foro internacional de agricultura orgánica y agroecológica […]. 2

Temas importantísimos, aquí en el Ecuador estamos con unas leyes pendientes sobre biodiversidad, y so 3

tema que ponen in discusión la matriz de pensamiento que uno tiene como individuo y como país, ¿no? 4

Porqué se ponen en discusión ciertos dogmas que nos han hecho creer hace algún tiempo y pues resulta 5

que estos dogmas han sido... falsos! En el sentido que han sido dogmas para un determinado grupo de 6

gente que veía el mundo y la agricultura de una cierta manera, como para explotar y sacarle la madre a la 7

pobre madre tierra en función del capital. Pero esta forma de vivir es una forma de vivir que no es 8

sostenible, no es sustentable y a la larga pues arruina todo. Así que yo no soy la experta, como siempre yo 9

les digo son temas que a mí me fascinan pero yo no me dedico a la agricultura. Yo agradezco a lo que se 10

dedican a la agricultura, porqué yo que soy cuasi vegetariana, porqué nunca como carne, poder ir a los 11

supermercados e ir a los mercados y tener la papa, tener la lechuga, tener el rábano, tener la cebolla y el 12

esparrago y el brócoli, y la coliflor y el zapallo es gracias a aquella gente que en cambio sí, trabaja la tierra y 13

nos da de comer. Así que mis mas sentidos aplausos y felicitaciones para toda aquella gente que dobla el 14

hombro y nos da de comer a todos los ciudadanos, a los citadinos, a los que vivimos en la ciudad y que 15

vamos de compras al supermercado, ¿no? Y para hablar de eso pues tengo muchos invitados, lo cual me 16

alegra muchísimo. A ver: en Guayaquil tengo a la maestra Jessica Vásquez, que es agricultor y campesina. 17

Buenos días Jessica, ¿se encuentra allí?” 18

Jessica Vásquez: “………” 19

Giovanna Tassi: “A ver, tenemos un problema con Guayaquil. Entonces en Quito: Fausto Falconì, ingeniero 20

agrónomo y con especialidad en manejo de suelo. ¿Fausto usted se encuentra?” 21

Fausto Falconì: “Aquí estamos, aquí estamos Señora Tassi. 22

Giovanna Tassi: “Ah, ¡qué bien! ¿Como está? Juan José Paniagua, agricultor de Costa Rica.” 23

Juan José Paniagua: “Sí aquí estamos y muchísimas gracias […]” 24

198

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Perfecto, perfecto! […] En Guayaquil tenemos Luis Gomero, coordinador nacional de la 25

Red de acción de agricultura alternativa de Perú. Buenos días señor Gomero.” 26

Luis Gomero: “¡Buenos días!” 27

Giovanna Tassi: “Eso, perfecto. Estamos conectados, esta es la magia de la radio, imagínese: Puyo, Quito y 28

Guayaquil. ¿Cuándo, cuándo se podía hacer eso? Solo con la Radio Pública de Ecuador logramos hablar tres 29

ciudades tres ciudades en tres regiones completamente diferentes de un tema, de eso de la agricultura, 30

importantísimo. Entonces empezamos desde Quito con Fausto Falconì, ingeniero agrónomo con 31

especialidad de manejo de suelos. Buenos días ingeniero, un saludo a la distancia desde la ciudad de Puyo. 32

A ver, empecemos pues hablando del tema de los suelos. Porqué eso de… y aquí en la Amazonia donde 33

estoy con este del mito que la Amazonia como tiene un montón de árboles y plantas, chuta que bestia, en 34

la Amazonia podemos sembrar todo porqué es súper fértil, pero resultó ser un mito mas, ¿no? Sobre la 35

Amazonia, porque en realidad la amazonia no es tan fértil como se piensa. O por lo menos no se le puede 36

explotar el suelo como se hace en otras partes, donde se puede tal vez implementar un tipo de cultivos de 37

otra manera. ¿Qué se estudia cuando […] me dicen que usted es especialista en manejo de suelo? ¿Que es 38

lo que se estudia en eso y […] para que sirve esta especialidad? ¡Buenos días!” 39

Fausto Falconì: “¡Buenos días dueña Giovanna! Antes que nada soy Fausto nada mas, lo de lo ingeniero ya 40

no existe, ya le voy a explicar porqué. Cuando estudiábamos suelos, estudiábamos un montón de cosas 41

menos lo más importante: entender que el suelo es vivo. Y ahí comienza la desgracia de todo esto setenta 42

años de una agricultura industrializada y convencional, porque nos olvidamos de que el suelo es un ente 43

vivo que le tenemos que cuidar y con el producir... no, no arrasándole, ¿no? Entonces todo lo que 44

aprendimos en la universidad con post-grados ingenieros ha sido una ciencia entre comillas creada con un 45

sesgo tan grande para ¡matar y matar y matar! ¡Matas el suelo, matas insectos, matas hongos, matas la 46

vida! Y teniendo muerta la vida es muy complicado que después uno quiera producir y por eso es la 47

desbandada de la gente del campo no solo en el país, sino a nivel mundial para la ciudades a mendigar, a 48

buscar trabajo, a ver come se las arreglan. El tema es: el fondo que usted ha topado gracias a Dios es el 49

suelo. El suelo es algo vivo. Yo soy […] una persona que trabajó 25 años con los agro tóxicos y con químicos 50

y se me apareció la Virgen, como dicen aquí en nuestra tierra, y descubrí esta maravilla que es la agricultura 51

orgánica, que lo mas importante en la agricultura orgánica es recuperar el suelo, trabajar en el suelo, y el 52

suelo nos da todo, no? Ese es el punto.” 53

Giovanna Tassi: “Efectivamente le apareció la Virgen del abono orgánico […]. Porqué, o sea: yo soy 54

comunicadora, y me contrataban para hacer campañas y todo eso, entonces una vez me contrataron para 55

hacer una campaña justamente sobre la agricultura sostenible y cambiar la visión de las fincas y ponerse en 56

el tema de las fincas agro-silvo-pastoriles, que es un manejo mucho más humano, digamos, del pedacito de 57

199

tierra que tú te compras y de la cual quieres vivir, no? Y allí me explicaban pues unos ingenieros, aunque 58

usted ya dice que no es ingeniero pero no importa, o sea gente que sabe de la tierra y que sabe de las 59

plantas, que en la sabiduría popular tal vez, sin saber la parte científica, pero por ejemplo que se combinen 60

ciertos tipos de plantas en una finca es justamente para mantener el equilibrio del suelo y para que este 61

suelo no muera. No sé si usted me puede explicar un poco más sobre eso, porque a mí me decían que si 62

está el frejol con otra planta, con la yuca, con el plátano, con el tomate, con los tomatitos chiquitos que 63

salen aquí en las chacras, bueno, esa planta le vuelve no sé que al suelo, ahorita ya no me acuerdo porque 64

tanto tiempo que hice esa campaña… pero que devuelve unos nutrientes que otra planta le quita, y esto 65

mantiene todo un equilibrio para que [la tierra] no se desertifique, porque la tierra no sea demasiado acida. 66

O sea que la sabiduría popular, sin saber tal vez de ciencia al estilo occidental, pero sabía perfectamente 67

cómo mantener viva la tierra.” 68

Fausto Falconì: “Exactamente es tal como usted lo dice. Y precisamente lo del ingeniero es por eso, porque 69

si yo no me desprendía de los títulos y toda esta coraza que tenemos los profesionales, creo que no hubiese 70

tenido la suficiente humildad para aprender de los que saben, que son los campesinos. Porque gracias a 71

dios, y a ellos hay que darle un agradecimiento enorme, porque han resistido estos 70 años guardando una 72

sabiduría que fue prácticamente arrasada con toda la maquinaria que existe por la parte de la 73

agroindustria, ¿no? Para vender todos los agro tóxicos y los fertilizantes, e ... la base de la agricultura 74

orgánica como habíamos hablado es esta: el suelo. Y uno de los principios es romper el monocultivo. Sin 75

embargo, siempre la agricultura convencional se basó en ciertas premisas que terminaron siendo 76

absolutamente falsas, ¿no? Primero que iban a solucionar el hambre en el mundo. Después de 70 años 77

tenemos mucha más hambre, sabemos que eso es un tema diferente, de distribución, ¿no? E otra de las 78

grandes mentiras que nos echaron es que la agricultura orgánica es ineficiente y que la agricultura 79

convencional sube la productividad, y también es mentira. Con la agricultura orgánica es mucho más 80

eficiente, mucho más rentable y mucho más productivo. Yo estoy en un cultivo súper intensivo, hago 81

incluso monocultivo, y es producto de exportación. Y en todo esto extremo digamos de la agricultura de 82

producción agrícola di una estructura súper intensiva la agricultura orgánica fue la única que me permitió 83

obtener resultados positivos. Porque la agricultura convencional al inicio es espectacular, tiene unos 84

resultados espectaculares pero después hay un descenso impresionante [...]. Entonces el tema es 85

confrontar estas pseudo verdades con las que nos engañaron a todo el planeta, porque insisto el tema no 86

es solo ecuatoriano. Y allí está el trasfondo de este tema: con la agricultura orgánica además la única 87

manera de sostener productividades y de tener una mejora continua, porque mientras más vivo esté el 88

suelo es incluso esa sostenibilidad está dada por ello, y como decía usted antes la rotación de cultivos y la 89

intercalamiento de varios cultivos es parte de todo este proceso orgánico. Pero incluso en monocultivo y en 90

producciones súper intensivas la agricultura orgánica es la única que nos permite dar sostenibilidad, alta 91

productividad y alta rentabilidad, que es un poco el tema que todo el mundo está buscando, incluso este 92

200

gobierno, con toda la razón, porque la agro está destruido. Nosotros como país tenemos las peores 93

productividades de la región en un montón de cultivos, en la mayoría. Y claro en la desesperación se buscan 94

alternativas medias locas, teniendo a la mano la agricultura orgánica que con garantía se puede demonstrar 95

que puede subir esta productividad y dar ingresos importantes a este sector tan grande que es del país, 96

¿no?” 97

Giovanna Tassi: “Fausto Falconì, ex ingeniero agrónomo entonces, convertido desde los agro químicos 98

hacia a lo natural, especialidad en manejo de suelos. […] Me dicen que hay una llamada telefónica desde 99

Guayaquil, buenos días, ¿Quién llama?” 100

SPEAKER A: “¡Buenos días dueña Giovanna! […] El ingeniero dice que va aprendiendo mas desde el 101

campesino que desde la propia universidad. Claro […] esos profesores que le dan clases de agricultura, de 102

agronomía, de qué sé yo, ¿qué experiencia tuvieron? […] Y esa fruta verde, comprar o comer eso es toxico 103

para la personas […] y no le dejan madurar a la fruta […] sino que es verde, verde […]. ¡Esto es un veneno 104

para la gente, para las personas! ¡Que es lo que estamos comiendo! […]” 105

Giovanna Tassi: “Claro que sí. Le voy a preguntar aquí a todos estos expertos en agricultura, porque yo sé 106

que a los tomates por ejemplo le inyectan hormonas para que sean más grandes, a las naranjillas aquí en 107

Pastaza y en otras partes del Ecuador le ponen antibióticos, hormonas… que ellas mismos vuelan porqué 108

son unas naranjillas que son tamaño de una naranja, ¿no? Cuando la naranjilla verdadera […] es riquísima, 109

tiene un perfume que la súper naranjilla voladora no tiene. Y me acuerdo que hice otra campaña sobre 110

estos temas, justamente para alertar sobre el uso indiscriminado de pesticidas para… para que las plantas 111

pinten bien, ¿no? Para que sean guapas, ¿no? Para que uno cuando la va a comprar diga: ‘Vea, que rojo que 112

es ese tomate’ o las papas no? Que se queda todo el veneno en las cascaras de las papas. Pero quiero 113

hablar con el señor que está en Guayaquil, el señor Louis Gomero coordinador nacional de la Red de Acción 114

de Agricultura Alternativa. Cuéntenos un poco señor Gomero allá en Perú como está la situación y si se 115

viven situaciones parecidas a esta que para que la fruta y la verdura sea más pintona, como decimos aquí, o 116

sea más bonita a la vista, se le ponen cosas que en realidad son dañinos para la salud y para los que cultivan 117

esas cosas.” 118

Louis Gomero: “Bueno, en primer lugar un saludo a su programa. Y creo que lo que estamos haciendo con 119

lo que viene sucediendo con la agricultura aquí en Ecuador es similar a lo que sucede en el Perú, por eso es 120

que estamos trabajando muy fuertemente para promover la agroecología como una estrategia de 121

desarrollo, pensamos de que tenemos que cambiar de actitud, tenemos que tener una propuesta técnica, 122

tenemos que revalorar nuestra agro biodiversidad, para encontrar este beneficio de la agricultura sana y 123

además de una agricultura que sea amigable con el medioambiente. Y en esa perspectiva creo que la 124

agricultura ecológica es una opción de desarrollo. Estamos trabajando mucho en el Perú para promover 125

201

este modelo de agricultura campesina, es una agricultura ancestral, no es una cosa que nos han... no es una 126

cosa nueva, digamos, para la zona andina, y especialmente para Bolivia, Perú y Ecuador, hay mucho 127

aprendizaje, hay mucho conocimiento, y quizás una cosa sorprendente que hemos logrado en el Perú es la 128

alianza cocineros-campesinos, casualmente para que la comida, porque la comida, digamos, que nosotros 129

nos servimos día a día, realmente esté articulado especialmente a los pequeños productores que hacen una 130

agricultura diversificada, como dice el señor Falconì. Creo que ese es el punto de partida, si hay una 131

agricultura diversificada, habrá una gastronomía diversificada, habrá una diversidad de tipos de alimentos y 132

nuestra nutrición será integral y no estaremos dependiendo solamente de un paquete de productos que 133

generalmente es manejado por las grandes corporaciones y esto es lo que beneficia digamos a un grupo de 134

poder y no beneficia los pequeños productores que son la base de la seguridad y la soberanía alimentaria. Y 135

eso es el esfuerzo que se viene haciendo en muchos países de América latina, hay un movimiento 136

agroecológico que plantea de que esta es la ruta para el desarrollo sostenible y para el desarrollo rural que 137

nosotros necesitamos y además creo que estamos en el momento de reconocer el esfuerzo que vienen 138

realizando los pequeños y medianos productores, lo que se llama la agricultura familiar, porque ellos han 139

tenido la responsabilidad histórica de conservar y mantener la agro biodiversidad que ahora muchos 140

estamos revalorando y estamos disfrutando sus valores nutricionales, medicinales, de todo tipo, y también 141

porque este grupo es la que en concreto contribuye con aproximadamente el 65% de los alimentos para 142

nuestros países. Sin embargo es el sector que menos apoyo concreto ha recibido de las política de estado. 143

Sin embargo es la que digamos se le ha sometido una presión para imponerles una tecnología como la 144

agricultura de la Revolución Verde o la agricultura de los químicos, como muy bien lo ha explicado el señor 145

Falconì. Creo que esto es un gran desafío que tenemos y en el Perú estamos avanzando en esta 146

perspectiva. Y allí viene la necesidad de aprobar leyes a favor de la agricultura orgánica, leyes para prohibir 147

definitivamente el ingreso de los transgénicos en nuestros países porque creo que esta tecnología, al igual 148

que la tecnología de la Revolución Verde, es una amenaza para la humanidad, es una amenaza para la agro 149

biodiversidad, es una amenaza para la salud, es una amenaza para construir la sostenibilidad hasta social y 150

ambiental en los países mega diverso como es Perú, como es Bolivia, como es Ecuador.” 151

GT “Muchísimas gracias. […] Vamos a seguir hablando porqué me están diciendo qua hay otra llamada 152

telefónica. ¡Buenos días! ¿Quien llama?” 153

SPEAKER B: “!Buenos días! […] Sabe que nosotros estamos aquí trabajando con unas asociaciones de la 154

Parroquia y con las escuelas de la revolución agraria también, para los productos orgánicos. O sea, es una 155

experiencia interesante, poco a poco los campesinos se van uniendo a esta propuesta, a esta alternativa. 156

Pero yo veo que hay un pequeño problema: la cuestión es que, como que a los productos orgánicos se 157

están también… como se diría, poniendo a un precio un poco elevado que resulta que ahora solo los que 158

tienen dinero pueden comprar los productos orgánicos. Entonces mi pregunta es esa: ¿como podemos 159

202

hacer para que los productos orgánicos lleguen a que los que realmente necesitan comer esos productos 160

orgánicos que son producidos biológicamente mejor y pero que sea un precio accesible a todos, no solo lo 161

que tienen más plata. Pero resulta que como… en Italia me parece que fue, la polenta fue un tiempo 162

comida de los pobres y ahora es una comida de lujo, ¿lo cierto? […]” 163

Giovanna Tassi: “Claro, la polenta se hacía del maíz y era… sí, era el pan de los pobres porque el pan de 164

trigo costaba demasiado” 165

SPEAKER B: “Ah, ah. Y entonces es esa mi pregunta y por otro lado reconocer también los esfuerzos que se 166

están haciendo […]” 167

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Vamos al corte, de retorno quiero […] preguntarle a Juan José Paniagua, maestro 168

agricultor, ¿porque según él es tan complejo hacer que los productos orgánicos, la forma de cultivar de 169

manera orgánica porqué encuentra todavía tanta resistencia y le meten tanto cuento al rededor de eso? 170

¿De que tienen miedo los otros agricultores que aplican todavía los principios de la Revolución Verde? [...]” 171

COMMERCIAL BREAK 172

Giovanna Tassi: “Seguimos aquí en La Cabina […]. Entonces, quedaba la pregunta para Juan José Paniagua 173

maestro agricultor de Costa Rica: de que tienen miedo los que son tan detractores de la agricultura 174

biológica y cual serán los intereses que hay detrás de esto? ¿A que amos sirven los que dicen que la 175

agricultura biológica es para unos cuantos hippies, trasnochados, que creen que la vida es pura maripositas, 176

etcétera, etcétera? ¡Buenos días y bienvenido!” 177

Juan José Paniagua: “[…] Cuando hablamos de agricultura orgánica estamos hablando de tecnología, 178

estamos hablando de que tenemos que ser más eficientes, de... se habla de que no es competitiva, que no 179

es eficiente y en realidad no damos cuenta que la agricultura orgánica tiene todas estas ventajas : podemos 180

ser eficientes, podemos cultivar variedades de hortaliza, verduras de excelente calidad, ricas en minerales, 181

y uno de los problemas serios para que el campesino no crea que se pueda producir orgánico es mucha 182

disciplina, esto requiere disciplina. Hay tecnología, pero necesitamos disciplina. E... podemos ser muy 183

competitivos, podemos producir alta cuantidad de producción, podemos competir con los mercados, 184

podemos darle a un consumidor también de muy baja entrada económica como de muy alta entrada 185

económica. Entonces la agricultura orgánica se ha hizo para todo el mundo, para que tengamos cualidad de 186

vida en todos sentidos de la palabra, entonces para nosotros lo que tenemos que hacer es educarnos, 187

disciplinarnos, para poder tener una agricultura de alta tecnología.” 188

Giovanna Tassi: “Pero por ejemplo en Costa Rica, señor Juan José, como está el debate sobre el tema 189

agricultura, digamos, tradicional, entendida tradicional como la que viene de la Revolución Verde, versus 190

agricultura orgánica?” 191

203

Juan José Paniagua “Cuando hablamos de el debate, digamos, siento que cada día vamos ganando los 192

orgánicos, por una sencilla razón: empezamos con pequeños campesinos. Al campesino le cuesta 193

realmente creer que se pueda producir sin la necesidad de la Revolución Verde. Tenemos que rescatar 194

todos lo de nuestro ancestros, y, lo más importante: cuando ya in Costa Rica hablamos de áreas tan 195

grandes como banano, piña, cacao, café, que estamos hablando de miles de hectáreas, estamos hablando 196

de una alta productividad. Y, para decirlo así, por ejemplo, esta semana es historia en Costa Rica porqué 197

tenemos el colegio de ingenieros agrónomos, bananeros… hablando de agricultura orgánica, de los 198

beneficios… bananero del cual producían dos mil cajas de bananos ahorita están produciendo cuatro mil 199

cajas de banano por hectárea. Eso habla. Y…” 200

Giovanna Tassi: “Habiendo convertido lo cultivos que antes me imagino que los cuidaban con la agricultura 201

de los pesticidas y los agroquímicos los han convertido in orgánico y han incrementado la producción.” 202

Juan José Paniagua: “Correcto. ¿Porqué? Porqué si hablamos de los bananeros son los más contaminantes, 203

si hablamos de los piñeros es una contaminación impresionante. Pero allá, como tenemos un país que 204

amamos la ecología, y... los gobiernos, hemos logrado la ley de agricultura orgánica, entonces ya los 205

gobiernos ven que es una opción muy buena para el país, para el mundo y principalmente la política de 206

nuestra presidenta ha sido sobre la sostenibilidad. Tenemos que hacer de nuestros proyectos un proyecto 207

sostenible, el problema de los campesinos, nosotros, los campesinos, que la mayoría no tienen un proyecto 208

sostenible. Y esas empresas se han metido a lo orgánico porqué ya no eran sostenible. Entonces ellos 209

también están viendo que con la agricultura orgánica va a ser sostenibles, y cuando hablo de sostenibilidad, 210

estamos hablando miles de años, o ciento años.” 211

Giovanna Tassi: “Así es, por supuesto porqué yo no soy experta, pero lo que me latea a mi es que la 212

agricultura química, de agroquímicos y pesticidas es una agricultura que finalmente va a desertificar la 213

tierra y vamos a perder el elemento que nos ayuda a estar vivo, que es la tierra. Pero vamos con una 214

llamada telefónica [...]. ¡Buenos días! ¿Quien llama?” 215

SPEAKER C: “¡Muy buenos días! […] Yo quería indicar que a nivel del Pichincha la semana pasada se aprobé 216

en primera discusión la ordenanza de producción agroecológica. Es importantes que gobiernos locales 217

como los gobiernos parroquiales que están más relacionados con el campo empiecen a toman en serio el 218

tema de la agricultura. Ya que nosotros cada día estamos quedándonos sin productores ya en el campo. 219

Todo el mundo está abandonando el campo ya que la alternativa de la producción convencional de la 220

Revolución Verde ha ido acabando con el campesino. Entonces es importantes que podamos retomar el 221

tema de la agricultura orgánica, una agricultura que hasta hace unos setenta o ochenta años atrás llevaba 222

por nuestros compañeros campesinos. Entonces felicitarles y decirles que den este mensaje, que esta 223

alternativa es pertinente en cada uno de nuestros lugares, especialmente en las parroquias rurales de todo 224

204

el país, de todo el Ecuador. Y pues también la formas de manejar nuestros suelos están terribles, que cada 225

día está desertificándose más nuestros campo. Eso el mensaje, muchas gracias.” 226

Giovanna Tassi: “Gracias, muchísimas gracias. […] Me dicen que ya ha llegado en Guayaquil la maestra 227

Jessica Vásquez, agricultora y campesina, ¡Buenos días señora Jessica! ¿Allí está?” 228

Jessica Vásquez: “Así es, buen día.” 229

Giovanna Tassi: “¿Cómo está, Jessica? Mire, quiero saber que es lo que pasa allá en Daule con los 230

agricultores y con la agricultura orgánica. Me parece bellísimo poder mostrar esta articulación, mas allá del 231

programa que cada vez, que cada semana tenemos los sábados, Minga por la Pachamama que para mí, yo 232

se lo he dicho también a los que hacen, es una pequeña olla para la Radio Pública tener un programa que 233

habla de agricultura orgánica, que hable de nuestra comida, que habla de los agricultores y agricultoras que 234

se fajan y hacen que nosotros podamos comer y que nos preservan pues la soberanía nacional a través de 235

la semillas, del patrimonio agrícola, ¿no? Que es un patrimonio que tal vez no se puede tocar mucho pero 236

es importantísimo e por el cual pasa nuestra soberanía. Entonces, ¿allá en Daule como están las cosas con 237

la agricultura orgánica, Jessica?” 238

Jessica Vásquez: “Bueno, en Daule específicamente se está haciendo un trabajo con compañeros 239

agricultores en la parte rural, tratando de que se haga la conciencia de trabajar con menos químicos y 240

poder así preservar el medio ambiente. No solamente a nivel local, en el Cantón, y rural. Sino también a 241

nivel de la provincia en algunos cantones... estamos haciendo un trabajo en el cual estoy con muchos 242

compañeros, presidentes y dirigentes de distintos cantones y recintos, se está tratando de llevar a cada 243

lugar, a cada rincón el trabajo con lo que es la materia orgánica, haciendo la agricultura. Vamos avanzando 244

y eso es importante para nosotros, tratar de que nuestra gente comienza a concientizar y saber que los 245

químicos no son buenos en la alimentación de nuestro pueblo.” 246

Giovanna Tassi: “Y entonces como va eso? O sea, están ganando adeptos para hablar así, o sea como 247

partido político, están ganando adeptos al partido de la agricultura orgánica?” 248

Jessica Vásquez: “Bueno pues, pienso que sí, porque realmente en cada lugar donde nosotros vamos o 249

directamente, o sea como dirigentes, o como agricultores, pues llevamos el mensaje y la gente, pues, 250

también va haciendo conciencia. No es que pensamos, no es que creemos, si no que lo estamos haciendo y 251

la gente va concientizando.” 252

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Y quiero volver justamente con el señor Falconì. Usted tiene toda la formación clásica 253

del ingeniero agrónomo, y como dice que es veinticinco años que es ingeniero agrónomo no es un peladito 254

recién ha salido de la universidad, entonces tiene toda esta formación cuando los ingenieros agrónomos 255

llegaban al campo casi como un imagen divina y le tenían que explicarle a los campesinos que hasta ese 256

