Posted on

New Genomic Techniques (NGTs)

The EU Commission is proposing legalizing and regulating NGTs. I’m cautiously optimistic, and think this will be a useful tool for seed savers and others working in biodiversity.

NGTs are mutagenesis (where the natural mutation of plant materials is sped up with for example X-rays or one of a number of chemicals, including some common household substances) and cisgenesis (one of a number of techniques where genes are manipulated within the same species). In the case of mutagenesys, I’m aware of seed savers already doing this for years. In both cases it’s unlikely anyone could make plant material that couldn’t already exist in nature, and because you are always working within the same species, there’s no meaningful risk of contamination of other plants or setting something free in the wild.

NGTs are really a new generation of GMOs, that shouldn’t be confused with what was used decades ago. NGTs should only be thought of as a tool that speeds up traditional plant breeding.

The intention is that only seeds will be labeled when made from these new techniques, and not food. Some people will find this disturbing, because it will no longer be possible to choose an alternative in the supermarket. I think everyone should understand that once these techniques are legalized, it’s very likely nearly all food will be made from NGTs.

Nagoya Protocol and OSSI

On a more technical side, those working with biodiversity will be interested to know NGTs can be used to get around the Nagoya protocol and OSSI. Both of these are dependent on the pedigree of genetic material. This can be compared to for example a DNA test in humans, which can determine who your ancestors were, as well as your relationship to living relatives. NGTs can be used to scramble this information in genetic materials and in any case you are technically creating new life, which is not covered by these rules.

In general, these techniques will provide a lot of privacy to seed savers. Currently a lot can be revealed by the DNA in their seeds, and NGTs can be used to scramble this information.

Posted on

Big Upcoming Changes

There are a number of big pending changes in agriculture and climate change. Depending on who and where you are, you may not be aware of these. I think we should all be watching, because they’re going to impact everyone. It’s also the case that some may not succeed. Since I live in the Netherlands, I’m going to start locally, then changes in the EU, then global.

The Netherlands (NL)

Here in NL we are in the midst of farmers protests. The root of the problem is the nature of post WWII agriculture here, which is export oriented and heavy on processed foods. We have one of the highest densities of farm animals in the world here, and as a consequence one of the highest levels of nitrogen and methane pollution. This pollution impacts the air, land and water. It’s a very serious problem, and it’s almost everywhere in the country. As we start to address CO2 emissions, it’s becoming more and more clear that these compounds are as big or a bigger source of greenhouse gasses, the Netherlands is the biggest emitter in the EU, and one of the largest in the world. Methane mostly comes from either agriculture or the extraction of fossil fuels.

The Netherlands must do something to address their nitrogen and methane pollution. Not just for now and the immediate and urgent needs, but also so it doesn’t become a problem for generations to come.

The Dutch government has committed to a number of reforms, most of which are demands from the EU, and is moving forward with these. The main obstacle is the local farmers union called LTO, which is a local chapter of Copa-Cogeca, the largest lobby organization in the EU. I think the tactics they use are really a shame. To them the only farmer is one who demands to raise higher and higher densities of animals, and won’t tolerate any environmental related rules. Their vision of a farmer is one who uses excessive fertilizers and pesticides. Basically you are either with or against them, and if you don’t support their vision of a polluting farmer, you are against all farmers everywhere.

Farming protests are a common event here, and currently ongoing, protesting the restrictions on nitrogen pollution. In these protests you can’t be in favor of the environment and support farmers at the same time, you must be in favor of polluting the environment or you are against the farmers.

The symbol of the protests is an upside-down Dutch flag. There are a lot of them around, but also clearly a number of people who have chosen not to participate in the protests or display flags. The tactics of the protesting farmers usually include blocking highways with tractors, dumping bales of straw in front of politicians houses, blocking food distribution centers so supermarkets will run out (to make the point that food comes from farmers and without farmers there is no food), as well as other things. Increasingly people see this as farmers trying to disrupt the lives of ordinary people, and are getting annoyed at it.

The Dutch government is normally very tolerant of protesters. During Covid, for the first time in memory, the government had to crack down on protests as a matter of public health and safety. They have decided to take a similar approach against the farmers, and are aggressively enforcing the law. Farmers are being fined and arrested. Supermarket chains are complaining they are losing millions of euros per day at the distribution centers, but the police are breaking up the protests, and at least I haven’t noticed any food shortages. Roads are also mostly being kept clear. There are some amazingly stupid protests, like intentionally contaminating nature areas with nitrogen pollution, but otherwise not much that ordinary people are noticing this time.

I am really optimistic that we will emerge from these protests this time with a clear direction in addressing the nitrogen pollution, and a more sophisticated view of farmers than people intent on environmental contamination. We really need a new vision of agriculture to emerge overall, as a model for worldwide reform. I’m certain I’m not the only person feeling this way.

