Hegemonic and counterhegemonic surrounding GMO has been in a real arena of struggle in the world. The arena started struggling mainly regarding transgenic food, with the actors positioning in favour (hegemonic) or counter (counterhegemonic). Hegemonic side argument relies on solving poverty and world hungry. While the counterhegemonic relies on health and security food. Both sides defend the life, and that is the moral impasse. The outcome of the first big struggle was a large acceptance of transgenic. The object of the arena changed to agrotoxic and the struggle kept on. The objective is to upgrade to 2018 the main objectives of the original research. Those objectives are to identify the main facts around the arena that would generate debates and positionings from actors surrounding GMOs and to capture the time line of those facts. Also, to identify what were the most successful arguments. The methodology used was discourse analysis. Timelining, in 2015, the hegemonic were able to defend transgenic but not agrotoxic, it was hard to position themselves about agrotoxic. In 2016, strong relevant events to the hegemonic side as authorities support, counterhegemonic actors regret about an official claiming regarding glyphosate, Bayer&Monsanto acquisition and Anvisa assessment. On the other hand, for counterhegemonic favor, the "T" icon will continue and Anvisa keeps aware about agrotoxic effects, continuing its studies. In 2017, counterhegemonic had some good activities engaging society and enjoys Anvisa kept researching agrotoxic. In 2018, counterhegemonic had more activities and little victories in 2018, as the PNaRA approval. Moreover, Bayer&Monsanto lost significant market value and credibility. In 2019, Anvisa finished its eleven years study of glyphosate, concluding it offers no dangers to consumer and very little for workers who have direct contact with it. The arena of struggle kept its pattern, varying favouring moments between the sides. The of the arguments too. Hegemonic more scientific based, Logos, relying on solving hungry problem and poverty. Although counterhegemonic also relies on science too, it is mostly Ethos based arguments relying on engaging the society more actively, health and food security.
Para ter acesso ao trabalho completo, envie um e-mail para: pibic@fgv.br