205

momento habían vivido, llegaba usted que como la luz iba a iluminar el camino, ¿no? Usted ha hecho todo 257

un proceso de despojarse, tal vez no tanto del conocimiento que no está mal, pero del arrogancia de decir a 258

la gente que no sabía nada cuando la gente sabe muchísimo a veces, y sabe a veces más que los propios 259

ingenieros agrónomos. Pero como están saliendo los ingenieros agrónomos actuales, quiero decir: uno 260

puedo pregonar un montón la agricultura orgánica y todo eso, ¿pero los ingenieros agrónomos en todas sus 261

especialidades, que tipo de formación reciben ahora en el 2012, ingeniero Falconì… Fausto?” 262

Fausto Falconì: “Gracias. Dueña Giovanna el punto es que a nosotros realmente no nos forman, nos 263

deforman. Porque toda la estructura de estudio, y no es aquí, no es tirar a matar nuestras universidades, es 264

una formación estructurada desde hace años. Toda la estructura que recibimos viene de la segunda guerra 265

mundial. La maquinaria bélica, después de la segunda guerra mundial, se queda sin trabajo. Entonces 266

adaptan toda la tecnología de venenos y la maquinaria para la agricultura, porque no tenían como lucrar de 267

eso. Y la agricultura convencional se basa en la muerte, en una maquinaria de guerra. Hay que comenzar a 268

entender de donde viene. Entonces todo lo que estudiamos en nombre de la ciencia y de la famosa 269

tecnología, la que hacemos tanta oda, nos ha bloqueado un montón de conocimientos: hemos perdido la 270

capacidad de observar, de ser sensibles en frente la naturaleza. Yo me hago una pregunta: porque el ser 271

humano hace una oda algo que al final es un juguete humano: aviones, computadoras, cuando ni siquiera 272

entendemos que es la vida. Si uno entiende o tratar de entender esta cuestión tan maravillosa que es la 273

vida, creo que puede tener la suficiente capacidad para despojarse de tonteras como los títulos para poder 274

dialogar, compartir con la gente que realmente sabe. Y ese es el fondo. Ahora, nuestros ingenieros actuales 275

tienen la misma formación. Tal vez, porqué esta moda, reciben alguna cátedra pequeñita de cuestión 276

orgánica, pero como algo adicional, cuando es el trasfondo de todo. Creo que usted ha tocado unos de los 277

puntos más importantes: si nosotros no cambiamos la estructura, el pensum de estudio de la universidad, 278

jamás vamos a poder salir, porque nosotros somos una tropa que... diría, de mercenarios, que salimos a 279

implantar un sistema y a obligarle al campesino a que implante esto sistema, y producto de esto es ...son 280

las terribles consecuencias, no solo con el pequeño campesino, insisto, vea como esta incluso la gran 281

agroindustria: no sabe para donde tomar, porque sus productividades también son un desastre. Hay que 282

hablar con claridad. El problema es que una vez muerto el suelo no hay para donde correr. Entonces 283

buscamos…” 284

Giovanna Tassi: “¿No hay como hacerlo resucitar al suelo?” 285

Fausto Falconì: “Hay como, hay como. Y hay como hacerlo rápidamente, porque hasta hace poco no 286

sabíamos una serie de métodos, que ahora sí los dominamos en la agricultura orgánica, por eso se 287

esperaba cinco o seis años para recuperar un suelo, ahora se lo hace in cinco o seis meses. Esa es la gran 288

diferencia, porqué el campesino no puede, no puede esperar. Pero la demonstración más practica es: 289

¿porque la gente del campo se ha ido? Año 2000: el campesino estaba el 70%, la población rural era el 70% 290

206

y 30% la urbana aquí en ecuador. Después de 10 años, ano 2010, esto si invierte exactamente. Donde se 291

fue el campesino? Así un rato habló un señor de la Esperanza, Morocho: allá se él hizo un censo, y el 292

promedio de edad del campesino que está trabajando sobrepasa los 60 años, entonces donde están los 293

jóvenes? Los jóvenes no se van del campo porqué hay discotecas en la ciudad, ellos se van porque es algo 294

que no les permite recibir ingresos y hasta ahora no hemos hablado de lo que significa comer productos no 295

solo envenenados, sino absolutamente desnutridos. Porque nosotros como agrónomos apena sabemos 296

manejar 14, 16 minerales de la tabla periódica, cuando cualquier roca tiene más de 30 y es el origen del 297

suelo, la riqueza natural está allí, mas aun en nuestros suelos que son de origen volcánico con una riqueza 298

fabulosa, entonces…” 299

Giovanna Tassi: “Fausto, Fausto nos vamos… debo ir a una llamada, al corte. Pero tenemos una hora más 300

justamente para hablar de eso y para hablar también del tema transgénico, que es un tema bastante 301

complejo diría yo… bastante complejo. Pero vamos con una llamada. Me dicen que hay una llamada desde 302

Puyo, que emoción que llaman desde Puyo, y después vamos al micro. Adelante con la llamada por favor. 303

¡Buenos días!” 304

SPEAKER D: “Muy buenos días señorita Giovanna. […] Mire yo soy un amante de la agricultura orgánica y es 305

por eso que en mi casa tengo un invernadero, y realmente he logrado que se me den muchos productos 306

[…]. Pero no he logrado hasta el momento que se me dé el tomate porqué es una planta con bastante 307

problemas de plaga. Incluso la ultima semilla que logré conseguir, no sé que tipo de semilla era pero se 308

permanecía por unos o dos meses totalmente verde en la planta y se caía así verde, nunca maduraba. Y por 309

ejemplo estaba escuchando antes una chica que comer productos verdes es malo. ¿Qué será que el señor 310

por favor me aconseje? […]” 311

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Claro que sí! Bueno la tenemos allí guardada para el regreso cuando luego del micro 312

volvemos con la segunda hora de la cabina y allí vamos a hablar justamente de alimentos que den de 313

comer, que nutran, no solo que sean pura pinta sino que tengan nutrición, contenido, ¿no? Y también del 314

tema de los transgénicos y sus problemas específicos: aquí con tanto maestro agricultor alguna respuesta la 315

va a tener seguramente. Así que manténgase en sintonía de La Cabina, ¡donde el micrófono es tucrofono! Y 316

diría yo un micrófono orgánico, sí, sí, sí orgánico. ¡Vámonos!” 317

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] El día de hoy es un programa que habla de agricultura orgánica y agroecología. A ver, 318

antes de volver con las preguntas más conceptuales, una respuesta para nuestra amiga del Puyo que quiere 319

sembrar el tomate orgánico pero dice que tiene muchos líos porqué es una planta muy delicada. Entre 320

todos los maestros agricultores que están allí presentes entre Quito y Guayaquil, ¿Quién le puede 321

responder para decirle que tiene que hacer con su tomatito?” 322

207

Juan José Paniagua: “Para esa niña es muy fácil. Necesitamos tener […] una semilla que sea criolla, que sea 323

resistente, y nosotros trabajamos mucho con eso pero que tenga en cuenta que una planta necesita 324

noventa dos minerales, el suelo tiene que tener muy buena materia orgánica, tiene que tener mucha 325

microbiología, y muy rico en minerales. […]” 326

Giovanna Tassi: “Entonces pero el secreto es una semilla criolla, o sea no de las que venden, sino de un 327

tomatito de esos… Aquí en Puyo, que le estoy hablando desde la Amazonia Ecuatoriana, en las chacras 328

hacen como un tomate chino le dicen, un tomate chiquitito. ¿Ese podría ser una semilla digamos criolla, o 329

sea que no es hibrida, que no está manipulada genéticamente?” 330

Juan José Paniagua: “Correcto, de hecho debería ser el tomate que nosotros deberíamos de consumir. […]” 331

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Me dicen que hay dos llamadas telefónicas, ¡adelante con la llamadas […]!” 332

SPEAKER E: “¡Hola, buen día! […] Por el concreto [quiero] hacer la siguiente pregunta al señor: primero, 333

quiero saber que puedo hacer. Tengo un terreno […] que es tanto pedregoso y con tanta agua. Quiero 334

saber: ¿Qué puedo hacer? Como le mejoro? […] Muy amable, ¡gracias!” 335

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Muchas gracias Patricio! Otra llamada quiero decir, ¡buenos días!” 336

SPEAKER F: “[…] ¡Buenos días! […] Mire, quiera hacerle una pregunta al ingeniero de Costa Rica, y quería 337

preguntarle para que… donde puedo conseguir o sea información acerca de los abonos orgánicos […] 338

Giovanna Tassi: “Pero sí entendimos la pregunta, o sea, ¿Dónde conseguir información y sobre todo si él 339

tiene alguna pagina web con algún consejo, con algunas cosas. Me imagino que por allí andaba la pregunta, 340

José. […] Entonces don Fausto, ¿Qué hacemos con el terreno allá en el Valle de Los Chillos […], como 341

mejorarlo ese terreno?” 342

Fausto Falconì: “Bueno lo que puede hacer es sembrar leguminosas y cereales, puedes sembrar avenas, 343

pero no para que le coseche, sino para dejarle como abono verde. […]” 344

Giovanna Tassi: “!Qué bien! ¡Fantástico! Vean como se aprende todos los días. ¿Y para José Proaño […] que 345

le preguntaba a Juan José Paniagua, maestro agricultor de Costa Rica sobre el tema de abonos orgánicos?” 346

Juan José Paniagua: “Mira, hay mil formas de hacer abonos orgánicos. Yo siempre… nosotros hemos dejado 347

los secretos, damos todo lo que tenemos, y aquí en Ecuador, […] nosotros podemos hacerle llegar todos los 348

documentos, toda la información que tenemos. Entonces allí se le puede facilitar todo a él.” 349

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Perfecto! ¿Pero hay alguna… hay alguna dirección donde… o sino José Proaño vuelva a 350

llamar a la Radio en interno con Maria Josè para que le puede dar los datos de Juan José Paniagua, maestro 351

agricultor. Yo quiero hacer una pregunta respecto al tema de cómo vender el producto agricultura 352

208

orgánica, porque si todo lo que se está diciendo aquí en este programa es la verdad, y es la verdad porque 353

lo dicen ustedes que trabajan… todos los días con la tierra y con los productos orgánicos. ¿Porqué cuando 354

se… coteja, digamos, la agricultura tradicional entendida con los pesticidas y la compañía y la agricultura 355

orgánica, siempre gana la posición de la agricultura tradicional? Si ustedes pueden demonstrar con 356

números, que la agricultura orgánica incrementa la producción, permite producto monocultivo o sea 357

agricultura intensiva, me parece que se dice así, ¿porqué a la hora de tomar decisiones de políticas publicas 358

sobre la agricultura, siempre gana al tema de la agricultura tradicional con agro químicos y pesticidas? Y se 359

lo quiero empezar a preguntar a Louis Gomero de Perú, que me dicen que también es experto en temas de 360

suelo. Pero hay una llamada, entonces vamos con la llamada y después Louis, por favor, si me responde a 361

mi pregunta. ¡Adelante con la llamada de Guayaquil! ¡Buenos días!” 362

SPEAKER G: “¡Buenos días! […] Mire la situación es que tenemos que todos los Ecuatorianos unirnos para 363

evitar de que se vengan estos transgénicos porqué como sabemos, claro que no todos, pero sí, la situación 364

es prácticamente manipulada por los monopolios, por su beneficio económico. Y prácticamente por la salud 365

nuestra nos va a liquidar porque hay varias pruebas ya de los transgénicos que no nos conviene, no nos 366

beneficia tampoco económicamente.” 367

Giovanna Tassi: “Exactamente. Bueno yo estoy de acuerdo” 368

SPEAKER G: “Entonces prácticamente eso de nuestra parte tenemos que llamarle, prácticamente al señor 369

presidente, o darle a conocer al señor presidente, porqué yo le escuchaba que hay un planteamiento, 370

prácticamente de estos de PRONACA, que es un monopolio en nuestro país y no sé también a nivel del 371

mundo… desconozco también a nivel del mundo de PRONACA, ¿no? […] Entonces prácticamente que no se 372

deje cometer eso al señor presidente, en el sentido que prácticamente nuestro país, como estamos 373

tratando hoy, como está tratando su programa, que debemos manejarnos la agricultura con un sistema 374

orgánico […].” 375

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Gracias, muchísimas gracias […]! A ver Louis, entonces: ¿porqué, porqué siempre gana 376

esta visión economicista de la agricultura, cuando la agricultura orgánica puede demonstrar que in 377

términos numéricos, también de ganancias, puede hacer ganar como la otra agricultura?” 378

Louis Gomero: “Bueno, bien Giovanna, yo creo que esta es una pregunta muy pertinente y muy útil, poder 379

evaluarlo y reflexionar profundamente porqué realmente, a pesar que la propuesta de la agricultura 380

orgánica o la agroecología están mostrando resultados interesantes en el tema de la productividad, en el 381

tema de la conservación del medio ambiente, en el tema de la seguridad alimentaria no está avanzando al 382

ritmo que quisiéramos. Allí hay algunos puntos que debemos estacar: en primer lugar la agricultura 383

convencional o tradicional, como lo llamas, se ha insertado, o, mejor dicho, ha logrado, a través de los años, 384

debidos a las diferentes políticas publicas a insertarse en la dinámica de los agricultores. Como que los 385

209

agricultores consideran que la única opción para manejar sus cultivos es recurrir a la tecnología de la 386

Revolución Verde. Ellos ven de que consideran y así se ha trasmitido por muchísimos años, yo diría por más 387

de 50 años, ¿no? Una política concreta para poder promover esta tecnología como la única opción. Y 388

además cuando se generó esta tecnología nadie cuestionó sus posibles impactos ambientales. Y recién, 389

después de muchísimos años, estamos poniendo in cuestión, por los costos ambientales que esta pues 390

viene generando. Por ejemplo, los institutos de investigación agropecuaria se concentraron, en los últimos 391

50 años, a promover tecnologías de la Revolución Verde. Las universidades como se ha indicado se 392

dedicaron a formar agrónomos para poder recetar y dosificar el uso de los fertilizantes y los pesticidas. Los 393

programas de extensión agrícola, han estado enfocado para poder, como usted muy bien lo dijo, para 394

formar y tener ingenieros en el campo que le dieran luz a los agricultores, se le impusieran una tecnología. 395

Entonces, en conclusión, parecería digamos que esta tecnología está formando parte de la propia dinámica 396

de los agricultores y los agricultores se resisten a los procesos de cambio, ¿no? Entonces y además 397

pensamos de que todavía si bien es cierto hay avances en una series de políticas a nivel de América Latina y 398

a nivel de los países de la comunidad andina, de aprobar leyes que promuevan la agricultura ecológica, 399

pero todavía no se le está destinando los recursos económicos necesarios para generar el proceso de 400

reconversión tecnológica. Así mismo, todavía no tenemos el recurso humano suficiente como para poder 401

enfrentar al interés comercial de las grandes corporaciones. Porque las grandes corporaciones de 402

agroquímicos tiene al control muy fino de lo que es el tema del mercado, de los insumos químicos. Yo creo 403

que ellos son los que ahora llegan a los agricultores permanentemente como visitadores, no para darlos 404

asistencia técnica sino para ofrecerles las bondades de sus productos químicos.” 405

Giovanna Tassi: “Es que estas grande transnacionales son dueños de las semillas, de los pesticidas, de las 406

medicinas para las plantas que se enferman... O sea es todo una red que realmente uno queda atrapado 407

allá adentro y no sale y no sale, no?” 408

Louis Gomero: “Exactamente. Y casualmente lo que estamos promoviendo un nuevo modelo de 409

agricultura, definitivamente no tenemos esas herramientas, no tenemos esa capacidad económica. Todavía 410

estamos tratando de persuadir digamos a muchos agricultores, a muchos técnicos o profesionales para que 411

puedan cambiar una visión de lo que significa la agricultura. Es un trabajo que va a tomar muchos años, 412

estamos trabajando más o menos en este tema de manera más permanente, intensa, no más de 20 años, y 413

todavía es insuficiente. Recién en los últimos años se está teniendo una apertura de los gobiernos, se están 414

implementando o se están aprobando algunas políticas, pero no basta que se aprueben políticas, si estas 415

políticas no van acompañado de recursos económicos para poder diseñar una estrategia de asistencia 416

técnica general y hacerles ver digamos al conjunto de la sociedad y también a los agricultores de lo 417

importante que significa conservar, digamos, la agro biodiversidad, lo importante que significa producir 418

alimentos sanos, ¿no? Usted me ha dicho, por ejemplo, hace un momento, ¿Por qué, digamos, los precios 419

210

de los productos orgánicos son muy caros? Definitivamente eso es un desafío, es un recto de todos 420

aquellos que estamos trabajando en la agricultura ecológica de como bajar los costos. Tenemos que hacer 421

procesos de innovación tecnológica que bajen estos costos y sean accesible a los ciudadanos, a los 422

consumidores de nuestros países. Y no solamente estemos enfocando la producción de la agricultura 423

ecológica pensando en los mercados internacionales, que lamentablemente realmente no es nada 424

interesante desde el punto de vista de la sostenibilidad y la soberanía alimentaria. Hay muchos desafíos. No 425

podemos decir tampoco que la propuesta agroecológica tiene digamos todas, todas las condiciones fáciles 426

para avanzar. Hay muchas limitaciones que hay que enfrentarlos estratégicamente, y creo que los esfuerzos 427

que hacen los agricultores demostrando la viabilidad de la propuesta es un punto de partida importante, 428

pero hay que dar un paso mayor, y eso tiene a que ver con el diseño de políticas publicas y eso tiene a que 429

ver como vamos a defender, ¿no? Nuestra agro biodiversidad, y ¿cómo vamos a promover nuevas 430

tecnología? Quisiéramos que la universidades no se dediquen a hacer investigaciones para demonstrar las 431

ventajas comparativas de los insumos químicos, sino que empiecen a hacer investigaciones sobre la 432

biodiversidad, sobre los microorganismos, sobre las tecnologías ecológicas, etc. Creo que esos son las 433

opciones que nos van a ayudar a tener herramientas concretas para mejorar nuestra productividad en el 434

campo.” 435

Giovanna Tassi: “Tenemos una llamada desde Guayaquil. ¡Buenos días! ¿Quién llama?” 436

SPEAKER H: “¡Hola! Buenos días señorita Giovanna […]. Una pregunta y una historia. La historia es que mira 437

yo soy de la provincia del Chimborazo, Cantón Riobamba, barrio Caponì. Mi papá […] era el mayor cebollero 438

[…]. Una vez sacamos como seiscientos sacos de cebollas, nos fuimos a Riobamba a vender y ahora yo tenía 439

ni siquiera unos sietes o ocho años […] Créame que mi papa no vendió un solo saco de cebollas […]. Y de 440

todos estos terrenos [ahora] están botados. […] Si a mí me dieran apoyo alguien, un préstamo […].” 441

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Yo me acuerdo cuando vivía en Pesillo que iba un señor con un camión a comprarles 442

las papas directamente para volverlas a revender, y eran muchos más caras. Y era todo una red de 443

intermediarios que son los que hacen subir los precios pero que ahora se está tratando en muchos casos de 444

cortar esas redes de intermediarios, ¿no? Pero bueno eso manifiesta un poco lo que... a mí me parece que 445

hace falta digamos al lado de la agricultura orgánica. No es que le faltan los argumentos, le falta una 446

estrategia de venta del producto agricultura orgánica. Será que yo soy comunicadora, entonces sé que uno 447

si hace una buena estrategia comunicacional, puede posicionar y vender el producto y hacer que la gente 448

crea y a nivel de políticas publicas también, a través de los asambleísta también, hacer presión para que los 449

gobiernos tomen determinadas decisiones, por ejemplo respecto al tema de los transgénicos. Yo no sé si 450

Jessica Vásquez, de Daule. Usted aquí me han puesto que es maestra… Jessica Vásquez es maestra, ¿o sea 451

maestra de escuela usted?” 452

211

Jessica Vásquez: “No compañera, allí hay una equivocación. Yo soy técnico, ingeniero agrónomo y hago 453

dirigencia dentro de la Federación de Centros Agrícolas, y también al mismo tiempo soy agricultora y 454

siembro arroz.” 455

Giovanna Tassi: “Perfecto Jessica. Entonces el tema de los transgénicos. Se está ablando en la zona donde 456

usted trabaja, donde usted es dirigente, se están analizando el tema de los transgénicos?” 457

Jessica Vásquez: “Bueno en el nuestro sector prácticamente se conversa a diario con los agricultores y 458

dirigentes que están al rededor de la FECAOL. Nosotros como FECAOL en este momento estamos 459

impulsando ferias agroecológicas y orgánicas, y al mismo tiempo en este momento estamos en un foro 460

internacional de agricultura orgánica y agroecología. Entonces están participando este del agro 461

internacional, donde estamos conociendo y haciendo conocer algunos agricultores dirigentes sobre el 462

asunto de los transgénicos.” 463

Giovanna Tassi: “Ya. Eso es un tema bastante complejo, aquí he recibido un mail (SPEAKER I) de Segundo 464

Buestan. Dice: ‘Estamos gobernados por las corporaciones agrícolas. La biotecnología agrícola moderna se 465

ha visto en la necesidad de crear alimentos genéticamente modificados para ofrecer posibilidades de 466

mejorar la calidad y rendimiento de los cultivos sin que se requieran tierras de cultivos adicionales, obtener 467

mejores fibras, reducir los costos de producción y mejorar el contenido nutricional de los alimentos. No 468

obstante, según asegura la página oficial de Greenpeace, los cultivos transgénicos no alimentan al mundo, 469

ya que el 99,5% de agricultores y agricultoras no los cultivan. Así mismo afirma que la agricultura industrial 470

usa fertilizantes sintéticos e agroquímicos que contaminan nuestros suelos y aguas, recursos necesarios 471

para producir alimentos sanos ahora y en el futuro. Este hecho contribuye al agravamiento del cambio 472

climático. Por otro lado denuncia que solo 10 multinacionales controlan cuasi el 70% del mercado mundial 473

de semillas, lo que significa que los y las agricultoras tienen poca capacidad de elección’. Yo creo que ha 474

hecho un resumen bastante bueno. Fausto, el tema de los transgénicos, el tema de las corporaciones 475

transnacionales, que te hibridan las semillas, ya la semillas no pueden ser sembradas de la fruta o de la 476

verdura porque son hibridas, entonces no pueden reproducirse. Entonces hay que comprar 477

constantemente eso. Eso provoca la erosión de nuestro patrimonio de semillas que tenemos en cada país y 478

en el mundo entero. Después estas mismas transnacionales te venden las medicinas para las plantas que se 479

enferman. Y después te venden los pesticidas para matar a las plantas que nacen juntos a las otras plantas 480

y que son agresivísimas y que te empiezan a comer los cultivos a lado. Pero, los transgénicos son tan malos 481

como se los pinta, o puede ser que una modificación genética puede ayudar para fortalecer algo de esa 482

planta o de esa semilla?” 483

Fausto Falconì: “Hay una cosa que creo que hay que aclarar para el señor taxista porqué esa es la realidad 484

de la gente del campo, la gente abandona por eso. No es solo un problema de producción, de tecnología, 485

212

pero es un problema de tenencia de tierra y comercialización, entonces yo creo que es un problema 486

estructural del agro. La clave, yo por eso después de un rato creo que la participación de Juan José es clave, 487

porque él tiene la experiencia de haber estado cuasi en la misma condiciones que el padre de este señor 488

taxista, y haber llegado a un momento donde nosotros, no solo yo, miles de personas vamos a aprender 489

allá de una experiencia campesina absolutamente exitosa. Pero hablando de él, de la pregunta en concreto, 490

hay que hacer un enfoque bastante, digamos, conectado. La Revolución Verde, la revolución de la 491

agricultura industrial, comenzó hace 70 años y el origen fue esta conversión de la industria bélica. Comenzó 492

en base a tres puntos: las fertilizaciones químicas, la mecanización, los pesticidas, perdón me faltó uno, y 493

las semillas certificadas, ¿ok? Este es el pilar de esta agricultura. Durante 50 años prácticamente devastaron 494

el campo en el mundo, incluso en los grandes territorios de las corporaciones que producen altísimo 495

alimento, el terreno está absolutamente destruido. El famoso cinturón del maíz, que es el ejemplo de la 496

Revolución Verde en los Estados Unidos es en este momento es un lugar que cuasi no produce. Entonces 497

esta es la ventaja que tienen las grandes corporaciones que ellos pueden utilizarle a la tierra como papel 498

higiénico: ya no sirve, la botan y compran nueva tierra. Pero el campesino no tiene esa posibilidad. 499

Entonces esa es la primera premisa. La segunda es que los transgénicos es parte de toda esta cadena. Los 500

transgénicos no es que son tampoco tan nuevos, tienen 25 años y no han resuelto absolutamente nada. 501

Hay informes muy consistentes de por ejemplo que la soya transgénica, su pretexto de subir la 502

productividad, cuando uno analiza, no sube nada. Consistentemente hay datos de 10 años de producción 503

con el 10% de producción más baja que la soya normal, que la semilla normal. Y sin embargo cuando se va y 504

se indaga a los dueños de las semillas transgénica ellos paladinamente respondieron que nunca ofrecieron 505

que iba a subir la productividad. Entonces fuera de todas las connotaciones de salud, de contaminación de 506

la biodiversidad, el problema es que tampoco hay ninguna garantía de que suba la productividad. A mí me 507

asusta mucho lo que se quiere hacer en este país. Si empresas gigantes, transnacionales, apena han sacado 508

cuatro tipos de productos transgénicos: el maíz, la canola, la soya y ahorita se me escapa uno de ellos… 509

