Most of us are already aware changes have taken place in the genetic composition of our foods in recent years. Most of us understand the food we eat today is very different from what our parents and their parents ate, and increasingly we are understanding that it’s probably a lot less healthy. We certainly know the taste of food is declining. There are two main reasons for these changes.
The first reason for these changes in our food has to do with our expectations as consumers. When we shop for produce, we don’t buy according to how good it tastes, we buy according to how good it looks and how cheap it is. However much we might complain about quality and taste, when we are in the store we can’t taste what we buy and even though we know we are buying something of poor quality, we won’t buy anything bug eaten or blemished. For this reason, food producers are under extreme pressure to ensure the food in stores looks perfect, because if any one farmer can grow something better looking they will be the ones who can sell the most. Together with being able to produce cheaply in large quantities, appearance is the most important issue for farmers when they grow fruits and vegetables, and they sometimes have to go to very great lengths to achieve these things.
The second reason for these changes in our food is Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). Many of us don’t realize this, but the vast majority of what we buy to eat is patented. Not just the food itself, but processing techniques, packaging, brand names as well as other aspects of what we buy are controlled by patents or other IPRs. By controlling the IPRs it’s possible to decide what farmers will be allowed to grow what crops, and under what conditions.
For example it’s a fairly recent trend that farmers may not be allowed to sell crops to whoever they want, but rather grow them entirely under contract from the seed companies. The farmers then have to sell them under the terms of this contract or simply have to give the crops to the seed company who them in turn sell them to who they want. This allows seed companies to take a product they have the exclusive rights over, take bids from a large number of competing farmers who themselves will accept all the risks of crop failure, then in turn sell the crops produced to consumers at an inflated price.
It’s not just the farmers who can be controlled with IPRs, but the whole supply chain. Supermarkets can be forced to sign exclusive contracts if they want to sell certain products, prices can be set at the wholesale level and so on. In most places, there are laws or government subsidies that make it difficult or impossible to sell foods that are not patented. In short IPRs make it possible to almost totally control the process of production, distribution and sale of our food.
Older varieties of foods are simply not interesting to food companies. Patents expire or they simply can’t be patented in the first place because of their age. As we are increasingly becoming aware, that often means these older varieties simply become extinct because there is no one who grows them anymore.
An important aspect of IPRs when it comes to food production are F1 hybrids and GMOs. We are all familiar with trends in genetically modified crops, and together with a lot of other people I have made posts about them recently. Less attention is being paid to hybrids. F1 hybrid and GM techniques make it possible to create plants that might not otherwise exist in nature, but perhaps more importantly these techniques can be used to create plants where it is not possible to save seeds from the resulting plants, requiring people who grow the plants to re-purchase their seeds year after year.
F1 hybrids and GM plants are sometimes more productive, usually at the expense of higher inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, and seed companies and food distributors are very adept at profiting from this increased productivity at both the expense of farmers who grow the plants and consumers who end up with a lower quality product. A good example of this can be seen in my post from last year about coffee.
Okay, but this is what this blog is all about. Promotion of older varieties of plants, that are without IPRs. Much of what I’ve said so far will not be news to people who regularly read things I post here.
What about cannabis?
It turns out that nearly all of the same trends in food described here are also taking place with cannabis, and there are some clear indications that cannabis available now is much less healthy than what was available decades ago. While cannabis itself is a controlled substance in most places in the world, the seeds are often not. This is certainly the case here in the Netherlands. Plant breeders here and other places are busy developing new cannabis varieties, applying similar principles that seed companies do to food crops, then patenting them.
Cannabis consumers almost always buy according to one criteria, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content. Most consumers see it as a simple issue of value for money. Many will deny this and talk about the subtle differences between different kinds, but just like people who buy vegetables will almost always choose unblemished products, cannabis buyers will almost always choose for the most THC. If you are a grower or seller, and someone else has a product with more THC, you are simply at a disadvantage.
Plant breeders and growers are going to great lengths to increase the THC in their products, as well as lower the cost of production, and it’s clear these efforts are resulting in a drug that is fundamentally different. Recent studies have focused on two active ingredients in cannabis, THC and cannabidiol (CBD). Of these, the percentage of THC has increased significantly in recent years, often at the expense of CBD. It appears THC is linked more frequently to psychosis and CBD can significantly reduce this problem. This is only one example, and there are likely many other more subtle changes.
Increasingly F1 hybrid varieties of cannabis are displacing older heirloom or open pollinated varieties. This can be seen by searching online for places selling seeds. In addition, many of the older varieties have been lost because no one is growing them anymore, just like with heirloom food crops.
It’s clear the people growing cannabis are no longer the ones profiting the most, but rather it’s large companies that hold the patents. The growers are the ones that take the risks, the consumers are getting a lower quality and possibly more dangerous product and the seed companies make the bulk of the money — legally!
In the meantime the legal grey area that cannabis exists in, almost a taboo subject for many people, makes it difficult to address this problem and raise awareness about it. Certainly if you are a consumer wishing to buy older varieties of cannabis, you are unlikely to find it for sale anywhere. If you are someone who objects to the use of an illegal product like cannabis in the first place, you are not likely to offer much sympathy to those people who do use it. If you are someone who uses cannabis, or has sympathy with those who do, probably like most of us you have heard it all before and see this as one more overreaction to an otherwise relatively safe drug.
It’s becoming increasingly clear with issues like this and opium in Afghanistan, there is a trend away from eradication programs and instead toward using illicit drugs as a way to generate corporate profits.