European Union

The EU Commission has promised a new EU seed law proposal before the end of the year. There is very much the feeling of change in the air. The major obstacle to positive reform is the same lobby group behind the protests in the Netherlands, Copa-Cogeca. I think and hope there is an urgent sense of the need to stand up to them this time around.

I think this round of seed law changes is our last best hope of big changes before we really have to buckle down on climate change. Good intentions from the EU Commission can easily be messed up as the measure progresses through the Parliament and EU Council, so let’s hope everyone is ready to stand up to the corporate lobbying.

The World

The EU Commission is planning changes to UPOV. This is the IPR related international treaty the EU uses to impose it’s seed laws on almost every agricultural exporting country in the world, besides the US. There is optimism that if there is good progress made in reforming the seed laws, that these positive changes can be pushed out to other places at the same time.

A sort of competing IPR treaty, the Convention on Biological diversity is reported to be not doing well. This is a real shame as this is the only obvious treaty dealing with biodiversity and nature, but it has many problematic issues, including Access and Benefits Sharing and the Nagoya Protocol. It’s a very good thing that these provisions cannot yet be fully implemented. We aren’t going to save nature and biodiversity through privatization and IPR or IPR alternatives.

Posted on

EU Seed Law Discussion October 2021

The EU seed industry has just published a new issue of it’s trade magazine, including the main arguments under discussion for an update of the EU seed law. Ostensibly there are two sides to the discussion, one for updating the EU seed law, and the other against.

The against side is presented by a representative of the EU seed industry.

The for side is presented by Austrian seed saving organization Arche Noah. In fact Arche Noah has suffered a similar fate as sister organization Seed Savers Exchange of the US. They accepted money from the wrong people, which resulted in the management being largely expelled. They exist now in name only, as a brand, and are completely unresponsive to their membership. They claim to represent seed savers, farmers and so on, but I am unable to see any evidence of this. The reality is they now represent the people who have taken over the organization, which ultimately comes down to the wealthy families who control the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The EU seed industry says the seed laws have served them well for decades now. They say a number of things have changed recently, climate change, biodiversity strategy, EU Green Deal, and so on. In addition there are new technologies and ways of testing seeds. All of these could justify minor adjustments to the EU seed laws, but not opening the whole can of worms of legislation.

Arche Noah pretty much only says they want to bring EU laws in line with the CBD. The CBD is actually a very large legal instrument now, and what Arche Noah means specifically is the ABS (Access and Benefit Sharing) provisions of the CBD. There are actually a number of parts of the CBD that deal with farmers and seed savers rights, but these are less interesting to them. They are also only pursuing a small relaxation of the EU seed laws, for the purpose of aggressively marketing and monetizing a few specialized crops, probably by way of organic certification, something not very useful to true seed savers and farmers. For seed savers the consequence of these changes would probably be significantly more administrative burden and violation of privacy, by way of registration requirements and plant health red tape.

I say there are two sides to this discussion, but in fact, the wealthy families who now control Arche Noah are also the ones who own and control the seed industry. It’s a bit like the left hand arguing with the right, and it seems almost certain the seed law will change for the worse. There’s a reason both sides of the argument appear in a seed industry trade magazine.

The Reality for Seed Savers

The EU seed laws are a major problem for seed savers, and have been for decades now. At the same time, seed savers have found their way around some of the barriers, and negotiations have taken place with the seed industry. For a long time genetic resources were considered to be in the public domain, and in most places there were full breeders’ rights. This meant industry plant breeders could frequently trade materials with independent plant breeders and seed savers, and these trades often took place.

On the other hand, completely the opposite is true with the CBD. Representatives of the CBD have taken over and gutted organizations that once represented seed savers, stole their seeds and treated them like brand names that they could use to represent their members. The CBD has been promising for decades to support the worlds biodiversity, but every year they fail to reach their own targets. There is virtually no chance of success here.

Seed savers cannot accept anything but very minor administrative burden for what they do. They also cannot accept registration requirements that require them to state in detail the varieties they work with, or to submit to DNA testing of their plant materials, because this is a serious violation of their privacy. Of course almost all seed savers would like to cooperate with controlling plant diseases and pests, but this has to be based on risk, and can’t have an unreasonable or intrusive administrative burden or DNA testing. They cannot accept any registration fees. Seed savers cannot accept patents on life.

Much has been said about the difference between commercial and non-commercial food and seed production. Most seed savers, independent plant breeders and small farmers don’t have the expectation of making large amounts of money from what they do, but at the same time need to cover their expenses and survive financially. Of course everyone needs to have a light at the end of the tunnel, and sometimes these people hope for a time they can make real profits with what they do. It’s not always possible to accept a partner in this kind of activity, and so there needs to be a reasonable possibility to grow independently. This whole financial picture needs to be renegotiated from time to time. With climate change and and the collapsing of biodiversity worldwide, there should be good financial potential for seed savers, and they should be free to pursue this legally and independently.