Nosotros queremos hacer aquí transgénicos con una tecnología que ni de lejos se compara con la que ellos 510

tienen. Son engendros que están muy difícilmente controlados. Es una semilla que va a tener un montón de 511

repercusiones que no tienen el absoluto control y que ha habido tantas pruebas que han tenido que retirar 512

del mercado buena parte de otros tipos de productos agrícolas. Entonces eso pretexto de hacer tecnología 513

propia, yo creo que estamos arriesgando mucho y creo que tenemos que tomar muy en serio que hay otras 514

vías de mejorar la productividad como es la agricultura orgánica, donde hay comprobadas demonstraciones 515

que se puede subir la productividad y la cualidad de los productos. Yo quiero que Juan José no nos diga 516

cómo mejorar el precio para el consumidor, porque la tecnología orgánica no ha sido trasmitido de la 517

manera adecuada. Hay gente que vive como productores orgánicos aquí en el país por más de 20 años, 518

pero no han tenido todas las herramientas que actualmente la agricultura orgánica tiene y que permite con 519

213

solvencia a superar las productividades promedio de la agricultura convencional. Y yo creo que Juan José va 520

a darnos unos datos con lo que podemos ejemplificar con solvencia lo que acabo de decir.” 521

Giovanna Tassi: “Sí, e… primero vamos al corte […].Me dicen que hay una llamada telefónica, volvemos y le 522

pido a Juan José que junto a los que nos va a hablar, hable también del tema nutricional, o sea, el hecho de 523

que la fruta, la verdura, lo que sale de la tierra tenga todos los nutrientes necesarios para que nosotros no 524

solo nos llenemos la barriguita, sino que comamos y nos nutramos. Porqué a veces nos llenamos con arroz 525

y fideo pero no nos estamos nutriendo, ¿verdad? Solo nos damos una sensación de llenura, pero no nos 526

alimentamos. Regresamos… cortísimo el corte, ya regresamos” 527


Giovanna Tassi: “[…] ¡Gracias por esperar a las personas que están en el teléfono! ¡Adelante con sus 529

llamadas por favor! ¡Buenos días! ¿Quién llama? […]” 530

SPEAKER J: “Sí, ¡Buenos días! ¿Hola? […] Quiero decir que antes se hablaba que la tierra era un ser inerte, 531

pero hoy nos han dicho es un ser vivo. ¡Gracias! Hoy nos dicen también […] que la tierra es un laboratorio 532

perfecto, que trasforma, hace la transformación, perdón, química, gratuitamente, de todos los elementos. 533

[…] También sabemos hoy que gracias a la libre expresión de prensa, nos engañan que debemos invertir 534

cuasi toda la ganancia de la producción en comprar los fatales inventos de los insecticidas. […] Entonces, 535

¿Qué pasa? Que nos sacan del bolsillo toda la ganancia, y se llevan, como se han llevado siempre nuestros 536

minerales. Entonces, ¡alerta a estos engaños! ¡Ya no va más! Gracias por instruirnos señores que están allí, 537

gracias”. 538

Giovanna Tassi: “!Gracias por llamar! […] Otra llamada, ¡Buenos días!” 539

SPEAKER K: “Buenos días, Giovanna, la estoy llamando desde Quito, soy Cristina. […] Estaba escuchando el 540

señor que habló de la venta de la cebollas […] y toda la programación, excelente, maravillosa de los 541

ingenieros y de los técnicos que están invitados allí. Entonces yo lo quería aportar en el sentido de que… 542

¿Porqué esta producción, distribución, […] y consumo no se lo hace a través del cooperativismo? El sistema 543

cooperativo ya está probado por varios años en el mundo. […] Todo este tiempo ha estado abandonado 544

este sector, ¿Porqué? Por falta de una buena política y económica. […] Y una cuestión sobre los productos, 545

que yo no soy ingeniera agrónoma ni química ni nada, pero tengo conocimiento de que una vez sembraba 546

las semillas de un transgénico: el terreo queda muerto para siempre. Nunca más se volverá a poder 547

sembrar. […]” 548

Giovanna Tassi: “!Gracias Cristina! ¡Gracias! Veo que este es un tema que realmente concita la 549

preocupación de todos, ¿no? Agricultores y no agricultores. Aquí he recibido un mensaje, también ya 550

vamos a cerrar con Juan José Paniagua. Dice: ‘Estimada Giovanna’, esto me lo escribe Patricio Caricio 551

214

(SPEAKER L), y dice: ‘Estimada Giovanna, el problema con la agricultura orgánica y con la agricultura, no es 552

si es orgánica o convencional, sino como se usa la tecnología. La forma en que se usa la tecnología 553

lastimosamente está bajo presión económica. Hay ejemplos de éxito y fracasos en la agricultura orgánica 554

como en la agricultura convencional, escrita entre comillas. Hay que recordar que lo que hoy llamamos 555

agricultura convencional. Hay que recordar que lo que hoy llamamos agricultura convencional no es más 556

que la evolución de cuasi doscientos años de técnicas que hoy la agricultura orgánica promueve […]’. 557

Bueno, Juan José Paniagua lo elijo como persona de todo el panel para cerrar esto, este debate del día de 558

hoy sobre la agricultura orgánica, sobre lo que se hablará en este segundo Foro Internacional de Agricultura 559

Orgánica y Agroecología. ¡Adelante, por favor, Juan José!” 560

Juan José Paniagua: “Sí, mira unos los problemas serio de la manía es que todo los días comen y no sabe lo 561

que está comiendo. Entonces hay un problema a nivel mundial. Las personas están desmineralizadas. 562

Entonces tenemos que comer productos ricos en minerales. Por ejemplo hay una epidemia a nivel mundial, 563

que es azúcar, tenemos elementos como el cromo, el cual no permite que el azúcar se desarrolle, o que sea 564

un problema en el ser humano. Entonces en Costa Rica se ha venido trabajando mucho eso. Los Ministerios 565

de salud, cuantos ahorros tendrían los gobiernos sobre salud para evitar el problema de azúcar en la 566

sangre. ¿Que es lo que pasa? Al estar desmineralizado nuestro suelo, tenemos problemas, nosotros de 567

salud. No importa sea el corazón o algo, allí veíamos problemas que estamos comiendo productos ricos en 568

oxidantes, donde necesitamos comer productos ricos en antioxidantes, que no permite que se desarrollen 569

células cancerígenas, los transgénicos, los convencionales que es lo que más provocan estos problemas. 570

Entonces, que se requiere? Eliminar una gran parte de la humanidad. Urge, urge en esto momento que esta 571

generación que estamos aquí en la tierra, tenemos que salvar el planeta. No hay tiempo para que las 572

nuevas generaciones que vienen puedan salvar el planeta, está en nuestras manos. Está en la manos de los 573

políticos, está en la manos de la ciencia, está en la manos de los campesinos, pero necesitamos campesinos 574

realmente preparados, con deseos. Necesitamos que las universidades vayan al campo, no los campesinos 575

a las universidades, necesitamos que la agricultura orgánica sea un agricultura y ciencia, saber que estamos 576

haciendo, conocer la microbiología, conocer la cuantidad de materia orgánica, hacer que esto sea un 577

proyecto sostenible a nivel mundial. Tenemos que crecer en eso, tenemos que ser competitivos. La 578

agricultura orgánica, decía un sacerdocio español en Costa Rica, [...] le podemos dar de comer a todo el 579

mundo y botaríamos la medad. Hablo de Costa Rica, pero el Ecuador tiene un potencial enorme. el 580

problema, la pobreza y todo eso, es una mentalidad de gobierno. Tienen que cambiar esa mentalidad, los 581

gobiernos tiene que ser humildes y ayudar al campesino. El campesino tiene que exigir, tiene que 582

organizarse. Nosotros allá tenemos una cooperativa. Dejamos de ser campesinos y empezamos a ser más 583

que campesinos también vendedores, empresarios, del cual vamos y vendemos nuestro proprio producto 584

directamente al más pobre, al más rico: todos tenemos derechos, principalmente nuestra familia, nuestra 585

comunidad, nuestro vecino, nuestro país, y por último, si sobra, para el mundo. Pero primero está nuestro 586

215

país. Y todas las condiciones están prestadas en Ecuador. El problema es mental, tiene que cambiar esa 587

mentalidad de los políticos, de la universidades, y de los campesinos dispuestos a tener calidad de vida. 588

Nosotros allá hemos logrado eso: hemos estado y hemos venido trabajando, durante más de veinte años, 589

hemos logrado la Ley de la Agricultura Orgánica, del cual estamos exonerado de impuestos, del cual a 590

través de los combustibles hay un dinero que va específicamente para los campesinos, campesinos 591

orgánicos. Y principalmente es un deber de todo el gobierno, es un deber del Ministerio de la Agricultura 592

estar mano a mano con los campesinos. Nosotros, constantemente estamos reunidos con ellos. Nuestra 593

presidenta, los ex presidentes han pasado por nuestras fincas, han visto lo que nosotros estamos haciendo, 594

y hoy más que nunca ellos saben que el secreto está en la micro empresas, empresas sostenibles, micro 595

empresas sostenibles. Tenemos que unirnos. Mercados hay, Ecuador tiene más de catorce millones de 596

habitantes, Costa Rica tenemos cuatro millones de habitantes: imagínese ustedes el enorme mercado que 597

hay. Que es lo que hemos pasado ser? Que somos campesinos, pero no los vemos como empresarios, como 598

vendedores. Nosotros formamos, por ejemplo nuestra cooperativa forma los futuros campesinos y 599

empresarios. Y hoy, yo tengo cuatro hijos y soy tremendos empresarios. Ellos son lo que venden, ellos 600

producen, ellos manejan la tecnología. Estamos sobrado de tecnología. Sabemos que cada vez que vamos a 601

aplicar microorganismos, conocemos el ADN de los microorganismos. Cuando vamos a aplicar insecticidas 602

botánicos, sabemos que estamos aplicando. Cuando vamos a aplicar a bonos orgánicos, son abonos 603

enriquecidos con más de noventa dos minerales, estamos trasmitiendo vida, estamos generando seguridad 604

alimentaria, estamos buscando paz, estabilidad, seguridad. [...]” 605

Giovanna Tassi: “Gracias a Juan José Paniagua: Conceptos fundamentales. Una llamada telefónica, 606

rapidísimo por favor, ¡buenos días y muchas gracias para esperar!” 607

SPEAKER M: “¡Muy buenos días […]! Yo solamente quiero, verá, hacer conocer una situación que la 608

agricultura, por ejemplo yo soy de la provincia de Bolívar […], que nunca, nunca vemos a un señor 609

funcionario que venga a dar clases, charlas sobre plagas […], sobre abonos […]. Entonces yo quiero 610

recomendar, verá, a los señores empleados o, como se diga, funcionarios, […] que salgan al campo […] a 611

enseñar cómo es una plaga, un abono, o sea las plantas. […]” 612

Giovanna Tassi: “Gracias. Muy amable, muchísimas gracias. He recibido un mensaje […]: ‘Invitarles’ dice 613

Camilla […], ‘invitarles a la Feria agroecológica del Austro, en la ciudad de Cuenca. Productores 614

Agroecológicos todos los miércoles y los sábados desde las cinco de la mañana […]’. Importantísima 615

también esta notificación. […] Bueno una última pregunta: ¿Cuándo va a realizarse esta feria, este segundo 616

foro internacional de agricultura orgánica y agroecología, Fausto? 617

Fausto Falconì: “Está desarrollándose. Hoy es el ultimo día, lamentablemente. Está en Guayaquil, comenzó 618

el lunes y hoy se clausura.” 619

216

Giovanna Tassi: “Ah, ya. ¿Dónde se está dando? 620

Fausto Falconì: “E la Universidad Católica […].” 621

Giovanna Tassi: “ Muchísimas gracias a todos lo que han participado […]. ¡Chao, chao!” 622

217


This appendix presents the transcript of the live discussion that has been carried out on October, 31st 2012

during the program ‘La Cabina’ transmitted by the Public Radio of Ecuador. Following, the transcription of

the discussion in the original language in which it has been performed. Note that the transcription is not an

integral version of the public discussion, as only the statements that have been considered relevant for the

analysis conducted in subchapter 6.4 have been reported.

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Buenos días país, buenos días Ecuador! […] Antes de entrar de lleno al tema del día de 1

hoy: ‘Los transgénicos, luces y obras, mitos y verdades sobre los transgénicos’, con dos expertos, yo no me 2

meto en eso, yo solo voy a ser la facilitadora… Vamos con una cancioncita que habla de nuestro bello 3

Ecuador, y se la dedico obviamente a usted.” 4

SONG BREAK 5

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Muy bien, entonces estamos aquí en el tema de los transgénicos con: Cesar Paz Y 6

Miño, investigador, trabaja en la UDLA, ¿no? En el departamento de investigación de la Universidad de las 7

Américas, conocedor pues del tema de los transgénicos y Elizabeth Bravo, miembro di Acción Ecológica, y 8

digamos, con quien yo trabajé muchísimo en el tema, que cuando trabajaba y escribía sobre el tema de los 9

transgénicos, una de mis fuentes principales siempre ha sido Elizabeth Bravo. Y Stephen Sherwood lo 10

tenemos vía telefónica… va a venir mas después, ah ya, y va a estar también Stephen Sherwood. Trabaja 11

actualmente como docente investigador, grupo de Conocimiento, Tecnología y Innovación, Centro de 12

desarrollo integrado, Universidad de Wageningen… no sé hablar holandés entonces no sé cómo se dirá esto 13

pero in Holanda. […] A ver.. les pongo la pregunta a los dos, y ustedes me responden: ¿porqué da tanto 14

miedo hablar de los transgénicos y causa tanta preocupación?” 15

Elizabeth Bravo: “Bueno, miedo de hablar de los transgénicos no hay. Más bien es un tema que se habla 16

muchísimo. En el Ecuador ha habido un debate ya de varios años sobre el tema de los transgénicos hasta el 17

extremo, digamos, hasta haber llegado el momento en que la Asamblea Nacional incorporó en varias partes 18

de su articulado distintos tipos de prohibiciones de los cultivos transgénicos. Eso es el resultado de debates 19

que ha habido en el país desde hace muchos años. Yo diría que tal vez desde que la impresa Monsanto 20

trató de introducir algodón BT en la zona de Manabí. Allí yo creo que sería el momento en que se empezó 21

el debate del tema de los transgénicos. E a nivel mundial también es un tema que se debate en todos los 22

países del mundo, porque en todos los países se ha tratado de liberar transgénicos, en todos los países se 23

ha habido organizaciones de la sociedad civil, científicos que se han opuesto a los transgénicos. En algunos 24

países se han declarado moratorias, por ejemplo en Perú hay una moratoria de diez años. En la Unión 25

Europea una moratoria de falto de varios años, y a pesar de que la moratoria se ha abierto, por presión de 26

los consumidores no se han liberado los transgénicos. Solamente existe, a nivel comercial, producción en 27

218

España, en una parte de España, en la zona de Cataluña y Aragón me parece. Y así, ¿no? Digamos, inclusivo 28

en países del África, en países arabos hay diferentes tipos de moratorias de los transgénicos. Ahora 29

porque? Los transgénicos, hablando de alimentos transgénicos y de cultivos transgénicos, que es lo que 30

más controversia causan, ¿no? Son organismos vivos, son semillas en este caso, que son manipuladas, se 31

introduce, en esta semillas, genes que provienen de organismos muy infecciosos, por ejemplo viene de 32

bacterias que producen enfermedades en las plantas, como los agro-bacterias que producen tumores en las 33

plantas; vienen de virus, que tienen una gran capacidad de invadir otros organismos vivos, de insertarse en 34

otros organismos vivos; utilizan, en algunos casos, por ejemplo, pueden utilizar genes humanos. En Perú yo 35

creo por ejemplo que lo que más… uno de los elementos importantes para desencadenar la moratoria fue 36

que se experimentó, en unos hospitales públicos, en dos hospitales públicos, uno in Lima y otro en Tumbe, 37

me parece, con un arroz que viene incorporado a genes humanos, relacionado con la lactancia materna. Y 38

se le daba a niños, a infantes recién nacidos en los hospitales que tenían problemas de diarrea. Creo que 39

hace seis meses se reportó. Entonces, bueno, un medico sabe que la diarrea se la puede tratar con 40

hidratación, […] si es que es infectiva, con antibióticos. Pero estaban realmente experimentando, con este 41

arroz, que en los Estados Unidos todavía no ha sido desregulado. Porqué en los Estados Unidos no se 42

aprueban los transgénicos, sino que se desregulan. Y este arroz todavía no está desregulado en los Estados 43

Unidos. El arroz había sido sembrado en Chile, y se experimentó en Perú. Hubo una controversia más o 44

menos parecida a la que está teniendo ahora, porqué se pronunciaron médicos, se pronunciaron 45

científicos. Y realmente no se logró a identificar a los niños que creo que fueron como setenta niños lo que 46

hicieron este tratamiento. Se identificó solamente a uno que demostraba, siendo prácticamente recién 47

nacido, problemas muy graves de alergias. Entonces los transgénicos podríamos decir que es un cocktail de 48

genes insertados en productos que eventualmente pueden llegar a la cadena alimenticia humana.” 49

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Doctor Cesar Paz y Miño, su opinión al respecto. La misma pregunta.” 50

Cesar Paz Y Miño: “Bueno, gracias. Efectivamente un organismo transgénico es un organismo que de forma 51

artificial ha sido alterado en su material genético. Entonces lo que hacen es: coger material genético de 52

otro organismo y meterlo, de forma artificial, para lograr una característica nueva. Y esta característica 53

puede ser: producción de una proteína, producción de un enzima, producción de un hormona, producción 54

de un anticuerpo, etcétera. Entonces efectivamente no hay mucha discusión en el tema de uso de salud, 55

¿lo cierto? Porqué, pues para hacer vacunas, hormonas de crecimiento, insulina, tratamientos contra el 56

cáncer, etcétera, ¿no? Incluso el tema de bioremediacion, que es bastante difundido también, no genera 57

mucha problemática. Pensé a que podría también tener su problemática propia, ¿no? Entonces el uso de 58

bacteria, que coman el petróleo, hongos que coman el plástico, nuevas plantas para el biocombustible, que 59

sería el panorama. Y efectivamente donde generan la mayor discusión es en la aplicación de los 60

transgénicos existentes en la alimentación. Porqué? Porqué allí hay evidencias contrarias. Entonces hay 61

219

investigadores que con la metodología clásica de investigación llegan a la conclusión de que la alimentación 62

con transgénicos en animales, y probablemente en humanos, tengan problemas. Y hay otros investigadores 63

que, con la misma metodología científica, haciendo estudios, pues llegan a las conclusiones contrarias, pues 64

dicen: ‘Hemos hecho esto, hemos hecho el otro, hemos controlado tales individuos y no hemos encontrado 65

ninguna cuestión compleja. Entonces, cuando hay una posición diferente, al menos para la gente que está 66

involucrada en el trabajo de ciencia y en el laboratorio, la perspectiva y lo lógico debería ser, bueno, pues, 67

hagamos mas investigaciones para ver quien mismo tiene la razón. Eso in relación a los productos 68

existentes, pero yo pienso que la discusión debería un poco irse más allá, no solo de los existente, sino de la 69

potencialidad de una tecnología, como es la biotecnología del DNA, para desarrollar cuestiones que incluso 70

puedan servir para solucionar, realmente problemas, de la alimentación… en el mundo, en el Ecuador, 71

donde sea. Entonces un grupo de investigadores del Ecuador, lo que un poco ha manifestado […], el tema 72

es: muy bien, hay una cuestión de la Constitución del Ecuador, que prohíbe las semillas y los cultivos 73

transgénicos. Entonces dice, perecería que está muy bien, si hablamos de los organismos existentes, habría 74

que revaluarlos. Pero la pregunta sería si ¿es que este candado constitucional no dificulta el desarrollo de la 75

ciencia nacional? Entonces, desde la perspectiva de los investigadores dificulta, porqué nadie se va a meter 76

a hacer investigaciones en semillas de nada, porque simplemente están prohibidas. Y eso de alguna manera 77

afecta el desarrollo científico de un país que necesita despegar en el desarrollo científico. Entonces con 78

todas las medidas de seguridad posibles, deberíamos replantearnos el tema, y eso ha sido el 79

planteamiento: ‘replanteamos el tema para ver si es que con el avance de la biotecnología, con el avance 80

de la tecnología del DNA, que cada vez es más segura, que cada vez sabemos más cosas, detalles que antes 81

no sabíamos por la misma tecnología de genética, ahora podemos evaluar mejor todo lo que es la 82

manipulación de genes’.” 83

Giovanna Tassi: “Usted dice, se puede controlar esta manipulación para que no sachemos un tomate con 84

caninos para que vaya a chuparle la sangre a un frejol.” 85

Cesar Paz Y Miño: “Exactamente. Buenos esto también es un poco mítico, ¿lo cierto? O sea, la tecnología 86

esta es más limitada, es obtener una característica. O sea, pues, lo que decía: producir un anticuerpo contra 87

un virus en el caso, por ejemplo, de la hepatitis o de la rabia. O, en el caso de las plantas, pues, tener una 88

característica que evite las plagas o que sea resistente a un pesticida especifico, que es lo existente. Pero, 89

digamos la iniciativa de los investigadores es, digamos: ‘Muy bien, esto es lo existente. Evaluemos lo 90

existente, pero investiguemos con recursos nacionales las posibilidades de una tecnología, que siendo cada 91

vez más segura, podría ser beneficios para el Ecuador.’ Y ese el planteamiento de un grupo de científicos 92

que pensamos que esto es un candado constitucional que impide la investigación y el desarrollo de 93

tecnología que de todas maneras puede ser beneficiosas.” 94

Giovanna Tassi: “Elizabeth, creo que tiene algo que decir.” 95

220

Elizabeth Bravo: “Sí, varias cosas. Tal vez quisiera empezar diciendo si es que realmente la tecnología ahora 96

es más segura. No quiero meterme en el campo medico, posiblemente en el campo medico sea más segura, 97

no puedo asegurarlo. Cesar sé que trabaja en el campo medico… Pero en el campo agrícola no son más 98

seguras. ¿Porqué? Mire. Desde hace dieciséis años se han liberado los transgénicos en el mundo. Tenemos 99

solamente dos tipos de transgénicos: los que tienen tolerancia a herbicidas, lo que permite que se utilicen 100

grandes cuantidades de herbicidas y la planta no se muere. Los herbicidas matan hierba, ¿lo cierto? Matan 101

plantas. Entonces por ejemplo en el caso de la soya o el maíz con tolerancia a herbicidas, lo que hacen es 102

que se rocían, por ejemplo por el aire, los herbicidas, y el maíz, o la soya o el algodón no se mueren. ¿Qué 103

es lo que está pasando ahora? Tomemos el caso de los herbicidas. Se están desarrollando lo que se llama la 104

súper malezas, es decir malezas que han desarrollado resistencia a los herbicidas, porqué sabemos que 105

cuando se utiliza un método de control, continuamente los organismos desarrollan mecanismos de 106

defensa. Es lo que nos pasas cuando tomamos antibióticos de manera inadecuada, por ejemplo, ¿no? 107

Entonces hay muchísimas plagas ya que se han hecho resistentes al glifosato. Entonces, frente eso, ¿que se 108

hace? Se hace… se han usado dos alternativas: la una es usar un cocktail más grande de herbicidas cuando 109

se fumiga, entonces se utilizan herbicidas más fuertes, que eso no es más seguro. Y por otra parte ya en el 110

campo de la investigación científica, lo que se está haciendo se están desarrollando nuevas variedades 111

tolerantes a los herbicidas, pero con herbicidas muy fuertes como por ejemplo el 24D. El 24D, tal vez no sé 112

si tu sabes lo que es, pero cuando te diga que fue componente del agente naranja, entonces allá te 113

acuerdas, ¿lo cierto? 114

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Por supuesto!” 115

Elizabeth Bravo: “Y al agente naranja tenía dos moléculas, el 24D, que era la menos inofensiva, y otra, que 116

fue usada como arma química en la guerra del Vietnam y que ha producido tremendos problemas. 117

Giovanna Tassi: “En Guatemala también con la lucha contra la Guerrilla.” 118

Elizabeth Bravo: “Exactamente. Entonces, entonces… ¡digamos que no es una tecnología más segura! Hay 119

otros, también se está trabajando con Dicamba, que es otro herbicida más fuerte que el glifosato. Eso se 120

quiere introducir, todavía no se han aprobado. En los Estados Unidos el movimiento es en contra de la 121

aprobación de los herbicidas con resistencia al 24D, en Brasil se están también comenzando a mover 122

algunas organizaciones en ese sentido, en Argentina tienen tantos problemas por la soya con resistencia al 123

glifosato que no se han detenido todavía a analizar la posibilidad [de utilizar el Dicamba], pero ya están en 124

pruebas de campo, estas nuevos. Entonces, ¡no son más seguros! En el campo de los cultivos BT, que se 125

llaman con resistencia a insectos, son plantas insecticidas que entonces vienen algunos lepidópteros y se 126

comen la hoja y se mueren. Eso significa un peligro a insectos benéficos por ejemplo, ¿no? En los países 127

221

donde se cultivan masivamente transgénicos, se ha registrado ya un declive muy, muy preocupante de las 128

poblaciones de abejas.” 129

Giovanna Tassi: “Eso en los Estados Unidos me acuerdo que había un debate fuertísimo sobre este tema.” 130

Elizabeth Bravo: “Y también en Argentina. Argentina es el primero productor de miel orgánica en el mundo. 131

