Maíz transgénico vs agricultura ecológica: un análisis del discurso de Greenpeace México en torno a la seguridad alimentaria, la soberanía alimentaria y el derecho a la alimentación (2007-2017)
Transgenic Maize vs. Organic Farming: An Analysis of Greenpeace Mexico's Discourse on Food Security, Food Sovereignty and the Right to Food (2007-2017)
Abstract
Objective: This research analyzes Greenpeace Mexico's discourse on the concepts of food security, food sovereignty and the right to food. Methodology: this article employs a qualitative methodology with the assistance of Atlas.ti software. Methodology: is based on the theory of framing (diagnostic and prognostic functions). A total 151 pieces of Greenpeace Mexico’s website from 2007-2017 are analyzed. Results: the frames found are described and the most important key words and expressions are exposed. Limitations: This research is limited to the analysis of Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse. The study of other Greenpeace units’ discourse would allow assessing whether the NGO maintains a homogenous discourse at a global level or whether there are significant differences according to local circumstances. Conclusions: In summary, Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse around the concepts of "food security", "food sovereignty" and the "right to food" is clearly anti-neoliberal but does not reflect the academic debate regarding these concepts. The complaints (diagnostic frame function) and proposals (prognostic frame function) in Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse are identified, recreating the narrative of five specific frames. The most repeated oppositional terms and expressions are also, identified.Keywords:
contemporary food, food safety, food sovereignty, right to food, framing, Greenpeace Mexico, Mexico.Abstract
Objective: This research analyzes Greenpeace Mexico's discourse on the concepts of food security, food sovereignty and the right to food. Methodology: this article employs a qualitative methodology with the assistance of Atlas.ti software. Methodology: is based on the theory of framing (diagnostic and prognostic functions). A total 151 pieces of Greenpeace Mexico’s website from 2007-2017 are analyzed. Results: the frames found are described and the most important key words and expressions are exposed. Limitations: This research is limited to the analysis of Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse. The study of other Greenpeace units’ discourse would allow assessing whether the NGO maintains a homogenous discourse at a global level or whether there are significant differences according to local circumstances. Conclusions: In summary, Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse around the concepts of "food security", "food sovereignty" and the "right to food" is clearly anti-neoliberal but does not reflect the academic debate regarding these concepts. The complaints (diagnostic frame function) and proposals (prognostic frame function) in Greenpeace Mexico’s discourse are identified, recreating the narrative of five specific frames. The most repeated oppositional terms and expressions are also, identified.Keywords:
contemporary food, food safety, food sovereignty, right to food, framing, Greenpeace Mexico, Mexico.Downloads
References
Benford, R. D. y Snow, D. A. (1998). Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
Brand, U. y Görg, C. (2003). The State and the Regulation of Biodiversity. International Biopolitics and the Case of Mexico. Geoforum, 34, 221-233.
Carro-Ripalda, S. y Astier, M. (2014). Silenced Voices, Vital Arguments: Smallholder Farmers in the Mexican GM Maize Controversy. Agricultural Human Values, 31, 655-663. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9533-3
Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (2016). Seguridad Alimentaria, nutrición y erradicación del hambre CELAC 2025: elementos para el debate y la cooperación regionales. Recuperado de: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/40348/S1600707_es.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Cuéllar, J. A. (2011). Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria: experiencias en México y otros países. México. D. F.: CEPAL. Recuperado de: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/26070/1/LCmexL1035_es.pdf
Fast, S. (2009). The Biofuels Debate: Searching for the Role of Environmental Justice in Environmental Discourse. Environments Journal Volume 37(1), 83-100.
Ferrett, G. (2007). Biofuels “crime against humanity”. BBC News. Recuperado de: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7065061.stm
Fitting, E. (2006). Importing Corn, Exporting Labor: The Neoliberal Corn Regime, GMOs, and the Erosion of Mexican Biodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 15-26.
Fréour, N. (2004). Le positionnement distancié de Greenpeace. Revue Française de Science Politique, 54 (3), 421- 442. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-004-5862-y
Gordillo de Anda, G. (agosto 2004). Seguridad alimentaria y agricultura familiar. Revista de la CEPAL, 83, 71-84. Recuperado de: http://www.fao.org/tempref/GI/Reserved/FTP_FaoRlc/old/quiensom/rlc/gordillo/Docs/cepal83.pdf
Guía ONGs.org (s.f.). Greenpeace. Recuperado de: https://www.guiaongs.org/directorio/ongs/greenpeace-5-1-35/
Luna, B. M. y Altamirano, J. R. (2015). Maíz transgénico: ¿Beneficio para quién? Estudios Sociales, 23(45), 141-161. Recuperado de: https://www.ciad.mx/estudiosociales/index.php/es/article/view/185/1066
McAfee, K. (2008). Beyond Techno-Science: Transgenic Maize in the Fight over Mexico’s Future. Geoforum, 39,148-160.
Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). (1996). Definición de seguridad alimentaria en la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación. Recuperado de http://www.fao.org/in-action/pesa- centroamerica/temas/conceptos-basicos/es/
Paz, A. P., Imhoff, D., Vieyra, C. y López, N. (2018). Tratamiento de los temas soberanía y seguridad alimentarias en medios de comunicación hegemónicos y alternativos (Córdoba, Argentina, 2012-2015). Estudios Sociales: Revista de alimentación contemporánea y desarrollo regional, 28(51), 02-32. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.24836/es.v28i51.515
Roig-Franzia, M. (26/01/2007). A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis: Mexico Grapples with Soaring Prices for Corn-and Tortillas. Washington Post. Recuperado de: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2007/01/27/a-culinary-and-cultural-staple-in-crisis-span-classbankheadmexico-grapples-with-soaring-prices-for-corn-and-tortillas-span/10b88353-9d51-4674- 8ecc-64f2ec8a2e5d/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fc9a05107338
Vía Campesina (1996). Soberanía Alimentaria: un futuro sin hambre. Roma. Recuperado de: https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article388
Wald, N., Hill, D. P. (2016). Rescaling’ Alternative Food Systems: From Food Security to Food Sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values, 33, pp. 203–213. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9623-x
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Para que sean publicados artículos, ensayos y reseñas críticas en Estudios Sociales, la revista debe contar con la aceptación de parte de los autores/autoras de las condiciones siguientes:
1. Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación del trabajo registrado bajo la licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial (CC-By-NC) que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado, siempre y cuando mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
2. Los autores pueden realizar otros acuerdos contractuales independientes y adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del artículo publicado en esta revista (por ejemplo: incluirlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro) siempre y cuando indiquen, claramente, que el trabajo se publicó por primera vez en esta revista.