Realistically, seed savers cannot cope with these revisions of EU seed law. If we try to organize efforts to lobby for a good outcome, this will be undermined and taken over by the same people who have taken over seed saving organizations. We don’t have the money. Too many points of view make coming to a common statement too difficult.

Proposal for EU Seed Law Change

The best seed law outcome for seed savers would be a withdrawal of the EU seed law directives.

The seed industry should be happy with this. The seed laws could be replaced with industry certification. Industry could set their own rules and procedures. What is now done by civil servants could be done in-house by the seed companies, who could manage the costs themselves. Marketing could be managed with relationships with supplies. Best of all there would be no more of these legislative revisions of the EU seed law.

Arche Noah won’t be happy with this, but if what they say about implementing the CBD and supporting the rights of seed savers is true, they will support the idea.

Implicit in this would have to be no patents on life, and full breeders’ rights. Full breeders’ rights is the idea that plant varieties can be protected, but the genes within the varieties cannot. This means if a plant breeder crosses a protected variety with a different but related plant, the cross and resulting generations are unprotected until a new stable variety is created and protected.

Also implied in this is biodiversity exists in the commons. Industry uses and profits from biodiversity, and must pay for it’s maintenance, but also has a responsibility to share it. If a public domain variety is genetically engineered, the result is a public domain variety. If a protected variety is genetically engineered, as long as the variety is protected so is the genetic engineering.

Posted on

Why Our View and Approach Towards Invasive Species is Wrong

Every gardener is annoyed by weeds in their garden, and different gardeners often have very different approaches for controlling them. It’s not unusual for gardeners to have strong disagreements over weeds.

The Reasons for Having Weeds

Weeds are actually an important part of your garden’s ecosystem, and it’s impossible to get rid of them completely without damaging your garden. Many people mistakenly look at weeds in their neighbors garden, and think if their neighbor would just take care of them their own weed problem would go away.

The truth is most weeds come from seeds that are already in the ground, and have been there a very long time. Studies have shown weed seeds can survive in the ground hundreds of years or longer. As gardeners disturb the ground in their garden, they bring seeds up to the surface, which in turn grow.

All gardeners know that weeds don’t grow randomly, and it’s generally possible to identify 4-5 different weeds that account for the majority in their garden, and also that weeds favor different areas of the garden. There’s a very important reason for this. Weeds actually repair your garden.

For example, if you have too much nitrogen or potassium in your garden, stinging nettles may grow. As they grow, they will consume the nitrogen and potassium, and try to bring your garden into a healthier balance. You will get particular weeds if your soil is compacted, too wet, lacking nutrients, and so on. In each case the weeds will work to correct the imbalance or problems. Gardeners who use weed killer like Round Up in their gardens will notice they get Mare’s Tail, and this is for the same reason, to repair the damage caused by the chemical.

Repairing your garden with weeds alone is usually impractically slow. They are however very good as indicators. Letting some weeds grow, together with other organic methods, can be a very effective way of keeping your garden in balance, and over time weed problems tend to go away on their own.

On the other hand, if you keep fighting the weeds, you end up damaging your garden and you end up being unaware of fundamental problems that could possibly be easily corrected.

The View With Chemicals

People who use chemicals to control weeds in their garden sometimes have a completely distorted view of the world. The often blame the seeds blowing into their garden from nearby weeds as the source of their problem. They believe the best state of affairs is for all weeds to be destroyed, and only their desired plants to be growing. They often look further and further away from their garden.

Some gardeners even think some weeds are worse than others. For example nettles because they sting, or thistles because they prick you. I even knew a gardener that thought all yellow flowered weeds were bad. I guess because there was Round Up ready rape(canola) growing wild, and he had to pull this out by hand.

Some farmers have a similar view. For example, on one hand using chemicals to destroy a disease on their own crop, then looking for the same disease on neighboring (organic) crops and blaming those gardeners or farmers for causing the problem.

Invasive Species

The arguments are often mixed with racism. In fact the Dutch language has a term ‘alloctone’, that can refer to either an invasive species or a person of foreign origin. Some people even think it’s possible or desirable to completely eliminate invasive species, maybe with gene drives.

Of course reasonable steps should be taken to prevent invasive species from spreading.

The reality is invasive species are an indicator of very serious environmental problems that need to be addressed. There are natural methods for control, like introducing natural predators or commercial harvesting. Attempting to remove them completely in an unnatural way can’t be done without further damage to the ecosystem, and shouldn’t be attempted.