Y la industria transgénica está compitiendo fuertemente con este sector. En Chile también los mieleros, los 132

apicultores se han asociado en torno a este problema porqué están perdiendo, han tenido pérdidas muy 133

importantes, ¿no? Entonces tenemos por un lado los factores económicos y por otra parte el hecho de que 134

la abeja es responsable del 60% de la polinización en el mundo. Yo me acuerdo que decía Einstein: ‘¿Qué 135

sería el mundo sin abejas?’ O sea, ¿Qué pasaría si desaparecía nuestro principal polinizador? Y esto está 136

sucediendo en la zonas donde se producen masivamente cultivos BT. También se ha añado el hecho de los 137

plaguicidas, ¿lo cierto? No solamente son los cultivos transgénicos, son también la agricultura a grande 138

escala que utiliza una gran cuantidad de plaguicidas. ¡Entonces los nuevos cultivos transgénicos no son más 139

seguros! Y otro tipo de cultivos transgénicos que están saliendo… porqué se dice que van a haber cultivos 140

con resistencia a sequias, resistencia a heladas, […] y siempre se habla del arroz dorado que es el arroz que 141

tiene vitamina A. Ninguno de estos productos se han salido al mercado. Por ejemplo si nosotros leemos, 142

entramos a los sitios donde se aprueban los cultivos transgénicos, que es muy fácil, es la pagina del 143

Convenio de Biodiversidad, y allí se debe entrar al protocolo de Cartagena, y luego se entra a… se llama 144

Centro de Intercambio de Información. Entonces allí vemos, por ejemplo, que son los cultivos que se están 145

aprobando en Brasil; están allí los países que son miembros del Protocolo de Cartagena, ¿no? Entonces por 146

ejemplo Brasil. Vemos que los nuevos transgénicos que están aprobando son transgénicos que apilan las 147

características. Es decir, por ejemplo, maíz que es resistente a uno o dos herbicidas, por ejemplo al glifosato 148

y al glifosenato de amonio, que son lo que están aprobados y que tienen dos o tres características, dos 149

diferentes tipos de toxinas, en contra de artrópodos, es decir, pueden ser mariposas o pueden ser gusanos 150

de la raíz, por ejemplo. Entonces, realmente cada vez se van haciendo más peligrosos, porqué están 151

conjugando una cuantidad de genes y las evaluaciones de riesgo que se hacen, prueba de la aprobación de 152

estos transgénicos, no toman en cuenta esta nueva característica: de que son un cocktail de genes que se 153

están introduciendo en los nuevos cultivos que están saliendo.” 154

Giovanna Tassi: “Para proteger estos cultivos, ¿no? O sea supuestamente se hace ese cocktail para que el 155

cultivo este salvo…” 156

Elizabeth Bravo: “Para que no le caigan insectos y para que se puedan usar indiscriminadamente herbicidas. 157

¡Entonces no son más seguros! Es posible que se conozca cada vez más el funcionamiento de los genes en 158

el campo medico… [pero] en el campo agrícola no hay nada nuevo. Solamente esos nuevos tipos que son 159

juegos de las dos características de las que hablemos.” 160

222

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Y está aquí también Stephen Sherwood. ¡Buenos días Stephen, bienvenido! Vamos a 161

un pequeño corte, ya regresamos en esta Cabina del día de hoy que promete bien, promete bien. Así que 162

mantengan en sintonía de Radio Publica de Ecuador. ¡Ya regreso!” 163


Giovanna Tassi: “[…] Stephen Sherwood está aquí. El es… a ver, de nacionalidad estadunidense y 165

Ecuatoriano nacionalizado, ¡bienvenido al club! Aquí somos dos ya Ecuatorianos nacionalizados. Docente y 166

investigador, grupo de Conocimiento, Tecnología y Innovación de esta universidad holandesa con un 167

nombre impronunciable…” 168

Stephen Sherwood: “Wageningen.” 169

Giovanna Tassi: “!Exactamente! Tiene títulos en economía, fitopatología, o sea manejo de las 170

enfermedades de las plantas, ¿no? Me imagino… y la sociología del cambio. Ha vivido y trabajado con los 171

agricultores en diferentes partes de las Américas desde hace mas de vente años. Y ha traído una fundita de 172

hortalizas orgánicas, ¿no? ¿Tú te dedicas a eso, Stephen? ¡Buenos días, doctor Stephen Sherwood, 173

perdón!” 174

Stephen Sherwood: “Ah, gracias. Muy amable y gracias por la invitación. Disculpe por haber llegado tarde. 175

Como mencioné me gustaría poner los genéticos y la creatividad de ellos a ver cómo podemos resolver al 176

tráfico de Quito, porqué creo que nos traería nuevas ideas. Pero sí, siempre he vivido en fincas, ¿no? Nacía 177

en una finca en los Estados Unidos, mi esposa, que es Ecuatoriana, también y aunque seamos científicos, 178

ella trabaja en FLACSO y yo en Holanda y vamos viajado, tenemos una finca orgánica, unos cinco hectáreas, 179

para tentar de ser coherentes.” 180

Giovanna Tassi: “Ya, de ser coherentes con el tema que los transgénicos aplicados a la agricultura… no way, 181

como sería en ingles, ¿no?” 182

Stephen Sherwood: “Bueno yo en la medicina… igual [que Elizabeth Bravo]. Creo que sí, hay oportunidades, 183

no estoy muy informado, creo que Cesar [Paz y Miño] es la persona más adecuada para comentar. Sin 184

embargo, en el agro, cuando comenzamos a liberar genes funcionales en el medio ambiente me preocupa, 185

tenemos meno control. Pero más que allá de esto, siento que los problemas del agro, que yo tengo mi 186

finca, lo que el Ecuador tiene en general no se debe a una tecnología transgénica. Siento que hay muchas 187

cosas que podemos hacer en términos de suelos, términos de agua, mejoramiento tradicional, la 188

creatividad, mercados, las relaciones humanas para mejorar el agro. Mi finca, que son apenas cinco 189

hectáreas, empleamos cuatros personas, proveemos… buenos son doscientos cincuenta almuerzos cada 190

día, la escuela… the British School, y también a treinta familias cada semana. Es una finca orgánica, no 191

223

quiero que todo el mundo se convierta a orgánico, sistema de cada quién, pero sin embrago por nosotros 192

nos funcionas y la finca es sumamente productiva.” 193

Giovanna Tassi: “Ya. Y ustedes no aplican pesticidas… nada de que no sea orgánico.” 194

Stephen Sherwood: “No. Ni usamos fertilizantes, decimos. Mas por tema de precios, no tanto por 195

romanticismo. Es sumamente practico, para mi es importante manejar mis semillas, porqué nuestra finca 196

está metida en una montaña, y es una zona muy diversa y cada campo es distinto y necesito manejar mis 197

cultivos. Y también las plagas, ¿no? Yo uso… trabajo con la biología y con la agroecología para hacerlo, y no 198

compro fertilizantes principalmente porqué no quiero que esta parte de la economía sale de la finca. 199

Prefiero invertir en mano de obra y manejamos las plagas de otras formas. Les cuento que sí uso BT, 200

bacillus thuringiensis, ¿no? Sí es un excelente tecnología pero no lo uso en los genomas de las plantas, no 201

está dentro de las plantas, lo uso como una plaguicida botánica, y es una… bueno disculpe decimos una 202

plaguicida orgánica certificada y todo, y funciona muy bien. Entonces para mí esa es una tecnología 203

excelente, pero no me gusta cuando está puesta dentro de la planta, dentro el cultivo.” 204

Giovanna Tassi: “A ver, doctor Cesar [Paz y Miño]. Aquí un poco se ha cuestionado… ¿Hay una llamada 205

telefónica? […] ¡Buenos días! ¿Quién llama?” 206

SPEAKER A: “¡Buenos días! […] Quería comentarle algo… dos cositas: una, sencillamente que yo cuasi 207

siempre los escucho por la internet, y hoy en la mañana me ha sido imposible […]. Bueno, ese es un tema. 208

El otro: el tema que están tratando me parece apasionante y mas para personas que nos preocupamos por 209

la naturaleza, por el buen tracto de la naturaleza, y bueno a mi me gustaría… yo recibo frecuentemente los 210

correos del la Radio Pública, y me gustaría, si es posible, que en el correo que corresponda a ese tema nos 211

envíen links, enlaces donde podamos documentarnos y leer de estos temas que están tan interesantes y 212

que lamentablemente me voy a perder el resto del programa, ¿sí? Eso era… eso era todo.” 213

Giovanna Tassi: “Gracias Rafael, muy amable, que gentil. Lo vamos a hacer. E todo caso cuando se recupera 214

el chat con la pagina web del internet, el programa queda cargado. Pero voy a poner estas sugerencias que 215

nos están haciendo nuestros amigos que siempre escuchan las radios, hablantes y pensantes, como le 216

llamo yo a ustedes. Y los vamos a poner para que ustedes puedan tener la mayor parte de información y 217

construirse su opinión propia personal. Así que muchas gracias Rafael por la llamada. Entonces […] vuelvo 218

con mi pregunta al doctor Cesar Paz y Miño. Aquí se cuestiona mucho el trabajo del laboratorio y 219

escuchándola a hablar usted, si todos los científicos fueran así, o sea, uno dice ¡claro! O sea, si todos 220

trabajan para bien. Pero lastimosamente hay… le digo doctor, yo lo he tocado con mano porqué lo he visto, 221

hay grandes grupos, tipo la Monsanto, que tiene un pelotón de gente investigando para los intereses de 222

Monsanto que no es que piensan en el bienestar de la humanidad, lastimosamente, piensan en el bienestar 223

de Monsanto. Y cuando tu ves que esa gente participa en las cumbres mundiales de cambio climático, de 224

224

agricultura, y imponen la agenda porqué son gruesos como intereses, intereses económicos… a uno pone 225

en dudas, pues, la ética de la investigación científica, ¿no? Sin, digamos, o sea sin generalizar demasiado, 226

pero sabemos que a veces cruzan líneas que no se deberían cruzar en ningún campo, ¿no?” 227

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Muy bien, totalmente de acuerdo. El problema, yo vuelvo a plantear, no es el tema de la 228

Monsanto, a mi no me interesa la Monsanto, me interesa el desarrollo de la ciencia del Ecuador. Entonces 229

allí yo creo que tenemos que hacer varias puntualizaciones, ¿lo cierto? El tema de los transgénicos 230

existentes es un tema que involucra un montón de cuestiones: políticas, económicas, intereses de quién 231

produce las semillas, quién produce los pesticidas… todo eso está involucrado en los existentes. Entonces, 232

¿cuál es el planteamiento por allí? Justamente, porqué el problema financiero se centra en las ganancias de 233

las empresas, que las producen. ¡Bueno! ¡Muy bien! Quitemos las empresas. Por un momento decimos: ‘no 234

existe eso’. ¿Que nos queda? Entonces queda un desafío como país, y es el tema de desarrollar tecnologías 235

que nos permitan de resolver los problemas nuestros. La tecnología del ADN ha ido cambiando tanto, o sea, 236

lo que trabajamos en los laboratorios todos los días con el ADN, vamos viendo cómo va cambiando de día a 237

día, la tecnología. Antes, para hacer una transformación celular, que al final es el tema de los transgénicos, 238

metemos un gen para producir algo. Antes, tenias que meter un grupo de genes. Ha cambiado tanto esto 239

que ya no necesita ni siquiera meterle el gen, sino simplemente un pedazo de gen que se llama el 240

promotor. Porqué el promotor es el que da, digamos, el ritmo de la producción de un gen. Entonces eso da 241

una nueva implicación, inclusive en el tema del ADN. El tema del uso de los promotores, cada vez se 242

entiende más en medicina ni se diga porqué justamente es donde más se está haciendo eso y donde más 243

desarrollo existe de esta temática de usar transgénicos para productos beneficiosos en salud. Entonces eso 244

va demostrando que cada vez tenemos una tecnología mejor comprendida, y desde la perspectiva de 245

producción de lo que nosotros queremos guiar con los genes, cada vez más segura. Entonces si quitamos 246

nuevamente y dejamos de acocear… Cada vez que hay un silencio sobre el tema del planteamiento inicial, 247

que es ‘hagamos investigación nacional’… Hay un silencio y vuelven a retomar el tema de las 248

transnacionales. Entonces, ¡muy bien! ¡Yo estoy de acuerdo! Las transnacionales tienen sus intereses, 249

quieren vendernos lo que quieren, quieren sacarnos la plata, quieren imponer sus productos, pues 250

entonces, por eso mismo, que tengamos algún desarrollo de la ciencia que nos convenga. ¡Quitémonos de 251

ellos! ¡No entren aquí! Pero que soluciones damos desde la perspectiva de la producción, que es lo que 252

también deberíamos estar claros. Hay una noticia del domingo que dice que la producción de soya nacional 253

es del 10%, frente a las necesidades, y el 90% importadas seguramente es transgénica. Entonces, ¿que 254

soluciones estamos dando como país? ¡Quitémonos de la Monsanto, ya! ¡Muy bien, quitémosle! Quitemos 255

el 90% de soya transgénica, la quemamos. ¿Qué solución damos desde el punto de vista científico? 256

Entonces el planteamiento por ejemplo de la gente que trabaja con esta tecnología transgénica, de gente 257

que está en la ESPOL, por ejemplo, de Guayaquil y que está trabajando con banano, ¿Qué es lo que dice? 258

225

Nosotros tenemos las posibilidad de mejorar productos nacionales, pero, otra vez: tenemos un artículo de 259

la constitución que no nos deja hacer nada con el tema de productos nacionales, semillas nacionales, que 260

podríamos modificarlas, y no necesariamente las tradicionales! En los foros que hemos estado discutiendo 261

estos días se ha dicho: ¡no al maíz! Perfecto, no al maíz. No a cualquier otro que aparezca pero alguna 262

cuestión tenemos que, como país, para resolver los problemas de la alimentación del país, y la falta de 263

producción del país, ¡tenemos que dar una solución! No necesariamente la vía tecnológica, ¡yo estoy 264

consciente de eso! Pero si es que la orgánica, si es que la agricultura tradicional no resuelven los problemas 265

de la alimentación tenemos que buscar obligatoriamente un camino para resolver ese problema… 266

¡olvidarnos de las transnacionales! Pero, ¿vamos a volver otra vez a discutir de las trasnacionales? ¡No me 267

importa de las transnacionales! Justamente porqué no me importa, quiero que el país tenga una posibilidad 268

de desarrollar científicamente, desarrollar la biotecnología como una herramienta, para resolver los 269

problemas. La biotecnología es solo un herramienta, es como usar un tenedor y un cuchillo. ¿Tienes un 270

cuchillo? ¡El cuchillo es un arma! Pero bien utilizada sirve para alimentar. Entonces la biotecnología es lo 271

mismo. Si es que tenemos una biotecnología segura…” 272

Giovanna Tassi: “O sea no satanicemos a la biotecnología…” 273

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Claro! Porqué volvemos otra vez a lo existente, y nosotros justamente estamos 274

planteando. Mira, sí, los existentes pueden tener un montón de problemas, puede demostrarse lo que 275

quiera, pero incluso así tendríamos que revaluarlos con los conocimientos que existen sobre eso y si es que 276

efectivamente es así, con ciencia de investigadores nacionales independientes, entonces, decir ¿sabes qué? 277

¡Estos transgénicos hay que quemar a todo! Pero si es que logramos de mostrar con estudios bien diseñado 278

que son beneficiosos… algunos, porqué tampoco podemos hacer generalizaciones. No todos son malos, 279

también puede haber unos buenos, entonces ese es el planteamiento. O sea, quitemos todo de estas 280

vendas que tenemos, y digamos: bueno…” 281

Giovanna Tassi: “O sea el prejudicio.” 282

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Exactamente! O sea normalmente vamos a hablar de la Monsanto y del glifosato. Y si 283

quito eso y digo bueno, desarrollemos algo proprio, ¿Qué me queda?” 284

Giovanna Tassi: “Sí. Yo tengo una pregunta, Stephen tiene una pregunta y hay una llamada telefónica. 285

¡Buenos días!” 286

Roberto Gortaire: “¡Muy buenos días! Le saluda Roberto Gortaire. Estoy conduciendo en Quito y les 287

escuchado en varios foros al doctor Paz y Miño y a la doctora Elizabeth Bravo, entiendo bien los 288

argumentos. Y quiero hablar desde el punto de vista del consumidor, porque represento a la Comisión 289

Nacional de Consumidores por la Soberanía Alimentaria. Y solo voy a poner un ejemplo. Si a nosotros, los 290

226

consumidores, en la percha de un supermercado me ponen en coger entre un banano, que ha sido 291

modificado y que tiene genes de bacteria o de virus, y al lado me ponen un banano, que ha sido cultivado 292

por una agricultura familiar sin agro tóxicos, sin pesticidas… ¿que es lo que creen ustedes que va a coger el 293

consumidor?” 294

Giovanna Tassi: “Yo creo el sin agro tóxicos…” 295

Roberto Gortaire: “¡Yo ya elegí! Yo ya elegí. Y creo que, para terminar mi aporte, lo que quiero decir es que 296

quienes pensamos que los transgénicos no son un opción en el Ecuador, ¡sí tenemos a un alternativa! 297

Tenemos alternativas muy poderosas, que son las que devienen de la agricultura orgánica y la agricultura 298

ecológica. No somos los anti-técnica, los anti-investigación, los anti-desarrollo. Al contrario estamos 299

demandándole al país, a través de la Ley de Fomento Agroecológico que está en Asamblea, estamos 300

demandándole investigación y desarrollo de conocimiento, pero in tecnologías ecológicas y orgánicas. Este 301

es mi aporte, gracias.” 302

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Gracias Roberto, Roberto Gortaire! […] Stephen tiene una pregunta… Yo pero también 303

digo: ¿es necesario, es un deber ser, manipular genéticamente, manipular las cosas? Eso es lo que usted 304

decía, pero Stephen , con su pregunta.” 305

Stephen Sherwood: “Bueno quiero mencionar que cuando estuve en la Universidad de Cornell en los 306

Estados Unidos estudiando fitopatología, hace mas de vete años…” 307

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Ah, claro! Es una Universidad especializada en temas agrícolas, no? 308

Stephen Sherwood: “ Yo trabajé en un proyecto financiado por Monsanto, participando en la inserción de 309

los… bueno de genes BT en papas, y trabajaba justo en el tema de las primeras pruebas de papa 310

transgénicas, en los Estados Unidos, de campo. Justo para desarrollar la resistencia a una plaga, un tipo de 311

ron-ron, Colorado potato beetle, se llama. Pero lo que quiero mencionar, y puedo hablar de esta 312

experiencia porqué ya no estoy metido en esto. Pero más bien quería mencionar: para mí la tecnología 313

transgénica en la agricultura, no estoy hablando de la medicina, es una tecnología obsoleta. Ya han pasado 314

20 anos, para mí la tecnología de punta es la tecnología que trabaja con el ecosistema. Es una biología 315

mucho más compleja, o diferentes tipos de complejidades. Y también la tecnológica que no trabaja con la 316

ciencia fuera de lo social. Yo creo que hay que entender que vivimos en un mundo de mercados y de 317

relaciones humanas… y justo quiero topar un tema que salió ayer en el Foro que se mencionó ahorita, que 318

hablan que el problema el mundo es una falta de producción, falta de alimentos... Yo quiero decir que he 319

visto estudios, ahorita que estuve en un debate en Europa, que presentó un economista… Decían que hoy 320

en día, si quisiéramos, podríamos alimentar la populación de 2050 de nueve billones de personas. Hoy en 321

día estamos desperdiciando cerca del cuarenta por ciento de la producción, en países… avanzados decimos, 322

227

¿no? Y en lugares como Quito, modernos. Pero también quiero mencionar que sí, hay un millón de 323

personas desnutridos, pero hay… disculpe, un billón, mil millones… hay más de un billón de personas 324

sobrepesos y obesos, incluyendo en Ecuador, ¿no? Que es un epidemia. Y este muestra que en verdad esto 325

es un mito, que el problema es una falta de producción. ¡Estamos inventando cosas que fueron imposibles! 326

Fue imposible tener mil millones de sobrepesos y obesos, hace treinta años. Este fue un invento de nuestra 327

tecnología, y nuestra cencías, nuestras economías y formas de vivir. ¡Y no estoy encuentra de la ciencia! 328

Pero creo que necesitamos otro tipo de ciencia, no más de lo mismo. Necesitamos una ciencia que tiene lo 329

que ganamos con la genética, lo que habla Cesar [Paz y Miño], pero también una que trabaja con los 330

ecosistemas y no contra los ecosistemas. Porqué ahora tenemos que darnos cuenta que somos encapaces 331

de manejar los ecosistemas. Y esto es muy obvio, con muchos de los sistemas que enfrentamos hoy, son 332

nacidos de la tecnología pasada, en términos de plagas, fertilidad, manejo de agua, obesidad, 333

calentamiento global… Estos son a raíz de la ciencia pasada. Hoy en día, Ecuador y el mundo, necesitamos 334

otro tipo de ciencia. Y eso es el reto que querían plantear Elizabeth y Cesar, ¿como podría ser esta ciencia 335

que trabaja con los ecosistemas y no en contra, en el tema del agro, por ejemplo?” 336

Giovanna Tassi: “Elizabeth, ¿tu quieres aportar algo?” 337

Elizabeth Bravo: “Bueno, yo estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Steve, inclusive cuando uno lee, por ejemplo, 338

reportes de lo que ha asado con los cultivos transgénicos en Estados Unidos, este año, que ha sido un año 339

de grandes extremos, ¿no? Porqué fue un año de sequías tremendas y ahora tenemos las inundaciones 340

espantosas, ¿no? Que ha dejado sin señal a la Radio Pública. Entonces, por ejemplo en el caso de las 341

sequías, lo que ha sucedido es que donde se cultivan cultivos transgénicos, han subido son mucha más 342

agresividad las súper malezas, es decir, malezas ya resistentes al glifosato, y también las plagas resistentes 343

a los cultivos BT. Esto nos dice que realmente…” 344

Giovanna Tassi: “Cuando dicen cultivos BT, dato que todo el mundo no es así… tan metido en el tema, 345

traduzcámoslo al Castellano.” 346

Elizabeth Bravo: “Sí, sí. Hay una bacteria que se llama Bacillus Thuringiensis, que es una bacteria del suelo y 347

que produce unas toxinas que… matan insectos, digamos, son insecticidas. Entonces eso, como decía Steve 348

[Stephen Sherwood] se ha usado… la bacteria como tal, se ha usado como agente de control biológico 349

natural. Se ha usado mucho en Europa, por ejemplo, en los Estados Unidos los agricultores orgánicos, ahora 350

sé que también se utiliza aquí en el Ecuador. Yo, hace muchos años.. Y hizo mi tesis de control biológico. Yo 351

asistí a una… hace veinticinco años, asistí a una charla sobre control biológico donde estaba gente de las 352

industrias. Entonces ellos decían: ‘A nosotros no nos sirve el BT, el Bacillus Thuringiensis, porqué nosotros 353

no podemos controlar. Porqué una vez que, por ejemplo, se pone en el medio ambiente la bacteria, la 354

bacteria se reproduce, porqué es un ser vivo. Nosotros necesitamos los genes’. Y es en el control de esos 355

228

genes y de esta tecnología, que surgen los cultivos BT con resistencia, que se llaman BT para no decirles 356

Bacillus Thuringiensis, se les conoce como BT, ¿no? Hay varios cultivos BT, porqué esta bacteria produce 357

varios tipos de toxinas. Pero los insectos también han desarrollado resistencia a estas toxinas, entonces 358

cada vez sale un nuevo cultivo BT. ¡No es una tecnología para largo plazo! De hecho, en el caso de los 359

cultivos BT con resistencia a insectos, cada año están saliendo nuevos cultivos BT, porqué van 360

desarrollando resistencia y van desarrollándose nuevos cultivos. La diferencia por ejemplo de la semilla 361

campesina, que si bien tratada y bien manejada puede durar, ¡para siempre!” 362

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Para siempre, caro! No erosionas el patrimonio de la semilla, ¿no?” 363

Elizabeth Bravo “¡Exactamente! Entonces lo que quisiera decir es que el campo de la investigación hay 364

muchas cosas que se pueden hacer, inclusiva en biotecnología. Porqué biotecnología no significa 365

transgénicos, inclusive herramientas moleculares, no significa transgénicos necesariamente. Ayer había una 366

profesora, creo de la Universidad Católica… que ella habló sobre varias aplicaciones que se pueden usar en 367

sujetos moleculares, como marcadores moleculares, etcétera, identificar mejor las plantas… ¡eso no es 368

transgénico! Y yo no creo que la Constitución si oponga a eso ni nadie se oponga a eso. Que conozcamos 369

bien nuestra biodiversidad, más bien yo creo que se debe potenciar el uso de nuestra biodiversidad. Pero 370

no haciendo los transgénicos en la agricultura, en la protección de productos, lo que sea. Y solamente 371

quiero terminar con el tema del consumidores y del banano. Se está haciendo banano transgénico en la 372

ESPOL. Ayer estuvimos con uno de los científicos que trabaja en eso. Yo estuve en un seminario sobre 373

banano en este mayo, en Guayaquil, donde había una sección empresarial y una sección de biotecnología. Y 374

yo asistí a varias charas de la sesión empresarial porqué me parecían súper interesantes. Entonces había 375

expertos en banano que decían que, por ejemplo en Europa, que es nuestro mercado principal, más que 376

Estados Unidos en este momento… por ejemplo, en Inglaterra, todo el banano que se vende viene del 377

comercio justo; en Alemania creo que el 80% del banano tiene que ser orgánico; en Francia todo el banano 378

es orgánico. Entonces, ya ahora, por ejemplo, en Rusia se acaba de prohibir un maíz transgénico después 379

de un estudio que salió publicado. Eso significa que los consumidores Europeos no están dispuestos a 380

consumir productos transgénicos. En los Estados Unidos creo que hay un poquito menos de conciencia, 381

pero también tienen conciencia de productos orgánicos… en California, por ejemplo. Ahora hay un debate 382

sobra el etiquetado…” 383

Giovanna Tassi: “Iba a decir eso, ahora será este debate para el etiquetado de los productos que digan las 384

partes que tienen hecha con transgénicos.” 385

Elizabeth Bravo: “Y hay un estado pequeño en el Este que también es estado libre de transgénicos, no me 386

acuerdo cual es, está en la costa… no me acuerdo en esto momento cual es. Este estado también está 387

229

declarado libre de transgénicos, es decir que también en los Estados Unidos existe esta conciencia, 388

reciente.” 389

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Por supuesto que sí! […] Usted guárdese todas las respuestas doctor [Cesar Paz y Miño], 390

que vamos al micro y ya regresamos con más sobre el tema de los transgénicos, luces y sombras, mitos y 391

verdades… y estamos desmitificando con el tema de que se puede intervenir sobre la planta, sobre el ADN, 392

si por eso hacer una tecnología transgénica. Así que ya regresamos, aquí en La Cabina.” 393


Giovanna Tassi: “[…] ¡El debate está encendido! ¡Está encendido aquí adentro de La Cabina, entre el doctor 395

Cesar Paz y Miño, investigador de la Universidad UDLA, Elizabeth Bravo, miembro de Acción Ecológica y 396

Stephen Sherwood, que es de… Estadunidense, Ecuatoriano, economista, fitopatologo y también ha 397

estudiado sociología del cambio… O sea que maneja todas las áreas. Cuando hablaba del mercado si sabe 398

de lo que habla, siendo economista. Pero, doctor Cesar Paz y Miño, adelante con sus respuestas y también 399

a mi pregunta por favor. O sea, porqué… o sea, hay que mejorar las semillas, ¿pero porqué hay que hacerlo 400

de manera transgénica? O sea, ¿no hay otra manera de fortalezer a las semillas que no sea la transgenica?” 401

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Empecemos por el tema… de todas maneras hay que referirse a la historia, ¿no? El 402

porqué se usa la tecnología transgénica ahora es en respuesta a una dificultad que se encontró por el 403

manejo normal de las plantas. Hay unos estudiosos rusos, que además manejaron el tema científico desde 404

la perspectiva filosófica. Ellos, con tecnología, pues, tradicional, mejoraron el trigo hasta tener el 405

rendimiento máximo del trigo. Duplicaron el tamaño, duplicaron el producto en si mismo, la semilla. Y 406

luego los investigadores digamos positivistas, los otros eran marxistas en el 194º, por allí… Y los 407

investigadores positivistas de occidente, cogiendo estas investigaciones, le dieron un poco mas de sentido… 408

digamos técnico, y llegaron a la misma conclusión: que había un tope de las especias, como en todas las 409

especias, en la cual no puedes exigirle más. Y entonces la respuesta a eso, es que si queremos más 410

producción… ¡No estoy defendiendo a nadie! Simplemente el tema científico, ¿no? La respuesta a eso era 411

tener una tecnología que nos permita romper esa barrera de los propios sistemas biológicos. Y esa barrera 412

podría ser rota con la tecnología del ADN.” 413

Giovanna Tassi: “Como el Frankenstein.” 414

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡No necesariamente! Porqué también hay un montón de cuestiones míticas en relación 415

a la cuestión de la tecnología de ADN, a la tecnología del ADN es bondadosísima, por eso estamos vivos, 416

tenemos promedios de vida de setenta cinco años por la salud, por todo lo que sea, ¿no?” 417

Giovanna Tassi: “Pero que nada per se es malo…” 418

230

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Entonces, ¡claro! Hay esa barreras que mostraron la especias, tenía que ser de alguna 419

manera rota porque no podías pasar ya de esta barrera. Y entonces, ¡claro! Surge la tecnología, la 420

tecnología del ADN, y demuestra que podría romper esta barrera mucho más rápido. Lo que tardaría años 421

en producir una planta, digamos, con una característica como se investigó con la agricultura tradicional, la 422

tecnología del ADN lo podría lograrlo en un tercio, un cuarto de tiempo. Y entonces por eso es que se 423

apunta tanto a la tecnología de la ADN. En el camino, por supuesto, encuentras un montón de dificultades: 424

el ADN al principio no se lo podía manejar con toda la técnica de ahora, no se le entendía bien, no se 425

entendía cómo funcionaban ni siquiera los propios genes. Después de que lo se entienden, se empieza a 426

refinar la tecnología. Y por eso el desarrollo donde más ha despuntado es en salud, ¿porqué? ¡Porqué se 427

entiende mucho de cómo funciona! En las plantas, no. Y por eso es el tema complejo. O sea, pues, rompe 428

una barrera con la tecnología transgénica, pero aparece una serie de cuestionamientos a esta tecnológica y 429

al producto en sí mismo. ¡Porqué es verdad! O sea, ¡yo no niego que hay evidencias a favor y en contra! 430

Entonces, justamente porqué hay evidencias a favor y en contra, entonces hay una percepción también de 431

miedo, probablemente justo porqué así son los seres humanos, y entonces, ¡claro! Los consumidores, en el 432

momento en que tu les dices que estas manipulando genéticamente, hay muchos miedos del tema, y, por 433

derecho, dicen: ‘¡Yo no quiero consumir!’. ¡Perfecto! Entonces la respuesta de muchos investigadores, no 434

solo del país, del mundo ha sido: ‘Bueno, entendamos mejor esta tecnología’. En el año ‘76 se hizo una 435

reunión, en Asilomar, para ver si la tecnología del ADN era peligrosa o no. Y la conclusión final de esta 436

reunión fue que la tecnología del ADN no era peligrosa. Y de hecho se desarrolló. Quienes aplican la 437

tecnología, ¡esos sí pueden ser peligrosos! De hecho estamos hablando de algo que involucre a quien les 438

aplican. Si es que la Monsanto no quiere resolver el problema del alimento, y quiere solo las ganancias, no 439

es solo el único caso que podríamos hablar. Podríamos hablar de un montón de empresas que tienen la 440

misma filosofía. Cuando ves los productos que tenemos actualmente, hay más de doscientos ochenta 441

productos que ya usan material transgénico, usan algodón transgénico… el Tampax usa material 442

transgénico, ¡usa algodón transgénico! ¡El Tampax usa algodón transgénico! Los cereales, bebidas, 443

gaseosas, aceites que usas. ¡Tienes un montón de productos transgénicos…” 444

Giovanna Tassi: “No me diga que el aceituna es transgénica…” 445

Cesar Paz y Miño: “No.” 446

Giovanna Tassi: “Menos mal, ¡porque yo uso aceite de oliva!” 447

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Y entonces… el aceite este de niños, ¿no cierto? Que usas. El aceite mineral… Hay un 448

montón de productos que ya están. Y que, ¡Claro! Generan una problemática, ¡por supuesto! Pero no… no 449

se le puede atribuir a la tecnología y a la biotecnología la responsabilidad de eso, sino… justamente, el uso 450

de estas técnicas tiene que ser en función de las personas. La ciencia no puede escaparse de apoyar a las 451

231

personas, no puede desarrollarse de forma independiente. Por eso estoy totalmente de acuerdo con el 452

planteamiento de Steve [Stephen Sherwood]. Entonces, dices, claro, ¡tenemos que encontrar un camino! 453

Pero con respuestas propias, no podemos nosotros manejar las ciencias tampoco solo porque nos imponen 454

ese tipo de ciencia e investigación. Nosotros estamos clarísimos en el tema de la dependencia, de los 455

intereses, que existen. Y por eso mismo la respuesta es: pues, entremos en un tipo de desarrollo científico y 456

tecnológico con apoyo del estado, no del gobierno no más, sino del estado con una política de estado, que 457

permita un desarrollo científico honorable para el país. ¡Porque es trágico el desarrollo científico que 458

tenemos! Entonces, dices, que si a eso sumamos una serie de prohibiciones que nos van apareciendo, 459

también no solo en el tema transgénico sino en muchos otros temas, una series de prohibiciones que nos 460

conducen a no investigar. En la ley actual, de estas del código penal, aparece una cosa allí que de alguna 461

manera involucra a la tecnología y a la biotecnología que es la manipulación de células somáticas. ¡Se 462

prohíbe! Entonces, dices, pero si el mundo está caminando por allí para resolver el problema de salud! 463

¡Nosotros queremos regularla! Entonces hay un montón de prejudicios en relación a la biotecnología, que 464

nos están impidiendo despegar como país en investigación. Entonces si es que nos sentimos honorables 465

deberíamos decir: ‘no creamos a nadie por último, y con investigadores propios, con tecnología 466

desarrollada por nosotros, con criterios nuestros… tengamos un posicionamiento, no solo del tema de 467

transgenesis, sino de todo de que involucre la tecnología aplicada a la soluciones de los problemas de las 468

personas. ¡Y allí entonces sintámonos tranquilos!” 469

Giovanna Tassi: “Bueno aquí en el chat también dicen (SPEAKER B): ‘Evidentemente la polémica que está en 470

el campo de la producción agrícola y transnacionales. ¿A caso no hay forma de separar ese campo de otros, 471

donde se pueden tener avances científicos claramente benéficos? Otra cosas que yo quiero poner en la 472

mesa y después vamos con las llamadas telefónicas. Uno, es el tema escuchándole a usted doctor, es el 473

tema de la ciencia per sé. O sea, ¿es necesario pensar científicamente? Usted es el único científico aquí de 474

los cuatros que estamos....” 475

Stephen Sherwood: “Tres somos científicos...” 476

Giovanna Tassi: “Bueno, diferente, ¿no, tal vez? Pero usted todos los días está allí con el microscopio, 477

analizando...” 478

Stephen Sherwood: “Ese es justo parte del problema, de pensar que la ciencia se limita a microscopio. Hay 479

otros tipos de ciencias, y es importante...” 480

Giovanna Tassi: “Me parece buenísimo Stephen [Sherwood] la puntualización. Pero digo, va mas allá… sí, 481

sí… Ya vamos con la llamada… ¿Va mas allá también del tema ético?” 482

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Está siempre en el tema ético! ¡Debería estar siempre en el tema ético!” 483

232

Giovanna Tassi: “Eso. Porque yo lo que yo quería preguntar es ese, ¿se puede separar la ética, la moral 484

desde la ciencia?” 485

Cesar Paz y Miño: “ Jamás! Se ha intentado separarlos.” 486

Giovanna Tassi: “Y lo otro: la soberanía nacional. Porque usted dice: ‘Ok, ¡fuera Monsanto! ¡Empecemos 487

nosotros aquí a generar una corriente de pensamiento sobre estas cosas!’, ¿no? Entonces dejo en la mesa 488

estas preguntas y vamos con la llamada telefónica… Audífonos, para que puedan escuchar, por favor. 489

¡Buenos días! 490

SPEAKER C: “¡Buenos días Giovanna! ¡Buenos días señores panelistas! Primeramente quería felicitarles por 491

este programa. Este tema es bastante apasionante y es un tema que Ecuador necesita debatir. Yo 492

comienzo. Mi nombre es Diego Nevares, soy ingeniero agrónomo. Yo estuve presente en la Constitución, 493

durante la Asamblea Constituyente de Montecristi. Yo fui uno de los opositores a que se prohíba 494

constitucionalmente la investigación en biotecnología, que se prohíba el uso de transgénicos. Porque como 495

decía uno de los panelistas, Ecuador necesita ser pionero en investigación. Necesitamos dejar de lado el 496

satanizar empresas como Monsanto y empezar a investigar, hacer que instituciones como el INIAP 497

empiezan a desarrollar, en una forma eficiente, la investigación agrícola. Es necesario que se despunte la 498

tecnología en el Ecuador. Hablemos de unos transgénicos hecho en el país. Actualmente la población 499

urbana, la explosión demográfica vamos en crecimiento. En los años setenta, hablábamos de ocho millones 500

de Ecuatorianos. Hoy por hoy, somos catorce millones de Ecuatorianos. En cuarenta años hemos duplicado 501

la población. Por lo tanto, la frontera agrícola ha ido disminuyendo. Lo que nos hace que produzcamos 502

menos alimentos para tanta gente. Estos nos afecta en la parte ambiental, porque la frontera agrícola 503

empieza a pasarse a la frontera ambiental, hasta a los páramos. Es necesario, entonces, empezar a 504

investigar, empezar a generar plantas propias, que no tengan el gen terminator, que es uno de los 505

problemas de la empresas como la Monsanto. Y que empiecen a desarrollar la agricultura para poder tener 506

una seguridad alimentaria… poder tener una seguridad alimentaria que tenga presente a largo plazo aquí 507

en Ecuador. Además, Giovanna, señores, creo que es necesario que dejemos a un lado los estigmas con 508

respecto al investigación biotecnológica, y empecemos a pensar en una verdadera seguridad alimentaria: 509

asegurar alimentos para la población Ecuatoriana. Esa era la intervención, y felicitaciones una vez más por 510

este programa. Espero que se lo repliquen las próximas ediciones.” 511

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Claro que sí! […] Dos llamadas mas… Directo al punto por favor para aprovechar los 512

invitados también. ¡Buenos días!” 513

SPEAKER D: “¡Buenos días! Bueno yo voy hacer muy de prisa una intervención. En realidad yo escuchando 514

la intervención del otro señor, y me pregunto porque no nos desforzamos tanto en apoyar mejor la 515

producción en el campo. En el campo hay las condiciones que hasta ahora se ha presentado eso, que hay 516

233

toda una historia de desatención y de falta de apoyo. Tenemos muchísimas experiencias a nivel 517

internacional, de que la producción agroecológica es sumamente factible y es absolutamente recomendada 518

para mejorar la salud de la población, para mejorar los niveles de resiliencia antes los efectos del cambio 519

climático, que le pasa… debemos decir que han sido provocado muchísimo por todo el efecto conjunto de 520

los químicos que la agricultura convencional ha metido en el campo. Yo, en mi condición de padre de 521

familia… no soy un experto del tema de transgénicos, soy solo un padre de familia preocupado, que ha 522

escuchado con mucha atención este programa, y que después de oír las explicaciones de acerca de los 523

transgénicos me quedo altamente preocupado. Y les diría a los científicos que tengan un poco mas de 524

conciencia, un poco mas de responsabilidad, y piensen en los efectos que ya están sucediendo en otros 525

países donde poblaciones enteras están enfermas, donde gente del campo ha sido desplazada, donde la 526

gente resiste, la gente está reclamando sus derechos. Y por ultimo diría que si el Ecuador decide realmente 527

de cambiar su modelo productivo, va a tener el apoyo de toda la población porque nosotros queremos 528

alimentos sanos, queremos salud. No queremos más riesgos.” 529

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Gracias, muchísimas gracias! Una más, ¡adelante por favor! ¡Buenos días!” 530

SPEAKER E : “ ¡Buenos días! ¿Cómo están? […] Yo soy parte de una asociación de productores ecológicos a 531

nivel nacional, somos más de 1700 productores. Y realmente hay una preocupación porque… antes de la 532

Revolución Verde, nos dijeran que era la solución para salvar el campo, la productividad y todo lo demás. 533

Yo me pregunto si los transgénicos son en verdad la solución. ¿Por qué no probar la biotecnología desde 534

otro punto de vista, desde otra forma de ciencia, en vez de probar de experimentar con la vida en el tema 535

de las semillas, no? Porque experimentar, investigar, si ya en otros países hemos visto que han causado 536

tantos danos. Por otra parte yo pienso que siempre y cuando la soberanía alimentaria protegemos la 537

biodiversidad… Teníamos treinta mil plantas antes, y ahora nuestro consumo se hace solamente en nueve 538

plantas. Entonces mi pregunta es, para la personas que esta discutiendo allí… ¿Realmente los transgénicos 539

son una solución y si no ha otros caminos para eso? Realmente para mi es de gran preocupación, porque 540

dentro de los productores vemos que hay muchos alimentos: el tema del acceso, mejorar las políticas, crear 541

unas nuevas formas de vida y apoyar el pequeño productor tal vez puede ser otro camino. Yo llamo eso a 542

la reflexión yo los quiero agradecer por el espacio que nos están dando para poder escuchar ambas partes. 543

¡Gracias!” 544

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Gracias! Daisy Bongo (SPEAKER F) dice: ‘Amigos de La Cabina, sin darme cuenta compré 545

en Supermaxi un harina para hacer pan de maíz, el cui empaque señala que el producto contiene 546

organismos modificados genéticamente. ¿Qué significa eso? ¿Lo puedo consumir? ¿Está reglamentada la 547

Ley de Libre Comercialización de estos productos?’. Y un mensaje (SPEAKER G) también: ‘Buenos días 548

Radio Pública, apoyo agricultura orgánica y quiero que nos convoquen a los que queremos consumir los 549

alimentos naturales. La naturaleza nos dio la vida. Los transgénicos están dando enfermedades y muertes 550

234

en otros continentes y países. ¡Reflexionemos!’. Un tema realmente que parece alejadísimo de la vida 551

cotidiana, pero que en cambio, miren que reacciones provoca. Entonces: el tema de la ciencia per se, 552

asociada a la ética y a la moral, el tema de la soberanía, de la erosión del patrimonio también genético, 553

agrícola del país a través de estas manipulaciones, afecta o no afecta? Señores, ¡hablen, no más!” 554

Stephen Sherwood: “Primero, quería mencionar, como científico, que el concepto de científico responsable 555

es casi una contradicción en términos, ¿no? Hoy en día, lastimosamente la libertad de los académicos, de 556

los científicos es muy limitado. Y en la práctica trabajamos por intereses privados de las universidades, que 557

cada día mas son empresas, y también de compañías privadas, intereses privados que están financiando la 558

investigación. Esta es la tendencia en la medicina, es la tendencia en la agricultura, en los alimentos. 559

Entonces hoy en día hablar de científicos responsables es problemático. Pero yo quiero decir también que 560

aquí no estamos debatiendo transgénicos, no estamos debatiendo biotecnología, estamos debatiendo el 561

presente y el futuro de los sistemas alimentarios de Ecuador. Y justo para mí, lo veo de dos formas: yo lo 562

veo como una agricultura industrial, organizado por un mercado de la modernización, ¿ok? Y una 563

agricultura que trabaja con los ecosistemas, y una que trabaja con la cultura, etcétera, ¿no? Como hablar 564

de la agricultura, de la soberanía, etcétera. Yo creo que eso es el debate. Y tenemos que comenzar a 565

entender que los problemas en el modelo industrial, lo que tenemos hoy… tenemos problemas que 566

mencionó el señor Morales que llamó: degradación de suelos, los problemas de plagas, pérdida de control 567

de los mercados, pérdida de control de la biodiversidad, problemas con los sistemas de agua… son 568

causadas por la tecnología pasada, ¿ok? […] Pero lo que quiero decir es que este modelo industrial se ha 569

fracasado. Y a nivel de la ciencia tenemos que reconocerlo, y comenzar a organizarnos sobre otros tipos de 570

ciencias que crean nuevos rectos. Pero todos nosotros aquí en la mesa, y son rectos tremendos. Y para mí 571

hay muchas formas de pensarlo, pero se enfoca mucho en enfoque de ecosistemas y biotecnología. Pero el 572

otro tema que quiero mencionar es que no son los científicos ni el gobierno que es responsable. En un país 573

democrático, un país que se organiza alrededor del mercado, el consumidor tiene que ser responsable. 574

Aquí en Ecuador, y podemos hablar de todos los fondos que tengamos en investigación, todos los fondos 575

que hay en cooperación internacional que hoy suma unos cuatrocientos millones, los consumidores 576

Ecuatorianos guastan cerca de ocho mil millones por año. Son los consumidores, que están detrás del 577

sistema alimentario. Y cuando nosotros decidimos que vamos a comer, de donde viene este comida, como 578

fue producida, estamos financiando toda la cadena. Yo creo que tenemos que rescatar el role del 579

consumidor como un actor importante en el país: a nivel de sus familias, a nivel de sus comunidades… Y allí 580

la ciencia tiene que ponerse al servicio de estos consumidores, y no al revés. Y esto es un poco lo que está 581

pasando.” 582

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Interesante! Muy buenos puntos Stephen. ¿Elizabeth?” 583

235

Elizabeth Bravo: “Bueno, se han planteado varios puntos, no sé por dónde empezar. Tal vez con el 584

comentario que hizo la persona que llamó que dijo que está de Montecristi, ¿no? El dice que el Ecuador 585

tiene que ser pionero en investigación científica. Yo creo que puede serlo, ya que el Ecuador es el país que 586

tiene más biodiversidad por unidad de área en el mundo y eso nos da una… una ventaja grandísima. Los 587

transgénicos no creo que nos den ninguna ventaja porque si nosotros hablamos de autonomía 588

investigativa, tenemos que pensar que la tecnología transgénica está toda patentada. Los reactivos no 589

están producidos en el Ecuador, bueno… No nos hace autónomos, es una tecnología que…” 590

Giovanna Tassi: “O sea que tenemos que comprar todo los que nos sirve para hacer…” 591

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Todo! Y pagar patentes. Entonces eso no nos da autonomía. Pero tenemos una 592

biodiversidad que puede ser estudiada, potenciada, etc. El decía también que se está ampliado la frontera 593

agrícola y que los transgénicos nos van a salvar. Y yo me he sentido un poco, cuando estoy con Cesar [Paz y 594

Miño] con una camisa de fuerza porque no podemos hablar de Monsanto, o podemos hablar de glifosato, 595

no podemos hablar de los transgénicos que ya hay. Yo creo que la única forma de entender los transgénicos 596

es hablar de lo que ya existe. Yo quiero utilizar el caso de los dos, del segundo y tercero productores de 597

transgénicos que son Argentina y Brasil. La tecnología transgénica, de la soya transgénica, es una tecnología 598

que concentra tierra y es a la vez expansiva. En Argentina, por ejemplo, la frontera de la soya se ha subido a 599

los bosque se junglas, ha destruido chaco, ha desplazado cultivos alimenticios, no ha contribuido para nada 600

a la soberanía alimentaria, que es diferente que la seguridad alimentaria. Porque en Argentina lo que se 601

produce es: una soya, que es un alimento de mala calidad para alimentar a chancos y pollos en otra parte 602

del mundo, que puede ser la Cina, que puede ser Europa… Se ha dejado de producir el maravilloso ganado 603

argentino, que era libre, que corría per las pampas… Todas estas pampas están llenas ahora de soya. Ahora 604

hay lo que llaman los speed lots, que tienen en una hectárea tres mil cabezas de ganado, estabuladas y que 605

comen soya transgénica. Entonces no ha contribuido a la soberanía alimentaria. Y por otra parte tampoco 606

ha aumentado la producción. Hay algunos estudios que demuestran, por ejemplo en estudios de la 607

Universidad del Kansas, que demuestran que la soya transgénica produce diez por ciento menos que la 608

soya convencional, por problemas que produce en términos de asociación de algunos nutrientes. Entonces 609

eso también, tenemos que desmitificar estos mitos, ¿no? Porque tenemos que entender que un cultivo 610

transgénico per se, cualquiera que sea la característica que tenga, es un cultivo que enfrenta una infección, 611

está infectado por células de hongos, de bacterias, de lo que queramos ponerle, ¿lo cierto? Por lo tanto su 612

comportamiento fisiológico va a ser menor, porque tienen que guastar mucha energía en producir nuevas 613

proteínas que el organismo no está acostumbrado a producir. Es menos productivo y es mas riesgoso. 614

También hay algo que se llama la epigenetica, que yo se que Cesar [Paz y Miño] escribió un artículo sobre 615

eso… epigenetica significa que hay cambios ambientales que producen silenciamiento de genes, cambios 616

de unos genes, y eso es un factor que no se toma para nada en cuenta cuando se piensa que los 617

236

transgénicos va a solucionar todo los problemas del mundo, ¿no? También quisiera decir que la reunión de 618

Asilomar en donde se reunieron algunos científicos ha sido ampliamente criticada por otra cuantidad de 619

científicos a nivel internacional. Y también en el tema de la ética, ¿no? Ayer seguimos un debate del 620

Senacido en donde fue invitado un regulador de Argentina, que fue quien aprobó… parece que estuve 621

involucrado en la aprobación del modelo que nos hablaba Steve [Stephen Sherwood] completamente 622

transgénico. […] Y lo que él, más o menos, dio a entender en su charla es que todos los artículos científicos 623

que son críticos con los transgénicos, que demuestran datos con investigación, usando métodos científicos, 624

que demuestran que los transgénicos producen menos o que los transgénicos producen impactos al medio 625

ambiente, o cualquiera de las cosas… eran hecho por gente corrupta. Y yo si quisiera decir… por ejemplo 626

considero mucho el estudio de un equipo francés e italiano que sacó unos estudios recientes de unas 627

tremendas problemas de salud en unas ratas. Y él se burló de la investigación, muy respetosamente… Y yo 628

digo un científico que tiene nombre, y que tiene un nombre que proteger... que es lo único que tiene, 629

porque no tiene empresas detrás, etcétera… ¿Cómo va a hacer un diseño experimental tramposo y 630

corrupto? No tiene ningún sentido! O sea, si el trabajaba por una empresa como Monsanto yo entendería 631

que manipule los datos. Pero un científico que tiene un nombre que proteger, no va a hacerlo, ¿no? Pero 632

digamos que se da esa tónica de que cualquier estudio científico que es anti-transgénico es hecho por 633

gente corrupta, por gente que quiere manipular los datos, que no vale la pena… lo cual no tiene mucho 634

sentido, ¿no?” 635

Stephen Sherwood: “Bueno y que todas la ONG sean...” 636

Elizabeth Bravo: “ Ah, ¡por supuesto! Que los culpables de todos los problemas de los transgénicos son la 637

ONG. Estas ONG, como la Daisy que llamó, que pertenece a un grupo de consumidores orgánicos, etcétera 638

son los culpables de… O sea, realmente, ¿no? Se necesita también un poco mas de ética en la forma de 639

cómo se evalúa la ciencia, ¿no?” 640

Giovanna Tassi: “Se analizan las posiciones, ¿no? ¡Científicamente hablando!” 641

Stephen Sherwood: “Hay todo tipo de ONG…” 642

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Claro!” 643

Elizabeth Bravo: “Hay todos tipos de ONG, hay todos tipos de científicos… 644

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Es una diversidad biológica también en ONG!” 645

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Exactamente! Y hay una diversidad biológica también en los científicos. Y finalmente yo 646

quisiera decir algo sobre la productividad. El problema de las grandes hambrunas en el mundo, ¿se deben a 647

la falta de producción de alimentos? Y quisiera poner por ejemplo el ejemplo de África, del cuerno de 648

237

África. El cuerno de África es centro de origen de cultivos. Allí se originó el sorgo, allí se originó el café que 649

nos estamos tomando ahorita, es una zona muy productiva… Pero, ¿qué es lo que pasa allí? Allí se han 650

implementado programas de ajuste. Se les ha prohibido producir alimentos para la soberanía alimentaria y 651

se le has obligado a producir para el mercado, por ejemplo algodón, etcétera. Y también se les prohíbe que 652

tengan reservas estratégicas de granos. Entonces si es que enfrentan una sequilla, ellos no tienen como 653

defenderse porqué se considera que tener reservas estratégicas es una forma de competencia desleal y…” 654

Giovanna Tassi: “Y ya lo hacían los Egipcios, ¿no? De tener reservas de grano...” 655

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Exacto! Por eso, por ejemplo la famosa Primavera Árabe: Egipto, o sea un productor… 656

bueno el rio Nilo, toda la cultura entorno al rio Nilo y los faraones, es una cultura agrícola. ¡Allí le pusieron a 657

producir algodón! Y tenían que importar todo su trigo, son altos consumidores de trigo. Que es lo que 658

encadena la Primavera Árabe es justamente la subida de precios que salieron en el 2008. Claro que no es la 659

única causa, pero si fue la desencadenante. Entonces creo que nosotros tenemos que ver el problema del 660

hambre con un poquito más de seriedad, con un poquito mas de análisis científico. Estoy de acuerdo con lo 661

que dice Steve [Stephen Sherwood]. La ciencia no es solamente lo que se hace atrás de los microscopios. 662

También existe la ciencias políticas, existe la economía política, existe la ecología política, existen la ciencias 663

económicas que tienen que tener algo que decir en este debate sobre la alimentación y sobre el futuro de 664

país que queremos.” 665

Giovanna Tassi: “[…] ¿Doctor Cesar Paz y Miño? Ah, tenemos una llamada, ¡adelante por favor! ¡Directo al 666

punto, por favor! ¡Buenos días, bienvenido!” 667

SPEAKER H: “¡Hola! Buenos días. Todo el mundo está atiento a cómo vamos a desarrollar, a aquellos 668

valores que propinamos en nuestra Constitución, y porque es la única que ha declarado el Ecuador libre de 669

transgénicos, ha declarado los derechos de la madre tierra, ha declarado soberanía alimentaria. Y somos, 670

digamos, la oveja negra para ciertas empresas, o para ciertos intereses. En este mes, llega a la Asamblea 671

una propuesta de soberanía alimentaria hecha por una institución del mismo gobierno, que es un modelo 672

agropecuario basado en lo ecológico. Y de repente se estanca esto, yo no entiendo, parecía que tenía 673

apoye de los asambleístas y de golpe aparece esto que el Ecuador tiene que quitar esto de la Constitución 674

libre de transgénicos. Eso quería preguntarle, ¿qué relación tiene esto que estamos hablando de 675

transgénicos con lo que se está por aprobar en la Asamblea respecto a la ley de agro biodiversidad, semillas 676

y fomento agroecológico? ¡Gracias!” 677

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Muchas gracias! Yo creo que aquí, no sé… como digo yo he leído mucho sobre el tema de 678

transgénicos pero no soy un experta en el tema. ¿Se puede marcar una frontera entre lo que es la 679

agricultura, o sea la cuestión transgénica aplicada a la agricultura, a las semillas y todo eso… Y lo que es 680

transgénico aplicado a la medicina por ejemplo? Se puede separar y se puede decir por ejemplo tal vez aquí 681

238

en la agricultura es mucho más complejo y peligroso, en la medicina un poco menos? No sé, puede ser una 682

reflexión muy simplona, pero digo… lo pongo así pero la respuesta también a lo que decían su co-683

panelistas, doctor.” 684

Cesar Paz y Miño: “De hecho así empecé mi intervención, dividiendo el tema entre lo que era la parte de 685

salud, lo que era la parte de bio-remediación incluso y lo que es la agricultura, que yo dije que 686

efectivamente es donde más problemas trae. Me gustaría para un poco hablar la posición de la ciencia. 687

Voy a regresar a mis bases ideológicas, ¿no? Que las he manejado en toda la vida, que son la equidad, la 688

redistribución y el uso de la ecología. Entonces, allí, los trabajos que los investigadores hacen, hay por 689

supuesto de dos visiones, ¿no? Unos, pues, apoyaran a la visión empresarial, financiera, etcétera, y 690

habremos otros investigadores, pues, que somos críticos de esta visión, y que en cambio las investigaciones 691

que hacemos son justamente investigaciones pegadas a las necesidades de la gente, a las necesidades y 692

problemas incluso del ambiente, ¿no? No tengo que enumerar los trabajos que tenemos sobre el tema, 693

pero voy a hacer referencias a tres: el tema del glifosato en la frontera, el tema de la minería en relación al 694

uso de productos de las personas que trabajan con minería y el tema de los pesticidas… Entonces esos… 695

hay la de los hidrocarburos, también es la cuarta. Todas esas son evidencias de que hay investigadores 696

comprometidos con la salud de las personas y que las investigaciones que hacen, sirven para las denuncias 697

sociales incluso. Y en el tema de transgenesis, en la misma línea, nosotros nos hemos mantenido igual: la 698

transgenesis por sí misma, no es el problema, sino como va a usarse la transgenesis en función de las 699

necesidades de las personas y en función, en realidad, de las necesidades del país, si es el país resuelve que 700

en realidad esto no sirve para nada, pues, muy bien. Pero no podemos partir de que no sirve para nada, la 701

transgenesis. Y que es lo que como científico defiendo, como científico atrás de un laboratorio, para decir 702

así…” 703

Giovanna Tassi: “Sí, sí… como científico de microscopios.” 704

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Exacto! Entonces, ¡claro! Pero la ciencia tiene que estar éticamente pegada a las 705

personas. Que haya científicos que no estén… Bueno, ¡esto es lo que la misma sociedad tiene que 706

denunciar! Pero la ciencia tiene que estar pegada a las personas y a las necesidades de las personas. 707

Entonces si la agricultura, como se ha planteado, el mejor camino es la agricultura orgánica, el mejor 708

camino es la agricultura ecológica… Mi único cuestionamiento ha sido la biotecnología en el ADN, en la 709

transgenesis, es un herramienta mas que podría servir justamente para acompañar los problemas del 710

Ecuador. Y yo si me olvido, allí si, de todo el resto: de la Monsanto, de los pesticidas. Y dices: ‘¡Muy bien! Si 711

es que eso se quiere asociar, ¡asóciemelos! ¡Mis mismas investigaciones sobre el glifosato demuestran que 712

es terrible!” 713

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Claro! Exacto, usted ha escrito un libro…” 714

239

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Exactamente! Pero dices, si… hay una tecnología, que de pronto la estamos quedando 715

atrás por una serie de inconsistencias de la información… El estudio de Seralini, del francés, también está 716

cuestionado por científicos de calidad. A la reunión de Asilomar asistieron más de veinte premios Nobel. 717

Entonces… también puede estar cuestionada. El uso de los elementos primarios para crear los transgénicos, 718

¡por supuesto tenemos que comprarlos! Así como compramos el 90%, el 80% de maíz que estamos 719

trayendo, de harina de maíz y soya, Y compramos los productos primarios para las medicinas. Entonces, o 720

podemos tampoco satanizar y mitificar el tema de cualquier reunión en el mundo, de cualquier científico en 721

el mundo, porque también va a haber los otros que lo apoyen. Entonces, por eso mismo la respuesta tiene 722

que ser una respuesta nacional a un problema que es… ¡evidentemente que lo tenemos!” 723

Giovanna Tassi: “Ahora doctor […], aquí hay una pregunta de Paul (SPEAKER I) que dice: ‘Porque hay un 724

grupo, en su mayoría, [de] detractores Europeos de esta corriente y agricultores Norteamericanos a 725

favor?’. ¿Tal vez Steve [Stephen Sherwood] podría responder?” 726

Stephen Sherwood: “Disculpe no he entendido…” 727

Giovanna Tassi: “¿Por qué hay mayores detractores en Europa del tema de los transgénicos, en cambio en 728

los Estados Unidos los agricultores están a favor de eso? Y, para cerrar porque ya son las 9.44 y tenemos 729

diez minutos… ¿Qué hacemos? ¿Qué vamos a hacer?” 730

Stephen Sherwood: “Ok, bueno voy a tentar de hacer los dos. Primero yo diría que hay mucha gente en 731

contra de este tipo de biotecnología en los Estados Unidos. California es la sexta economía del mundo, ¿ok? 732

Es un estado de cuarenta y cinco millones de personas, donde al seis de Noviembre van a votar si pueden 733

etiquetar y comenzar a controlar este tipo de tecnología. Lo que creo que pasó en los Estados Unidos es 734

que el público ha perdido el control de su sistema alimentario, ¿ok? Y en Europa, por diferentes razones 735

que podemos discutir, han logrado seguir como parte del debate y lo están controlando, pero es un tema 736

muy complicado. Lo que quiero decir para cerrar mi parte… hace quince días, di un discurso en Europa 737

sobre lo que Ecuador podía enseñar a Europa para transformar sus sistemas alimentarias, y fue bien 738

recibida. Y para mi Ecuador tiene todo lo que necesita para transformar, hoy en día, sin nueva tecnología, 739

¿ok? Aunque estoy de acuerdo siempre tecnología hay que seguir innovando… Hoy en día, Ecuador podía 740

transformar su sistemas alimentarios hacerlo más sustentable, más productivos, mas resilientes… Como 741

habló una de las personas que llamaron, ¿ok? Con lo que tenemos, ¿ok? Yo te puedo dar ahorita un listar 742

de mil quinientos fincas, por darte un ejemplo concreto, ya aprobada y ya económicas, incluyendo la mía, 743

aunque muestran esto en la práctica, ¿ok? El problema de Ecuador no es una falta de producción. Ecuador 744

justo tiene más sobrepesos y obesos que desnutridos, ¿ok? Hoy en día ya es un epidemia aquí. Y quiero 745

mencionar que la obesidad ya es peor que la desnutrición en términos económicos, en términos de salud 746

humana, en términos de ambiente, ¿ok? Justo siete de las diez causas de muerte en Ecuador… de las diez 747

240

causas de muerte tienen relación con la obesidad, incluyendo la diabetes dos. Pero quiero mencionar este: 748

que hay mucha potencial que no estamos… muchas ciencias existentes, y prácticas, en el país que no 749

estamos aprovechando hoy en día.” 750

Giovanna Tassi: “Y sistematizándola y organizándola para difundir…” 751

Stephen Sherwood: “Para mi tenemos que investir en esto: la ciencia de la práctica, de consumo, de la 752

producción, de las economías, de la circulación. Tenemos que invertir en esto. Y cuando yo leo este ley 753

propuesto sobre la agro biodiversidad, semillas y fomento agroecológico, yo veo una inversión en la 754

tecnología Ecuatoriana. Y yo siento que allí está la potencial, y siento que deberíamos estar debatiendo 755

esto y cómo hacerlo, en vez de estar peleando en contra de estos intereses foráneos que vienen para 756

tomar mercados nuestros, tomar campos, sistemas alimentarias, y recursos biológicos nuestros.” 757

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Perfecto! Y entonces, ahora, ¿qué hacemos? O sea, ¿hasta donde dirigimos la discusión? 758

¿Cómo hacer para que no entremos en ese mecanismo que no ayuda a nadie porque se ponen dos 759

posiciones, cada uno habla y no se entienden?” 760

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Exactamente! Bueno eso es lo que sentí yo en los dos fórums que hemos tenido en estos 761

dos últimos días. Realmente, ¿no? Uno pone sus posiciones y cada uno no va a cambiar, ¿no? Yo estoy muy 762

de acuerdo con las propuestas que hace Steve [Stephen Sherwood]. Nosotros tenemos un gran potencial 763

en este país, que tenemos que aprovecharlo. Sobre el tema agrícola y sobre los insumos, yo quisiera decir… 764

la ecología política que es una rama de la ciencia también que está naciendo, tiene un instrumento de 765

trabajo muy interesante que se llama el metabolismo social. Entonces se evalúa allí los flujos de entrada, 766

los flujos propios y los flujos de salida de un sistema agrícola. O sea se ven los sistemas como sistemas 767

abiertos. Entonces, entre mas flujos de entrada tenga un sistema, es mucho menos ecológico. Entonces, 768

vamos a pensar, por ejemplo, un sistema agrícola basado en transgénicos es un sistema energéticamente 769

mucho más alto, que como dice Steve no quiero que la economía salga para pagarle fertilizantes, 770

pesticidas, etcéteras,.. Que se quede en la misma finca, en el mismo país, toda la potencialidad que puede 771

dar la agricultura. Si quisiera aclarar sobre el tema de Asilomar, lo que yo quiero decirte es que en ningún 772

foro científico están todos los que están… Hay un libro, ¿no? Que dice que todos los que están somos todos 773

los que… 774

Giovanna Tassi: “Estamos todos los que somos.” 775

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Exactamente! 776

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Ni in un lado ni en el otro.” 777

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Ni in un lado ni en el otro, exactamente! O sea..” 778

241

Giovanna Tassi: “Y mas entre científicos, ¡peor todavía! Porque hay todas las posiciones…” 779

Elizabeth Bravo: “Hay, digamos, hay… En tema de transgénicos hay una polaridad muy grande de científicos 780

de buena calidad, que están a favor y en contra y no… No es correcto descalificar a los científicos por una 781

posición o el otra, a menos que tengan intereses económicos… Porque es decir también lo que se llama la 782

ciencia mercenaria, ¿no? Que son los científicos que trabaja a servicio de las empresas. 783

Stephen Sherwood: “Y sin ser trasparentes…” 784

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Claro! Lo que se llama ciencia mercenaria y también se llama ‘las evidencias como 785

condicionantes de los hospicios’, es decir: me hospicia Monsanto, yo creo mis evidencias. Esta ciencia sí es, 786

digamos, cuestionable. Pero en Asilomar estuvieron un grupo de científicos. No podemos decir que es la 787

declaración de los científicos…” 788

Giovanna Tassi: “La declaración universal de los científicos sobre los transgénicos…” 789

Elizabeth Bravo: “…sobre los transgénicos. A eso es lo que yo me quiero referir. Y que hay muchos 790

científicos que han cuestionado esa reunión.” 791

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Perfecto! Doctor…” 792

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Como toda reunión. O sea, imagínate cuestionar a Nobel de la Paz, ¡aquí promueven la 793

guerra! Entonces dices: ‘También es cuestionable’, yo a la cabeza. Entonces, el tema de Asilomar es una 794

cuestión súper interesante porque más o menos fue… Perdón, por todos lo que estamos involucrados en 795

tema de genética, más o menos fue la vía ética de trabajo, incluso para cuestionar también la reunión de 796

Asilomar. Hubo investigadores que no pararon investigación, pues de que había un acuerdo que se paren, y 797

no pararon y por de bajo siguieron. ¿Quiénes son? Los mismos de siempre que siguieron por debajo. 798

Entonces cuando se abre el tema y se dice no hay problema, entonces tenían investigaciones muchos más 799

avanzadas y eso se demostró. Entonces claro la ética tiene que estar pegada al trabajo científico porque 800

esto es innegable. Y la sociedad tiene que estar pegada al trabajo científico. Totalmente de acuerdo que la 801

ciencia mercenaria no puede existir en países como los nuestros, en que tenemos necesidades diferentes, 802

que tenemos problemas de alimentación, tenemos problemas de producción totalmente diferentes, 803

tenemos necesidades diferentes, visiones diferentes… Yo estaría en Wall Street parado, también 804

participando en lo mismo, o en Europa este rato con los indignados, ¿por qué? Porque el sistema nuestro 805

económico no ha resuelto el problema que estamos hablando ahora. Y la tecnología, yo vuelvo a decir, 806

defiendo la tecnología como un herramienta mas que podría apoyar al desarrollo de este país, que tanto 807

necesita. Un país que necesita equidad, que necesita justicia, que necesita reciprocidad y repartición de la 808

riqueza. ¡No puede ser posible que el 20% de la población maneje el 80% de la tierra! Entonces, ¿de que 809

estamos hablando? Entonces, si hay una cuestión que tenemos que tener clara.” 810

242

Giovanna Tassi: “Pero hay una cuestión también de modelo, doctor y colegas aquí en la mesa, porque creo 811

yo… Antes Ecuador tenía trigo, pero ahora no lo tiene porque le han obligado a cultivar otras cosas. O sea, 812

quiero decir, Ecuador es el fruto también de una imposición de un modelo agrícola que respondía a las 813

necesidades de la época. Entonces yo digo, ¿podemos revertir eso? Podemos volver a tener una soberania 814

alimentaria y una [...] seguridad alimentaria?” 815

Stephen Sherwood: “Yo diría que la soberanía alimentaria en Ecuador ya existe, ¿no? No domina, pero 816

existe. Y hay gente que come, lo que llamamos consumidores, gente que produce, lo que llamamos 817

productores, que ya se organiza en formas de que acabo de describir. Formas que fomentan equidad, 818

fomentan sistemas biológico , fomentan salud. Y son miles. Lastimosamente no son millones. Pero yo creo 819

que esto es justo el trabajo y la propuesta. Pero para mí no es un mito. Y a frente del tema de los 820

transgénicos en la agricultura, yo siento que es la respuesta correcta a la pregunta equivocada. Y tenemos 821

que comenzar como científicos a plantear nuevas preguntas. Y parar de buscar soluciones, y comenzar a 822

preguntar y volver a esta institución científica.” 823

Giovanna Tassi: “Creo que Stephen [Sherwood] ha puesto el punto sobre la i, en el sentido que cuando tu 824

planteas preguntas planteas un paradigma. O sea desde donde partir en la reflexión. Si tu partes de la 825

reflexión de la masa, de la masa mundial de que habla solo de producción en términos masivo, creo que allí 826

estamos equivocado. Porque Ecuador ni si quiera puede sostener una cosa masiva, por la naturaleza mismo 827

del país. Yo digo, no soy experta pero uno ha leído un poco, ¿no? Entonces, ojala, pues que logremos seguir 828

hablando de este temas sin… sin parcializar… O sea, no sin parcializar porque es imposible pero sin 829

segarnos, ¿no? O sea, realmente poner en la mesa los pros y contra y tratar de encontrar un camino, un 830

nuevo camino.” 831

Cesar Paz y Miño: “La ciencia no puede segarse. Pero la respuesta también debe ser incluyente, y la 832

biotecnología del ADN es un herramienta que debe ser también considerado.” 833

Giovanna Tassi: “Y los agricultores también en la mesa, ¿no?” 834

Cesar Paz y Miño: “También, ¡por supuesto!” 835

Elizabeth Bravo: “¡Por supuesto los agricultores! No es un debate científico, ¿no? Y decir que el ADN y 836

digamos los transgénicos no son un herramienta más. En los países donde se han adoptado los transgénicos 837

ha sido un camino sin regreso. Por ejemplo, Paraguay donde fue derrocado el Presidente Lugo, porque no 838

quiso aceptar el algodón transgénicos, en este momento, que está la época de siembra en Paraguay, ya no 839

existe, ya fue aprobado el algodón transgénico, no existe semilla de algodón non transgénico. 840

¡Desaparecieron!” 841

243

Giovanna Tassi: “Sí es una erosión del patrimonio nacional de semillas. Esto ya es un dato, sucedió en 842

México con la vainilla, sucedió en muchos países, y por eso el peligro de estas grandes impresas que 843

hibridan las semillas para justamente no exista la posibilidad de que un agricultor vuelva a sembrar sino 844

que él tenga que comprar siempre. Entonces es ponerle una soga al cuello del agricultor, ¿no? Y después 845

denunciarlo por si a caso decida de hacer un pececito de tierra con su propia semilla, ¿no? Violando los 846

acuerdos internacionales que uno ni si quiera sabe que existen pero están vinculados, ¿no?” 847

Stephen Sherwood: “Y me preocupa hoy en día que nuestro presidente Correa se ha ido a Carolina de 848

Norte en los Estados Unidos para buscar ciencia y tecnología. Mi sugerencia para el presidente es que vaya 849

a Ecuador a buscar ciencia y tecnología, porque si existe. Pero hay que meterse en los campos y hablar y 850

ver la riqueza de práctica que existe en este país. No necesita ir a los Estados Unidos a encontrar 851

soluciones. Yo vine aquí para aprender cómo vivir en una forma más sustentable.” 852

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Perfecto! Y aquí tenemos una fundita que demuestra…” 853

Cesar Paz y Miño: “¡Claro! Pero tenemos también por supuestos respuestas buenas, por supuesto en el 854

Ecuador inclusive de las propias propuestas para hacer una universidad dedicada a la biodiversidad, y 855

todo… Sí pero incluso el estudio de la biodiversidad va a tener que incluir el estudio del ADN con todas las 856

técnicas disponibles para estudiar esta biodiversidad y ver si inclusive eso nos sirve para solucionar los 857

problemas humanos.” 858

Giovanna Tassi: “¡Muchísimas gracias! […] Espero que haya servido este programa para usted. Para que 859

tengan más elementos de conocimientos, vamos a poner links de artículos, de estudios de diferentes 860

vertientes para que usted se informe. Recuerdo: el poder lo tienen los ciudadanos, nosotros. Usted que 861

tiene el poder de votar, el poder de decidir. Pero ese poder se construye sobre conocimiento… ¡Le toca 862

trabajar! Además de lo que trabaja fuera de su casa, llega a casa y empieza a leer, empieza a informarse y 863

empieza a dar opiniones. ¡Gracias! […]” 864

244


This appendix presents the transcript of the live discussion that has been carried out on February, 26th

2013 and transmitted by the program ‘Minga por la Pachamama’ transmitted by the Public Radio of

Ecuador. Following, the transcription of the discussion in the original language in which it has been

performed. Note that the transcription is not an integral version of the public discussion, as only the

statements that have been considered relevant for the analysis conducted in subchapter 6.4 have been

reported. Moreover, the recording of this discussion was quite disturbed, and what was happening

between one intervention and the other had not been recording. Consequently, only the statements of the

singular speakers were able to be transcribed.

SPEAKER A: “La Unión Ecuatoriana de Médicos Escritores les da la cordial bienvenida a ustedes, 1

agradeciéndosele sus presencias, y comunicándoles siempre a ustedes lo que hemos hecho en un corto 2

resumen que siempre podemos hacer hoy. La Unión Ecuatoriana de Médicos Escritores viene funcionando 3

desde hace cinco años, aquí en la sede del Museo de la Medicina Ecuatoriana. Hemos venido realizando 4

eventos durante los cinco años, con una frecuencia de quince días durante estos cinco años. Hoy, en este 5

año 2013, nos hemos desfasado un poquito, y esta es la primera presentación de este año, por algunas 6

circunstancias, por asuntos henos en nuestro programa de trabajo, no hemos podido hacerlo en enero ni 7

en febrero con la frecuencia que nosotros solíamos hacer. Pero hoy, en esta fecha, el 26 de Febrero del 8

2013, hemos querido retomar, como ya estaba programado, nuestras intervenciones y nuestros eventos 9

con este tema muy elegido y este tema muy importante, que es, precisamente, de los transgénicos. 10

Partirnos, nosotros hemos tenido, con la ayuda de todos los miembros de la Unión y de los amigos de la 11

unión, a gente muy connotada que ha tenido la prestancia y la bondad de presentarse ahora, en estos 12

momentos, en esta reunión y formar parte de este panel muy importante. Quiero darles las bienvenida a 13

todos y cada uno de los panelistas que son de mucha importancia no solamente a nivel nacional sino a nivel 14

mundial. En primer lugar quiero presentarle algún moderador que va a ser en este momento Roberto 15

Gortaire… creo que está aquí, ¿sí? Que es Presidente de la Comisión de Consumidores en la Conferencia 16

Plurinacional y Intercultural de la Soberanía Alimentaria. El doctor Stephen Sherwood, que es de los 17

Conocimientos y Innovación de la Universidad de Wageningen... ¿está bien dicho? La doctora Myriam 18

Paredes, profesora del Desarrollo Rural y Territorial de la FLACSO y, por supuesto, el doctor Cesar Paz y 19

Miño, director de biogenetica de la Universidad de las Américas. […] Yo quiero darles la bienvenida 20

nuevamente y agradecerlos […]. Quiero, a ustedes, así mismo ponerles esta… este evento, este tema tan 21

importante y que le recibamos con un caloroso aplauso a todos ellos… Para escucharles todas las 22

posiciones técnico, científicas, políticas, que nos acogen en este momento, con este tema tan importante. 23

Señoras y señores, para mí es un honor darle la palabra y la moderación al doctor Roberto Gortaire.” 24

245

Roberto Gortaire: “Quiero agradecerle mucho por la cordial invitación, y a nombre de la Conferencia de la 25

soberanía alimentaria quiero agradecerles también por esta oportunidad de ser parte de este dialogo. En 26

este caso, pues soy comprometido para cumplir el papel de moderador, y esto me exime de revelar mi 27

posición, sino solamente moderar y facilitar el dialogo. […] La intención fundamental es provocar el mayor 28

dialogo posible […]” 29

Cesar Paz y Miño: “[…] A ver, yo voy a plantear el tema un poco… como ya muchos me conocen, y saben 30

cuál es mi orientación, y voy a hacer un resumen rapidísimo de lo que yo pienso de ese tema. [...] Este es 31

un concepto que yo manejo porque me parece que es mucho más accesible, mucho más claro de que es un 32

organismo vivo… que es un transgénico y un organismo vivo […] y que ha sido reproducido de manera 33

artificial, creo que es el tema principal, y con material genético con la finalidad de obtener algunas 34

características que nos interesa a los investigadores. Y esa es la particularidad de esto, que es artificial. 35

Entonces eso no nos permite hace un montón de cosas. [...] ¿Porque yo he puesto aquí un planteamiento 36

nuevo sobre los transgénicos? Porque, incluso el 25 de febrero se cumplieron 40 años del aparecimiento 37

del primer transgénico. O sea, tenemos 40 años de experiencia en esto. Entonces el Ministerio hizo… 38

Reguló una encuesta en que había una limitada información del público sobre los transgénicos, lo cual crea 39

un montón de mitos. Y esto tiene a que ver con el desarrollo de biotecnología, bioseguridad para el 40

tratamiento de estos organismos transgénicos. Y esto, para mí, compromete un cambio de visión sobre los 41

transgénicos: que hablemos como país frente a las bondades de los transgénicos, porque hay un montón 42

de bondades, y nos cerramos al avance científico con el candado Constitucional que existe actualmente de 43

prohibir al Ecuador semillas transgénicas. Y entonces eso, al menos para mí, y he reiterado eso un poco es 44

la necesidad de modificar una ley que es absurda desde la perspectiva de aplicación de la tecnología 45

transgénica. [...] Miren las noticias de hoy, yo estaba viendo que pasaba con el tema de transgénicos y el 46

servicio internacional para adopción de biotecnología dice que la superficie mundial cultivada con 47

organismos modificados llega a 170.3 millones de hectáreas, esto ha sido un incremento del 6% respecto al 48

año anterior, y desde que se comenzó a sembrar transgénicos en el ‘96, más de la mitad de la superficies en 49

los países en vía de desarrollo. Sí, el 52% de lo que si produce es de los países in vía de desarrollo. [...] El 50

uso… puedo adentrarme en las tres cosas: el agroindustria, ambiente y salud. En salud cuasi nadie discute, 51

porque los beneficios son tremendamente impactantes, las vacunas, hormonas, fármacos, etcétera... En 52

ambiente, todo de bio-remediación, incluso allí hay bastante gente que dice que está bien, a pesar de que 53

gente que dice que el tema… no debería usarse el bacteria en un sitio, etcétera. Y el tema de la 54

agroindustria, que creo que es el más complejo porque se habla de que se liberan transgénicos al ambiente 55

y eso trae una serie de consecuencias. [...] Entonces que es lo que se quiere un poco con el tema de los 56

transgénicos con la visión actual, es mejorar los caracteres productivos, ¿lo cierto? De las granjas: 57

resistencia a enfermedades a través del manipular genéticamente, modelos animales de enfermedades 58

humanas, los animales transgénicos como birreactores para la síntesis de proteínas de alto valor proteico, 59

246

terapéutico, alimenticio, etcétera y la donación de órganos en otras plantas a través de la manipulación 60

genética, que es una de las cuestiones que también podría ser. [...] Y, entonces, ¿cuales son los problemas? 61

Aquí yo he puesto algunos: integración múltiple del gen que estamos metiendo, que se puedan meter uno 62

atrás de otro; lugar integración indeterminado, por lo cual hay un efecto de posición y por eso tal vez 63

trastornos, ventilación y falta de expresión de los genes; mosaicos, [...]. Entonces aquí yo resumo esto que 64

no me canso de resumir el tema esto de la trasmisión normales así. Y lo que se dice ahora es que un 65

transgénico podría trasmitir la característica de forma horizontal, o trasmitir a su descendencia y estos a su 66

vez crear más transgénicos. Entonces ese es el conflicto que se habla desde el punto de vista genético. [...] 67

Las problemas entonces, lo que podría plantearse desde el punto la perspectiva de los transgénicos, 68

criterios científicos, evidencias in conflicto, esto es verdad… hay unos a favor, otros en contra. Una visión 69

política, por supuesto: que queremos como país, queremos depender, no depender, que vamos a hacer con 70

las presiones internacionales, las transnacionales, etcétera... Visión de los ecologistas: se asocian los 71

transgénicos a las transnacionales, dependencia del producto: eso es una cuestión que al menos yo pienso 72

que debemos liberarnos como país y proponer cosas nuevas nosotros. ¿Todos los transgénicos son malos? 73

Es una de las preguntas. [...] Entonces aquí están los criterios en contra, los criterios a favor que más o 74

menos se resumen al tema de que el ADN se integra en el individuo, ese ADN produce cambios y por lo 75

tanto es malo: va a producir tumores, va a producir enfermedades, va a producir alergias. Entonces hay una 76

series de experimentaciones y pruebas científicas que desmitifican ese tema, y es un poco lo que yo voy a 77

plantear en una diapositiva. Aquí están bastantes cosas pero lo que yo quiero es plantear una cuestión 78

sobre esto de la integración del ADN en el individuo. [...] Mire, una cosa que es simple lógica: todas las 79

comidas tienen un ADN por supuesto, aproximadamente una cucharadita en una libra de comida, esto es lo 80

que tenemos de ADN. Un gen es una parte de un millón, o sea nada del ADN que estamos comiendo. La 81

digestión desnaturiza el ADN, esto está probado, y el ADN de los alimentos nunca llega a incorporarse a la 82

del nuestro organismo, porque si no tendríamos incorporado todo lo que comemos. Entonces, ¿qué es lo 83

que es una parte mítica? Y el ADN reducido a sus componentes más básicos: azúcar, bases nitrogenadas, 84

acido fosfórico. Y no que uno se come ADN y se entra el ADN a las células de esto individuo. […] Y entonces, 85

cuestionamientos: impacto económico, afectación del ecosistema, afectación salud, alergias, cambio de 86

perfil nutricional, resistencia a antibióticos… Es lo que se ha planteado cuando tu metes un transgénico, 87

sobre todo al ambiente. [...] ¿Qué dice la FAO? No se han observado daños notables, menos exposición de 88

los pesticidas de torno de los insectos que se han aprobado, tecnología genética más segura, cada OGM 89

guardado por separado, no generalizaciones sobre los OGM, no generalizaciones, hay que hablar uno por 90

uno de qué pasa con todo esto. No se han detectado efectos en salud, y se recomienda controles 91

continuos. Y lo último, [...] al hacer una análisis de la bibliografía [...] los artículos en ingles que han sido 92

aprobados, la conclusión general es esto: de 17 estudios sobre humanos, 223 de nutrientes y niveles de 93

contaminantes, solo tres estudios evalúan el desenlace clínico del uso de transgénicos, dos estudios 94

247

reportaron nivel significativamente menor de pesticidas entre niños que consumían dietas orgánicas, 95

también eso es una cuestión importante, y los estudios en adultos no encontraron ninguna diferencia de 96

bio-marcador in ningún liquido vital ni tejido ni tampoco deficiencias clínicas. Entonces, esto es lo que yo he 97

visto y lo que yo planteo. [...] Entonces miren, no solo estamos siendo país libre de transgénicos o de 98

semillas transgénicas, allí está la verdad. Tenemos setenta productos transgénicos circulando in aditivos, 99

harinas, fármacos, hormonas y algodón y en otros países no se prohíbe si no que se regulariza y eso es el 100

planteamiento nuestro. Primero que se regularice, y luego que hagamos investigación propia, que no le 101

creamos a nadie si nos dicen es malo, oye yo no le creo, me dicen que es bueno, no le creo. Hagamos 102

investigación propia. Creo que hasta allí, ¡gracias!” 103

Stephen Sherwood: “¡Muy buena noche! Soy Stephen Sherwood y soy fitopatologo… Estudio las 104

enfermedades en plantas y voy a compartir un poco mi experiencia personal, ¿no? Bueno yo he trabajado 105

en Cornell University en los Estados Unidos, donde estudié también, y ahora justo soy profesor en la 106

Universidad de Wageningen, en Holanda. Y trabajé aquí con el centro internacional de papa. Estoy casado 107

con una Ecuatoriana, paso nueve meses al año y siempre tengo estudiantes Ecuatorianos y trabajo en los 108

Andes. Y quiero hablar de la parte agrícola, porque personalmente no tengo preocupaciones en el trabajo 109

de transgénicos en el tema de salud, en laboratorios, bajo control. Mi preocupaciones son si liberamos 110

genes funcionales en el medioambiente, en los ecosistemas, sistemas de alimentos, que no podemos 111

controlar. Me voy a enfocar un poco en este tema. [...] Mis estudios han sido sobre la modernización 112

agrícola y sus impactos, sobre todo enfocando en temas de salud, de sus efectos en plaguicidas, efectos en 113

la salud humana y también efectos en los ecosistemas. Mi argumento es que les crisis no son el diseño, 114

producto de diseño… Son procesos de autorrealización, eso es lo que me preocupa. Yo trato de enfocar la 115

fortaleza de la gente y cómo podemos encontrar salidas a través de la practicas diarias de la gente, por 116

ejemplo sus sistemas de alimentos. Referente el tema de obesidad, por ejemplo, no estudio la gente 117

enferma, estudio la gente sana. Y buscamos dentro de esta población con variantes positivas, salidas. [...] 118

Lo que quería mencionar es que no estoy hablando en tema teórico. Yo estaba cultivando la tierra en toda 119

mi vida desde joven, y sigo cultivándolo y no soy muy idealista. Soy bastante practico, no soy ecologista 120

infantil, como ha dicho nuestro presidente. Más bien mi preocupación es cambio social, ¿ok? No soy ni 121

ecologista, honestamente. En la universidad donde estudié y trabajé mucho en el tema de introducir la 122

primera generación de transgénicos en mi país, ¿ok? En el ‘91 y ‘92 trabajé con papas transgénicas, justo 123

cruzando y aislando el gen de una bacteria, Bacillus Thuringiensis, cruzándolo en el cultivo de papas. Esto 124

fue mi trabajo cuando fui estudiante en la Universidad. Y yo honestamente estaba enamorado con esta 125

tecnología, aquí hasta fue hace veinticinco años. Y si funcionaba a nivel de cultivo de papa. No funcionaba a 126

nivel político, ¿ok? Y tampoco a nivel de los bichos. Mi siguiente trabajo fue estudiar los bichos, un tipo de 127

Ron ron, y analizar la población de súper bichos, bichos… por ejemplo, yo creaba millones de estos insectos, 128

para replicar lo que no se morían por la Bacillus Thuringiensis y luego estudiábamos la genética, ¿no? Para 129

248

ver los mecanismos de resistencia y luego ver cómo podíamos manejar la resistencia para mantener 130

poblaciones susceptibles en esta población. Este fue el estudio que yo hacía. Sin embargo, una compañía 131

que normalmente ataca los ecologistas, McDonald’s… Más bien ellos decidieron que papa transgénica tenía 132

mucho éxito en el país, ¿ok? El problema es que los consumidores que: ‘No nos importa estudios 133

científicos, no queremos comprar’. Y este pasó en Japón y Alemania. Y un día para el otro McDonald’s dijo 134

que no estaba interesado en papas transgénicas. Monsanto, que financiaba mi trabajo cuando estaba en 135

Cornell, ¿ok? Una compañía que se llamaba NUDI, que fue la compañía encargada de reproducir estas 136

papas transgénica y liberarlos en el mercado. Este pasó en 2000, la parte cuando McDonald’s dijo que no. 137

Entonces perdieron mercado y la compañía NUDI se cabreó. Y eso es lo que llega un día el poder del 138

consumidor por uno, y segundo que tenemos que proteger los mercados. Para mí eso es un riesgo que 139

Ecuador se lanza hoy en día a trabajar en transgénicos por tema de mercado. Hay un libro que tengo aquí, 140

que unos de ustedes están interesados de conocer, publicado por Acción Ecológica. Hizo un estudio 141

bastante interesante: ‘Cien razones para declarar Ecuador libre de transgénicos’. Enfoca principalmente en 142

el tema agrícola y ambiental, pero también hay tema de salud. Que yo creo que si, como mencionó el 143

doctor Paz y Miño, hay mucho menos referencias en el tema de salud. Ustedes, los médicos aquí van a 144

entender que va a tomar varias generaciones para definir y tener cualquier tema referente a salud. Quiero 145

mencionar cinco mitos. Uno, escuchando el presidente la semana pasada, el presidente Correa, dijo que los 146

transgénicos van a aumentar la producción por cuatro veces. Yo tengo dos datos de los últimos dieciséis 147

años de los Estados Unidos de que ha pasado a través de tiempo, estudiando transgenesis, principalmente 148

maíz y papas. No hay aumento de producción por área, ¿ok? Sobre todo cuando consideramos 149

productividad. Lo que si les pueden decir es que hemos aumentado al uso de herbicidas, cuasi doscientos 150

millones de kilogramos. Más o menos 7% en la población de plantas transgénicas. La productividad se ha 151

mantenido plano, o ha caído, sobre todo debido a los costos de los herbicidas, que están amarrados al 152

precio del petróleo. A los que creen que bajan a los plaguicidas… Como mencionó, no hay evidencia de 153

esto, ¿ok? Honestamente… Y aquí tengo las publicaciones, los puedo compartir… No hay evidencia que va a 154

bajar el uso de plaguicidas, más bien, va a aumentar el uso, esto es lo que hemos visto. Y que hay 155

condiciones de dependencia. Porque frente razones que podemos discutir, en los insectos tienen que ver 156

con resistencia pero también en el control de malezas, por ejemplo en el sistema de Roundup de maíz, 157

tiene que ver con la selección de malezas. Que vas a hacer en situación donde tiene que seguir aplicando, 158

inclusive aplicando mas para lograr la mismas cosas, efectos. Ya viendo la productividad, producción es 159

producción por área […] lo que dice el presidente Correa… yo no soy nada contra Correa, por si a caso. En 160

este tema sí… No va a aumentar la producción por cuatro veces, ¿ok? ¡Está loco! Los Estados Unidos no han 161

logrado a hacerlo… Con todo respecto, ¿no? Porque hay muchas cosas que admiro de este presidente. Y no 162

van a mejorar la productividad, y he visto le dependencia… Yo estoy siendo sumamente practico y yo puedo 163

hablar de datos y todo. Y hay un tema interesante porque ahora están diciendo que los transgénicos van a 164

249

ayudar a aguantar ese tema de cambio climático. Hubo un articulo interesante el año pasado en la revista 165

Nature, ¿ok? Que es la revista más rigurosa científica a nivel mundial, ¿ok? Y ellos dijeron que no hay 166

ningún efecto de los transgénicos, que supera la calidad de agua que tu puedes guardar y simplemente 167

manejar en materia orgánica. Que porque estamos mando esto riesgo, cuando hay mecanismos seguros 168

como manejo de suelo, manejo de materia orgánica, que no ocurren problemas ecológicos y posiblemente 169

problemas en salud. Y el tema que son controlables en los ecosistemas y en el medio ambiente… podemos 170

discutir, ¿ok? Pero yo creo que no y ese es la preocupación principal: que va a pasar cuando estos genes 171

comienzan a entrar, en parientes por ejemplo de la papa en un centro de origen como Ecuador. Entonces 172

para mí hay dos preocupaciones, una es moral, la contaminación ecológica sin poder controlar, ¿ok? 173

Liberando genes funcionales en el ecosistema es problemático, ¿ok? Comienza a asegurar el rol de Dios y 174

hemos visto a través de muchos años que los humanos no son… somos tan capaces, como Dios… Y la parte 175

político, la parte contra un bien público, las semillas, los cultivos y con ellos la mano de lo privado. Yo he 176

escuchado gente aquí decir que no importa, vamos a controlar Monsanto, inclusive el doctor Paz y Miño lo 177

ha mencionado unas veces… Yo no estoy de acuerdo, yo no creo que Ecuador puede controlar la industria 178

biotecnológica. No lo han logrado Canadá, los Estados Unidos, no lo está logrando Cina, y no lo está 179

logrando Brasil, y yo no creo que Ecuador va a poder controlar estas compañías. En Canadá y en los Estados 180

Unidos hay problemas de contaminación, por ejemplo en canola, y donde los agricultores pueden 181

encontrar genes de transgénicos en la población de su semillas, ¿ok? Tuvieran que quemar y destrozar 182

todas sus semillas. Yo no estoy convencido que Ecuador puede controlar la industria privada. Para mí es un 183

riesgo no necesario. Y mis palabras finales para terminar… Quiero hablar del poder del consumidor. Ya 184

Ecuador perdió, de acuerdo con lo que dijo el presidente el miércoles pasado, ya va emendada la 185

Constitución, ya van a abrir el camino para la introducción de transgénicos, yo no creo que no hay nada que 186

pueden hacer los Ecuatorianos hoy en día. El presidente controla el Congreso y la Asamblea Nacional, y es 187

poderoso y es una persona sumamente inteligente y carismática y va a inventar este ejemplo. Podemos 188

discutirlo. Pero yo quiero hablar de los consumidores. Los consumidores Ecuatorianos comen cada ano y 189

beben ocho mil millones de dólares, ocho billones de dólares. Eso es un poder importante. Al momento… lo 190

que aprendimos con McDonald’s. Al momento que los Ecuatorianos deciden no comprar productos 191

transgénicos, ya no van a tener mercado, es simplemente así.” 192

Myriam Paredes: “[…] El artículo que prohíbe el uso de semillas y cultivo transgénicos. Quiero aclarar que 193

en esta ley no se prive el consumo de transgénicos en absoluto en el Ecuador, no hay una prohibición de 194

consumo de transgénicos, de hecho los Ecuatorianos estamos consumiendo ya muchos productos 195

transgénicos. Lo que si pide la ley y demanda es que estos alimentos que tienen productos transgénicos 196

estén debidamente identificados, lo cual no siempre es el caso, ¿no? Sin embargo les aseguro que muchos 197

de nosotros estamos posiblemente comiendo transgénicos sin ni siquiera habernos enterado, ¿no? Solo 198

quiero aclarar esto porque creo que la discusión principal de la que nació el debate fue al rededor de la 199

250

modificación del articulo 26, en donde se prohíbe semillas y cultivos transgénicos. El Ecuador, por ejemplo, 200

importa una gran cuantidad de soya transgénica para alimentación de animales como pollos por ejemplo y 201

pero esta soya tiene que entrar destruida, no puede entrar entera porque se pueden reutilizar las semillas, 202

obviamente. Entonces quiero aclara esto porque en realidad mi discusión está al rededor de las semillas y 203

cultivos transgénicos, que es la parte de la Constitución que se quiere ya cambiar en este momento, ¿no? 204

Bueno. Yo les voy a hablar entonces desde el tema de soberanía alimentaria, porque creo que ni siquiera 205

hemos logrado en asimilar el tema de soberanía alimentaria, y ya estamos hablando de cambiar la 206

Constitución. Creo que muchos de nosotros hemos escuchado el termino de la soberanía alimentaria, pero 207

lo confundimos muy comúnmente son seguridad alimentaria, ¿sí? ¿Por qué hacer una ley de soberanía 208

alimentaria en el Ecuador, cuando hemos tenido programas de seguridad alimentaria por más de cincuenta 209

años en el mundo, muy promovidos por la FAO, y además el Ecuador mismo dentro del gobierno ha 210

tenido… Los diferentes gobiernos que hemos tenido, han tenido programas de seguridad alimentaria, ¿no? 211

Entonces, como así, una ley de soberanía alimentaria podríamos estar haciendo muchas cosas, ¿no? En 212

respecto de la alimentación. Básicamente, porque la soberanía alimentaria ya no toma en cuenta 213

solamente el acceso a los alimentos, sino las formas de la producción de los alimentos. Es por eso, que la 214

ley que prohíbe las semillas y los cultivos transgénicos está dentro de la ley de soberanía alimentaria, ¿sí? 215

Porque está tomando en cuenta las formas de producción y no solamente el acceso a los alimentos. Esa es 216

una cosa que tiene que quedar, digamos, muy clara para que sepamos porque estamos hablando ahora de 217

los transgénicos. Antes no, no se discutió ese tema, ¿no? Y porque se prohibió, para comenzar. Bueno, yo 218

quiera mencionarles entonces que en función de la soberanía alimentaria existen varios acápites en esta 219

ley, que consideran, digamos, no principalmente el acceso a alimentos, como lo más importante de la ley, 220

sino las condiciones que pueden provocar una soberanía alimentaria, la cual está promoviendo un cambio 221

en la sociedad. No un cambio de forma de alimentación, no un cambio de acceso al alimentación, sino un 222

cambio en las agregaciones de la sociedad, ¿sí? Entonces es básicamente algunos dirían un cambio de 223

modelo, tal vez sí. Otros muchos dirían ‘no, no es un cambio de modelo sino es un cambio en las 224

agregaciones al interior de la sociedad’, ¿sí? Ahora, ¿cómo se van a cambiar estas relaciones? Voy a topar 225

varios puntos que menciona la ley orgánica de soberanía alimentaria, y que tienen que ver con cuales son 226

las condiciones previas a comenzar si quieran hablar de si necesitamos o no en el ecuador transgénicos en 227

forma de semillas y cultivos, ¿sí? Una de las primeras precondiciones es el acceso apropiado a la cuantidad 228

y calidad de tierra sin endeudamiento que condenen a las familias beneficiarias a la aceptación de paquete 229

tecnológicos y compromisos comerciales que no estén acordes a su realidad. Es decir, no simplemente 230

entregar tierra a la gente, sino no entregarles tierra como endeudamiento y completamente vinculados a 231

aceptar un paquete tecnológico que esté vinculado, además, a encadenamientos productivos, ¿sí? Esta es 232

una de las primeras pre-condiciones para la soberanía alimentaria. La segunda es el acceso a los factores 233

que permiten la reproducción de la fertilidad del suelo. O sea, todos aquí sabemos, o almeno tendremos un 234

251

idea de que no es importante para nosotros comprar un terreno, si en ese terreno no tenemos por ejemplo 235

en la ciudad servicios, ¿sí? No importa que tengamos un terreno muy central, si es que este terreno está 236

privado de los servicios de agua, de electricidad, etcétera. Bien, en el campo, un terreno que esté privado 237

de servicios de agua potable, de agua de riego por ejemplo, un terreno que sea infértil, que sea una tierra 238

bastante desértica, nadie la quiere comprar en el campo si es que es un agricultor. Entonces esa es la 239

segunda condición de la soberanía alimentaria: como acceder a un suelo que sea fértil y además crear las 240

condiciones para que esa fertilidad se reproduzca. Es decir: no nos interesa que apliquemos toda la urea 241

que nos regale el gobierno, si después, cuando no haya el subsidio para la urea, nosotros tengamos un 242

terreno igual de árido o igual de infértil como antes, ¿sí? Esto es un poquito la idea. La otra cosa es que la 243

fertilidad de los suelos está muy relacionada con la cuantidad de plagas que atacan a los cultivos, ¿si? 244

Entonces una vez que no tratamos un problema de base como el acceso a la tierra, y luego, a tierra fértil, 245

no estamos atacando el problema principal de producción, ¿si? Los ecuatorianos comemos todavía el 60 al 246

75% de productos que provienen de pequeñas fincas, si? Y las fertilidades de las pequeñas fincas son las 247

que nos van a dar la soberanía alimentaria del futuro. Es por eso que estamos hablando de estas 248

condiciones de soberanía alimentaria, ¿no? No importa que tengamos digamos los mega e importantísimos 249

transgénicos que podrían que soportar un montón de problemas de clima, pero si no tenemos ni tierra, si 250

no tenemos tierra fértil, si no tenemos acceso a servicios, muy difícilmente nosotros vamos a poder hablar 251

de aumento de la producción, ¿sí? No hemos podido hacerlo a través de la Revolución Verde por más o 252

menos setenta años, ¿por qué lo haríamos ahora de un día para otro? Entonces, un problema principal que 253

está ocurriendo ahora es que o estamos cumpliendo las precondiciones de la ley de soberanía alimentaria y 254

estamos saltándonos como de parte del gobierno a hablar ya de una tecnología que se habla que es una 255

tecnología de punta, etcétera... Cuando en realidad no tenemos ni siquiera las condiciones básicas de 256

producción. Entonces esta es una de las razones por las que yo creo que varios movimientos que no 257

necesariamente son ecologistas… Yo no he escuchado la verdad tan fuertemente a los ecologistas como a 258

gente que viene de organizaciones campesinas, muy preocupados por el tema de los transgénicos cuando 259

sienten que no se ha cumplido todavía, no se ha pagado la deuda de la que habla el presidente primero y ya 260

se está hablando del tema de transgénicos. Entonces esta es la cosa que yo quería comentar brevemente. 261

Si es que tengo solamente dos minutitos y por eso quería terminar como aclarándoles que no estamos 262

discutiendo el tema de transgénicos en general. Estamos discutiendo porque el Ecuador, como un país que 263

ha sido evidentemente un país de producción agrícola para al consumo, producción agrícola familiar 264

campesina, está hablando de un tema bastante amplio como transgénicos en cultivos y en semillas, cuando 265

todavía no somos capaces de manejar nuestra propia diversidad, por ejemplo, de protegerla, ¿no? Y de ver 266

como avanzamos con esa diversidad actual. Entonces eso es básicamente como mi discusión... la pregunta 267

por ejemplo que tengo muy importante para el doctor Paz y Miño es: ¿cuáles son las partes de la 268

Constitución que limitan la investigación in transgénicos para la salud? Que yo no logro todavía identificar 269

252

cual es esa limitación que tiene la Constitución, porque siento que no toca los intereses de la investigación 270

transgénica en salud el tema del artículo de la Constitución que prohíbe transgénicos en semillas y cultivos, 271

¿no? Y la otra… La otra [cosa] que quería mencionar de la presentación del doctor [Paz y Miño] es que si es 272

que el ADN no entra a nuestro cuerpo, ¿sí? No se hace parte de nuestro cuerpo... los plaguicidas sí. Y 273

tenemos mucha evidencia de que no es el gran negocio para las empresas que producen semillas 274

transgénicas, no son las semillas. Las empresas no ganan en semillas, ganan en venta de sus productos agro 275

químicos, ¿sí? Tanto fertilizantes como plaguicidas. Y el doctor Paz y Miño ha hecho estudios 276

importantísimos aquí en el Ecuador sobre los efectos del glifosato, ¿sí? En la salud humana. Pues bien, el 277

glifosato es uno de los herbicidas que se utilizan más y comienzan a crecer el uso del glifosato en Brasil ha 278

crecido cuasi al doble el uso del glifosato con soya transgénica, ¿no? y sobre eso hay muchísimos estudios. 279

Ha crecido hasta tres veces en algunos lugares. Eso y nada más. Los transgénicos son una tecnología que se 280

desarrolló en un país muy particular, que es Estados Unidos principalmente, es un país que estaba en una 281

transición en donde necesitaban reducir la mano de obra en el campo, una condición completamente 282

contraria a la que nosotros tenemos en Ecuador, en donde necesitamos más bien incrementar el uso de 283

mano de obra en el campo, ¿no? Entonces los transgénicos en realidad estaban creados para que se 284

pudieran cultivar grandes extensiones con muy baja cuantidad de mano de obra donde se pudieran 285

emplear por ejemplo herbicidas y plaguicidas por avioneta, ¿sí? Que son como… Bueno no sé cuantos 286

productores aquí en el Ecuador pueden tener avioneta para hacer ese tipo de aplicaciones. Entonces lo que 287

quiero decir es que es una tecnología creada para unas necesidades especificas, para un país especifico, o 288

un tipo de realidad social y económica especifica, que no es especificadamente la del ecuador tampoco. 289

Entonces, no es una tecnología para fincas pequeñas, no? Yo no conozco fincas pequeñas o asociaciones de 290

agricultores pequeños que estén utilizando transgénicos, por ejemplo. Con respecto a lo del 291

financiamiento, yo solamente sé que para las empresas de transgénicos es sumamente importante que 292

nuevos países entren en la tecnología transgénica porque ellos no solamente han patentado, digamos, el 293

producto final sino también los procesos intermedios de la tecnología transgénica. Es decir que nosotros 294

tendríamos que pagar, como hace Brasil, por todos los reactivos, por todo lo que se necesita en el 295

intermedio hacia esas empresas grandes que han desarrollado la tecnología. No soy un experta en el 296

desarrollo de transgénicos, pero eso es lo que ha ocurrido en Brasil, no sé por qué razones o en qué forma 297

Brasil es menos digamos soberano que Ecuador, ¿no? No sé como lo vamos a lograr aquí en Ecuador. 298

Todavía eso, esa parte ni siquiera se ha explicado. Respecto de bancos de semillas, si existe un banco de 299

semillas en el Ecuador, está manejado por el instituto nacional de investigación agropecuarias; el problema 300

de los transgénicos es que, cuando son por ejemplo cultivos como maíz, a lo que lo llamamos de 301

polinización cruzada, es decir que el polen viaja y polinizas las diferentes plantas de maíz, este polen puede 302

viajar hasta 20 km cuando sube una altura en la atmosfera puede llegar hasta vente kilometros y cuando es 303

polen transgénico puede contaminar todas las semillas por más nativas que sean en un país. Y finalmente, 304

253

pues si, como mencionaba, la tecnología transgénica está creada apuestamente para monocultivos, 305

¿porqué? En el caso de los Estados Unidos lo que necesitan son millones de hectáreas o lo que le llaman 306

desiertos de maíz en casi todo el país, ¿no? Casi todo lo que se come en los Estados Unidos para ponerle un 307

ejemplo tiene maíz, ¿no? Se ha comprobado que el maíz esta en casi todo, los Estadunidenses comen 308

bastante maíz ahora en forma de azúcar, en forma de… en diferentes tipos de forma, ¿no? Incluso de maíz 309

se puede hacer plástico”. 310

Stephen Sherwood: “Para mi uno de los problemas más grandes también son los consumidores, ¿no? 311

Nosotros, la gente que come en este cuarto. [...] Yo recuerdo, cuando fui estudiante, yo trabajaba con lo 312

que se llaman pequeños agricultores en los Estados Unidos: quinientos hectáreas para papa, productores 313

de papa millonarios. Yo trabajaba con ellos, ¿no? Conducían tractores, conducían avionetas. Y mi trabajo 314

fue justo con ellos. Y había la propuesta de controlar la resistencia en este bicho que mostré y encontramos 315

en los estudios de los modelos, cuando manteníamos 35% y una mezcla de semillas, decimos treinta y cinco 316

libras de un quintal no transgénico, podríamos mantener la población susceptible y tratamos de impulsar 317

esto como una regola del país, ¿no? A nivel de Congreso, el profesor con quien yo trabajaba. Y fue muy 318

claro que podríamos manejar poblaciones susceptibles que así prevenía la resistencia en el bicho contra 319

esta papa transgénica. Sin embargo, debido a la presión de Monsanto al Congreso Estadounidense no tuvo 320

a poder de decir que no. Y los agricultores también estaban a favor: ellos querían 100% transgénicos y 321

dijeron: ‘cuando tengamos bichos resistentes, vamos a buscar otra tecnología’. Y esto fue lo que salió en 322

1994. Y yo no confío mucho en nuestra capacidad de regular al poder que tiene esta industria de 323

biotecnología y su motivación de ventas. Y para mi Ecuador tiene que invertir en tecnología de punta, y 324

para mí los transgénicos es una tecnología obsoleta, ¿ok? Que ya lleva… Por lo menos ya llevo veinticinco 325

años desde que yo comencé a trabajar con transgénicos, y para mi es una tecnología obsoleta. Tenemos 326

que buscar tecnologías que trabajan con el ecosistema y no en su contra. No tiene una lógica. Entonces en 327

verdad mi preocupación no es tanto transgénicos, es... más allá de los transgénicos. Deberíamos ya 328

aprender del gran fracaso que tenemos en los Estados Unidos, también en Brasil que puedo mencionar, y 329

buscar una tecnología Ecuatoriana de punta que vas más allá de todas estas limitaciones que hemos 330

identificado en transgénicos y en la agricultura. No estoy hablando de salud porque no la entiendo.” 331

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Empiezo por lo que me habían preguntado mis colegas. A ver. Primera cosa, la 332

Constitución no tiene ninguna parte por suerte en ninguna parte dice nada sobre la investigación de 333

transgénicos en salud, ¡eso está abierto! Porque eso es una ventaja. Es especifico en el tema de semillas y 334

de plantas. Entonces allí para mí hay una contradicción moral terrible, que dice: prohíbo la semillas, 335

prohíbo la investigación, pero traigamos todo lo que queramos. Eso es, para mí, terrible. Entonces el 336

planteamiento, nuestro al menos, de un grupo de gene que está metido en el tema transgénico es: 337

nosotros tenemos la opción de desarrollar investigaciones propias, allí respondo a la pregunta de Steven 338

254

[Sherwood] también. Yo no soy ingenuo que el Ecuador le va a ganar a la Monsanto, ni a ninguna de la 339

transnacionales de ese tamaño, pero si podemos nosotros tener una ciencia autónoma, una ciencia 340

nacional que nos permita poner las barreras suficientes para el colonialismo tecnológico y científico. Y si 341

eso no hacemos, estamos fregados. Entonces eso me hace responder la pregunta que hiciste tu también, 342

del tema de investigación en el Ecuador. O sea, si nosotros no apuntamos hacer investigación en todo lo 343

que podamos hacer, incluido la tecnología transgénica, estaremos sometidos a las transnacionales, 344

queramos o no. Entonces más bien, el instrumento nuestro en este momento es desarrollar investigación 345

propia que nos permita tener los alimentos suficientes para... incluso al mismo presidente decirle ‘esto no 346

nos conviene’. Y ojala yo le diga al presidente ‘esto no conviene’, por si acaso. Siempre ha sido el 347

planteamiento: investiguemos nosotros, tengamos los instrumentos suficientes para, con nuestra fuerza de 348

investigación, decir: esto nos conviene como país. Los transgénicos o la tecnología transgénica es una 349

herramienta mas. En esto yo estoy totalmente de acuerdo con Steven [Sherwood] que hay una tecnología 350

que podríamos desarrollar, ¡mejor que bien! Pero los transgénicos es una tecnología mas. Y tenemos que 351

aplicarla de forma inteligente. Si eso me presenta que las transnacionales se nos opongan, ¡que bien! Pero 352

si tenemos la capacidad de desarrollar aquí el mismo estudios que están haciendo en la ESPOL sobre el 353

banano, es una muestra que podemos desarrollar aquí nosotros. Productos que nos sirvan para la gente, si 354

es que demostramos que no nos sirven para la gente, que son malos, que la salud está atacada, pues 355

tenemos que oponernos. Yo saldré a oponerlos. Pero como no hay evidencia, nuestra obligación es hacer 356

investigación. Y con una investigación nacional, pues tener una posición honorable como país, como hemos 357

tenido en otros varios aspectos de la política internacional del país entonces yo apunto a la investigación 358

como una forma de librarnos y de ser soberanos. Y esa es la pelea mía. No sé lo que haya dicho el 359

presidente el miércoles por qué no lo vi, pero esa es la pelea y en ese plan es encontrar la salida.” 360

SPEAKER A: “¡Perdón, una pregunta! Cuánto costaría, o sea que laboratorios tenemos en Ecuador…” 361

Cesar Paz y Miño: “Sí podemos hacerlo. Los costos están entre lo presupuestado de un proyecto grande. 362

Estás hablando de un millón de dólares, que lo que se maneja en un país decente de investigación. O sea 363

aquí la gente te da cien mil dólares para investigación. Tienen que darte un millón, dos millones para que 364

investigues sino no vamos a hacer nada, vamos a repetir cosas! ¡Yo, a mi me indigna esa parte!” 365

Cesar Paz y Miño: “[...] Entonces te encuentras igualmente que hay posiciones y posiciones. Yo, las 366

deducciones que he hecho, llegan a la conclusión de que la discusión sigue abierta porque nadie ha dicho la 367

última palabra en el tema de transgénicos y salud. Y, cuando eres honrado con la lectura, te encuentras que 368

los que apoyan un lado y otro lado, también te ocultan cosas. Y entonces allí yo pienso que si es verdad que 369

tenemos un montón de desinformación, en una cuestión que es compleja como la parte del gen, de cómo 370

actúa, como se mete, que le pasa. Eso es verdad que puede ser, digamos, de aprensión de todo el mundo. 371

Hay técnicos que manejan, entonces el tema está de como la ciencia se tiene que poner al servicio de la 372

255

gente. Y entonces desde esta perspectiva tenemos que defender el trabajo científico hace a las personas. 373

Por eso me opongo a todos los que sean la patentes y las cuestiones que sea de beneficios financieros 374

como son los transgénicos. Pero si apoyo el tema del investigación y el trabajo en transgénicos porque 375

puede ser un instrumento que beneficia la gente.” 376

Stephen Sherwood: “[...] No necesitamos transgénicos, hay un montón de formas de hacer estas cosas, y 377

que no requieren tomar tantos riesgos. No sé, ¡usamos la ciencia por usar ciencia! Ese es ser idiota, 378

honestamente. Otra cosa que quiero mencionar es que el problema de este planeta no es alimentar el 379

mundo. Hoy en día tenemos suficiente producción fácilmente para alimentar la población de 2050, sin 380

ninguna dificultad. Solamente con los desechos, 40% de los alimentos en áreas como Quito se pierdes, ¿ok? 381

Hay formas de alimentar el mudo de nueve mil millones de personas hay en día. El problema no es una falta 382

de producción. Y más bien el problema mundial no es de desnutrición: come saben los médicos en ese 383

cuarto, hay más sobrepesos y obesos en este planeta que desnutridos, ¿ok? Y sabemos que el problema de 384

sobrepeso y obesidad es peor en términos económicos, ambientales pero sobre todo en salud. Y se no me 385

equivoco siete de la primeros diez causes de muerte en este país tienen relación con el sobrepeso y la 386

inactividad. Hay problemas… Tenemos que ir más allá de esta idea que nos falta alimentos. Tenemos 387

demasiados alimentos y demasiados de un sistema de producción, como usted menciona, equivocado, 388

¿ok? Un sistema inteligente científico de agricultura debería mejorar la fertilidad del suelo con el tiempo, y 389

no empeorarlo, ok? Y si tienen dudas vayan a visitar fincas este fin de semana, ¿ok?” 390

Myriam Paredes: “Respecto de la demonstración o no de los efectos de transgénicos, de alimentos 391

transgénicos en la salud, yo fui parte de un grupo de investigación sobre los efectos de los plaguicidas en la 392

salud humana y los plaguicidas que se utilizaban principalmente en la producción de papa aquí en Ecuador. 393

Estudiamos básicamente dos plaguicidas que son los más usados, no solo en papas sino en cuasi todos 394

productos aquí en Ecuador. Por cierto plaguicidas completamente prohibidos ahora pero que todavía se 395

veden y se expenden completamente libres aquí. [...] No existía antes ninguna investigación porque no 396

existía el dinero para hacer investigación real, investigación seria, investigación de treinta años, de un largo 397

de treinta años para ver que realmente una tecnología puede realmente afectar a la salud humana, 398

encontramos que después de cincuenta años de haber ingresados estos plaguicidas en la producción de 399

papa los efectos eran devastadores. El 65% de la población rural en la provincia del Cachi está afectada por 400

estos plaguicidas que afectan principalmente al sistema neurológico y al sistema nervioso central porqué 401

afectan a este sistema nervioso central de los insectos también. Entonces lo que yo quiero decir es que 402

quiero nuevamente poner sobre la mesa el tema del principio de precaución: si nosotros no podemos 403

demonstrar algo que va a tardar treinta años en ser demostrado, si en treinta años nos va a costar 404

demonstrar que vamos a tener problemas de fertilidad, problemas… cualquier tipo de problemas que 405

causan los transgénicos… ¿Porque, si tenemos problemas más importantes que solucionar en el Ecuador, 406

256

tenemos que aceptar una nueva tecnología que no está todavía aprobada? Todavía sabemos que 407

tendremos que esperar unos años para que los estudios sean realmente serios y científicos que alguien nos 408

pueda financiar. ¿Verdad? No tenemos los fondos para financiar este tipo de investigación. Algo que me 409

preocupa es como nosotros estamos dispuestos como país, y digamos muy propuesto por el gobierno, de 410

gastar grandes cuantidades digamos en unos tipos de investigación, y no en otras. O sea, es un tema 411

completamente político. No sé porque estamos aquí si es que el presidente ya dijo la semanas pasadas que 412

los transgénicos se van liberar en el país. Entonces: ¿tenemos algún poder? Esta es mi pregunta. ¿Podemos 413

hacer algo o estamos aquí solamente digamos porque nos interesa aprender más de algo que ya está 414

decidido? Entonces eso es algo que decidimos nosotros y eso es lo que quiero invitarlos a hacer: 415

informando más gente, ¿no? Y diciendo que por favor investiguen. Alguien decía: ‘no me crean a mí! 416

Cualquier persona que tenga más de treinta años no le crean, ustedes vayan a investigar por ustedes 417

mismos que es la realidad! Investiguen por favor y lleven a más gente información.” 418

Cesar Paz y Miño: “ La experiencias de otros países que todo el tiempo se está diciendo es que la 419

experiencia de los otros países ya no has demostrado, que la experiencia de otros países es tal cosa. Yo he 420

vivido eso, cuarenta años de vida, diciendo que la experiencia del otro, y por eso es que este país en ciencia 421

es cuasi cero y a mí eso me molesta, porque siempre he oído lo mismo: ‘pues que la experiencia de él de a 422

loado’, ‘pues que el otro es mejor’. Entonces yo almeno me he rebelado en este tema y he hecho trabajo en 423

investigación sobre cuestiones que a las personas les ha involucrado. Es verdad que he estudiado el 424

glifosato, los daños de los pesticidas, la radiaciones, etcétera. Con la mente de que esto tiene que servir a 425

las personas y sin hacer caso a la moda de que los otros ya hicieron o no hicieron. Entonces, desde esa 426

perspectiva, yo pienso que tenemos una obligación de investigar, seguir investigando. Si el gobierno da 427

dinero para la investigación en área que muestren beneficios para las personas, tenemos que obligarle al 428

gobierno que nos dé el dinero para la investigación que beneficia la gente. A mí no me gusta cuando yo 429

oigo que es que la Monsanto nos quiere vender todo, es que la Monsanto nos va a dar el glifosato. ¡Bueno, 430

parémosle a la Monsanto! Parémosle con la investigación, desarrollando nuestros productos. Porque no 431

hemos dato alternativa. Porque es muy fácil decir: sabes que, ¡paremos! ¡Parémosle! ¡O no les compremos! 432

¡Pero no hemos planteado nada en concreto! O sea, ¿que estamos planteando? ¿Dicen la agricultura de un 433

manejo diferente? ¡Muy bien! Siempre y cuando asegure que esa agricultura nos de alimentos para todos, 434

y no solo una parte. Porque si vamos por aquí también el tema de tendencia de la tierra como es en el 435

ecuador, 80% de la tierra en el 20% de propietarios de la población! Entonces, los intereses de la tierra en 436

esto país también hay que toparlos. Entonces, si hay una cuestión de la concepción global de lo que ocurre 437

con el alimento, con la tecnología, yo al menos creo que como país tenemos que tener planteamientos 438

concretos de desarrollo científico tecnológico que nos permitan liberarnos de la Monsanto, de la DUPONT, 439

del quien sea, siempre y cuando tengamos alternativas en beneficio de la gente. 440

257

Stephen Sherwood: “Quiero mencionar que la tecnología no es neutral, no es bien o mal. Es un sistema de 441

poder, ¿no? Cuando inventamos el automóvil también inventamos el accidente de automóvil. El automóvil 442

es la causa numero uno de la muerte, ¿ok? En la mayor parte de los países desarrollados, ¿ok? Tenemos 443

que pensar a las consecuencias de tecnologías. Por eso tenemos gobiernos, tenemos gente que tratamos 444

de manejar este punto de vista. Pero tenemos que tener mucho cuidado solo porque podemos hacerlo, 445

¿ok? Nosotros hoy en día somos capaces de ser actores mayores en el planeta. Por la primera vez, ¿no? En 446

la historia humana en los últimos años ya podemos hacer actores importantes de tal nivel que podemos 447

destrozar la tierra. Tenemos que comenzar a ser un poco más estratégicos. Cuando hablamos de 448

alternativas, tenemos un dicho en la agricultura: ‘con agua y mierda no hay cultivo que se pierda’, ¿ok? 449

‘Con agua y mierda no hay cultivo que se pierda’. Hay mucho más que podemos hacer con el agua aquí. Yo 450

no tengo agua en la finca, cosechamos quinientos mil litros y lo mandamos por goteo, tenemos cinco 451

hectáreas, empleamos cuatro personas, tiempo completo, tenemos trescientos cuis, tenemos vacas, 452

tenemos ovejas, tenemos gallinas, tentemos cincuenta cultivos, ¿ok? Hay formas de intensificar. De nuevo, 453

yo uso tecnología… Yo no digo tradicional, porque yo también uso la ciencia que conozco como 454

fitopatologo, soy afeccionado de la biotecnología, pero no en tecnología transgénica. Hay muchas ventajas 455

en la investigación y análisis de suelo in micro… Bueno, trabajos, ¿no? La biotecnología es un poder, pero 456

hay que trabajar con cierto tipos de biotecnología que fomentan la resiliencia, ¿ok? De los recursos que 457

tenemos biológicos pero también que deja el poder en los actores locales, porque pueden localmente 458

distribuir las decisiones y vivir las consecuencias. Hoy en día tenemos algo que nosotros llamamos una 459

organización irresponsable en la ciencia, y la toma de decisiones: gente que toma las decisiones no viven las 460

consecuencias. Los consumidores no conocen el agricultor ni el agro. Esta organización irresponsable 461

fomenta violencia, económica, social, pero también ambiental. Y si queremos que cambiar las cosas aquí 462

tenemos que buscar tecnologías que nos casan, ¿ok? Y para mí este tipo de tecnología es un mal camino en 463

agricultura. Igual no estoy hablando de salud, ¿no? Esto es otro tema que no he pensado y no estoy 464

hablando en contra de biotecnología honestamente, me agrada que este país quiere invertir en 465

biotecnología, ¿ok? Pero siento que hay que hacer una organización responsable con la ciencia y el 466

desarrollo de tecnología”. 467

Myriam Paredes: “Solo quería mencionar que quizás es un poco desbalanceado cada vez que alguien no 468

está de acuerdo con unos transgénicos, entonces decimos, hablamos bastante del porqué no estamos de 469

acuerdo con los transgénicos y al revés, ¿no? O sea, porqué existen los organismos transgénicos y por eso 470

otra vez vuelvo a repetir: por favor, investiguen también que es lo que estamos comiendo, ¿no? Que es lo 471

que ustedes están comiendo día a día. Esa es una cosa muy importante porque nunca alguien que está de 472

acuerdo con los transgénicos va a hablar de los efectos nocivos posibles de los transgénicos y, al revés, 473

tampoco, ¿sí? Entonces, solamente para que se entienda no es una cuestión que lo defendemos, por 474

ejemplo, defendemos este simplemente no sabemos la otra, ¿no? A veces, como decía, escondemos la 475

258

información, a veces de lado y lado. Sin embargo creo que sentar bases para que la gente vaya a… le 476

dejemos como picaditas para que la gente vaya a investigar si lo que decimos es verdad o no es verdad. En 477

el caso del estudio de México, la razón por la que hicieron la investigación de lo que estaba ocurriendo a 478

respecto del polen del maíz es porque solamente había permiso de probar el maíz en unos estados de 479

México, ¿sí? Sin embargo aparecieron genes transgénicos en lugares muy alejados, en donde estaban 480

permitidos, ¿sí? Lo que tuvieron que hacer fue una investigación de cómo este pole llegó tan lejos. Y la 481

razón fue había una cuantidad muy pequeña de polen que subía con los vientos, verticalmente a un sitio de 482

atmosfera… Que era posible el trasporte muy fácilmente, ¿no? No es una cuantidad grande pero es una 483

cuantidad suficiente como para contaminar estos otros lugares en donde no estaban permitido los 484

transgénicos. La otra, la última cosa que quería decir era al respecto de las leyes de bioseguridad. No sé si 485

los científicos en otros lugares sean muy distintos que, digamos, el cuerpo científico general, total. También 486

yo soy una científica social, soy una científica social, no una científica biológica y estudié agronomía antes. 487

No sé si sean distintos pero lo que se ha visto es que los primeros en romper las reglas de bioseguridad, en 488

Brasil por ejemplo, han sido los científicos, nadie más. Entonces las reglas se crean para romperlas y no 489

creo que todo el mundo lo hace, pero basta que lo haga alguien, ¿no? Entonces creo que en ese sentido no 490

estoy segura que el tema de transgénicos sea un tema de regulación, ¿si? Por alguna razón en mucho 491

lugares se han prohibido, ¿sí? Y no es por locura o por dogmatismo religioso creo yo, ¿no? Sino por algunas 492

razones especificas que ya se han aprobado.” 493

SPEAKER B: “[…] Su informe del 2004 de Génova dice claramente: ‘La inserción de ADN extraño en una 494

posición no desead dentro del genoma, puede potenciar o silenciar procesos de producción de proteínas, y 495

provocar cambios de posición o la aparición de compuestos potencialmente tóxicos e los alimentos. La 496

manipulación genética puede producir dosis mayores de substancias toxicas que de manera natural pueden 497

existir en las plantas. También pueden originar cambios en la composición de los alimentos, con efectos 498

hasta hoy desconocidos en la salud humana.’ Dice la ONG: ‘Inclusive pueden aparecer substancias anti-499

nutrientes, que impiden la normal asimilación de los alimentos y provocar desordenes digestivos hasta hoy 500

no descritos. La autorización del consumo de transgénicos no cuenta con una evaluación de consecuencias 501

a largo plazo, como hoy se dijo aquí. Por lo tanto, el cultivo y consumo por una población y aun el ganado 502

que lo consume, supone someter a esa población a un peligroso e involuntario experimento a gran escala. 503

Las reordenaciones genómicas y supresión del ADN de las variedades MON 810 ha originado fragmentos 504

desconocidos de ADN. Y el ADN, en esto MON 810, apareciendo proteínas transgénicas con alto riesgos 505

inmunológicos y tóxicos.’ Uno de los brotes básicos, y […] da cuenta sobre los efectos a largo plazo, en 506

ratones alimentados con maíz NK 063 y MON 810, destacándose la infertilidad, la alteración inmunológica y 507

los daños del hígado y del riñón. Así mismo, la Royal Society of Canada, advierte que los transgénicos 508

pueden introducir compuestos alergénicos o alteran compuestos inocuos, y los convierten en alergénicos. 509

[…] Estas y otras noticias son las que tienen que ser difundidas, no solamente en un senario como este, sino 510

259

en la población llana, en el productor llano. Y una vez que el artículo 401, será derogado tal como se ve, y 511

una vez que estamos ad portas del avenimiento de transgénicos, no basta este senario, que aun la Sociedad 512

de Médicos, Escritores y Poetas consiente del importancia de este tema, ha abierto las puertas para que se 513

pueda advertir estos comentarios. La poesía es vida, la vida es poesía. Impidamos a los transgénicos, en un 514

experimento a grande escala, en nuestra nación. Vamos a hacer investigación, pero quien puede competir 515

con un monstro, como la Monsanto.” 516

THE POLICY CONTROVERSY OF GMOs IN ECUADOR:

Documents

Transcript of THE POLICY CONTROVERSY OF GMOs IN ECUADOR: