Posted on

EU Air Quality Standards — Another Disaster

I received a notification for the EU Commission that they are preparing a public consultation relating to the EU air quality directives.  I decided to follow some of the links provided, and respond to the consultation, and I was really stunned by a lot of what I found.  These directives are a perfect example of science gone wrong.

I think like nearly everyone else on the planet, I like my clean air.  Remember the war on drugs?  At the time, if you were against the war on drugs, that meant you were FOR drugs, right?  This is a little bit of the same scenario.  If you are against bad science and poorly crafted directives, you must be FOR dirty air, right?

These air quality directives originate from the 1970s, and have been influenced by various international agreements and periodic reviews, but not a lot of science.  The way they function now is the EU requests a list of standards from the WHO, who in turn respond with a list of various pollutants and their corresponding limits.  These limits come with very little justification, and the WHO themselves have no meaningful transparency.  These limits come more or less directly from what has been used in the US over the last half century or so.

The EU then convenes a number of ‘expert panels’, which try to apply some science and justification to these limits, but in reality have no choice but to accept them.

Is it no surprise that these directives then in turn support very specific technologies and industries?

PM2.5

This is the so-called ‘fine’ particulate matter, very small nano-particles 2.5nm in size.  These are not to be confused with ‘coarse’ particles, PM10, 10nm in size.  These particles are all so small they can’t be seen with the human eye, and have proved very difficult to detect and measure.  In fact, we have only been aware of their existence for about 20 years, and only had good methods for measuring them for about 5 years.

There is good science to suggest these are very dangerous, and there is considered to be no safe limit of exposure.  They can cause a variety of health and environmental problems.

There are a lot of sources of these particles, including for example rubber tires driven on asphalt, and almost all sources of combustion.  In fact there are so many sources of these particles, they now realize they are present in combination with almost all other air pollutants.  This also draws into question almost every scientific study on air pollution done before 2013, since they didn’t know these particles existed and couldn’t measure them, they weren’t taken into account.  This had the effect of making all other air pollutants seem more serious than they really were.

About the only place you won’t find large numbers of these particles is the exhaust of diesel engines, because the technology of filtering these particles is considered very good, and modern cars are fitted with these filters.

Alphabet Soup with Nitrogen

Nitrogen is a very mobile element.  What I mean by that is there are a number of compounds containing nitrogen in the environment, these interact with one another, and move around.  For example, in terms of air quality, nitrogen oxide (NO) is often identified as a culprit.  In more general term, NOx is often used, because in fact NO, NO2 and NO3 are all common components of air pollution.  Often associated with this type of pollution is ozone (O3), because rather than forming NO4, you usually end up with NO + O3.

Nitrogen is part of ammonia (NH3), which is naturally occurring.   Animal and human manures are high in nitrogen.  Agricultural fertilizers are high in nitrogen.  The nutrient solutions used by industrial mega-greenhouse operations are a major source of nitrogen based air pollution here in the Netherlands.  All of these sources of nitrogen play a role in nitrogen based air pollution.  In fact, only about 15% of airborne nitrogen comes from vehicle exhaust.

Poor air quality in cities is often associated with nitrogen, because you have for example sewage treatment as a major source, as well as sometimes nearby agriculture, together with vehicle exhaust.  Plants and other vegetation which might potentially remove some of the nitrogen from the air, are often in short supply in cities.

What are the consequences of this type of pollution?  Nitrogen has definitively been identified as a trigger for childhood asthma, but the mechanism for this is poorly understood.  All other studies that have previously identified nitrogen as a danger to human health have been discredited, due to not taking into account PM2.5 (see above).  There are many scientists who do not believe nitrogen is a threat to human health.

In case you might be tempted to think I hate children, let me assure you I care about childhood asthma.  I think this link could shed light on the consequences for others as well, and I hope there is more research on this.  I do think more research is warranted before we commit so many resources to nitrogen based urban air pollution.  I also think research has to consider all sources of nitrogen air pollution, and not just diesel engines.

Effects on Plants

This being a blog primarily about agriculture issues, I have to say something about their conclusions about the effect of nitrogen based air pollution on plants.  I must admit, I laughed really hard when I read this.

This is from the position paper on NO2, dated 1999, on the EU Commission website:

2.3  Effects on vegetation by nitrogen oxides

Nitrogen oxides are absorbed by vegetation in the same way as CO2 through stomata. Nitrogen oxides are dissolved in the stomata cavity water and form nitrite and nitrate, which in turn are reduced to NH3 and eventually incorporated into organic compounds. (e. g. Wellburn, A.R., Wilson, J., Aldrige, P.H. 1980). If too much NO2 is absorbed over time, acute damage may occur in form of necrosis. Biological membranes (e. g. Mudd et al. 1984) and chloroplasts (Wellburn et al. 1972, Lopata & Ulrich, 1975) are assumed to be damaged. Acute effects occur at very high concentrations, which are seldom observed in ambient air, except near very large point sources (Stonybrook Lab., 1994). There is a range of long term exposure effects (Guderian and Tingey, 1987). Up to a certain level, no effects are observed. Above this, NO2 may stimulate growth. However, higher doses will decrease growth in relation to controls.  There is at present a dispute over which nitrogen oxides are the most toxic. Further knowledge is necessary to assess the situation.

This paper then went on to say this science justifies the safe levels of exposure for plants as established by the WHO.

If you’re a gardener, you’ll almost certainly recognize the mechanism of foliar feeding, and here it is in case you need a cited source to it.  I have posted about this before.

So basically, nitrogen fertilizes your plants.  Too much fertilizer kills your plants.  Furthermore, the science of the effects of air pollution on plants stops at the leaves of the plants.  The amount of fertilizer the plants may receive from other sources, for example what is applied by a farmer, is beyond the remit of this paper.

Other Consequences of NOx

Some of the papers on the EU Commission website mention other considerations.  For example, nitric acid is a compound that might be produced, and this in turn can be a threat to historical monuments in the form of acid rain.  I have to admit, this is beyond the scope of what I’ve already researched.

I also want to emphasize that I do recognize nitrogen as a serious environmental pollution, but I don’t think anything can be accomplished by looking at air quality out of context.  All sources of nitrogen have to be considered together, and effects on all parts of the environment have to be considered.

General Thoughts

Since we are in the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and phasing out fossil fuels, you have to wonder why the EU Commission is suddenly paying so much attention to air quality.  It seems the situation will be very different in 10 or 20 years time, and fossil fuel emissions will certainly decrease on their own.

In addition, as we consider ways to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, agriculture will be key to these efforts.  It’s not likely the world will be able to remove and sequester CO2, without regenerative agriculture.  The consequence of regenerative agriculture is a buildup of nutrient rich topsoil, which is composed of nitrogen (N) and carbon (C).  We will sequester both greenhouse gases and air pollution at the same time in this way.

When as a gardener you make compost, you’re participating in this system of regenerative agriculture.  You mix the browns with the greens…

Posted on

Passing of Kent Whealy

I received an email today with the sad news that Kent Whealy passed away last week.  Kent founded the Seed Savers Exchange in 1975, and ran it for 33 years.  He envisioned and supervised the development of Heritage Farm and Twin Valleys at SSE.  He created all of the SSE publications, including the well known Garden Seed Inventories.  His awards included a MacArthur Fellowship and a N. I. Vavilov medal from the Vavilov Institute in St. Petersburg.

The email mentioned he supported many food and conservation programs in Hawaii, where he spent winters in a house he and his wife Judy owned near Hilo.

He was a private person, and I wasn’t in contact with him.  Please leave a comment if you have anything else to share.

Posted on

Fake News: No Patents on Seeds

Patents are a controversial topic these days.  While I don’t think many people would argue it’s a good thing for an inventor to be able to protect their invention, modern patent law has gone far beyond this.  For one thing, most ordinary people don’t have the economic resources or business connections to effectively patent, legally defend and sell their inventions.  In addition small companies are very vulnerable to the lawsuits that come from patents, and the legal costs that ensue.

With the duration of patents recently extended to 20 years, and changes in patent law that make many more patents possible then ever before, patents are increasingly becoming a tool for wealthy individuals to increase their wealth and dominance over society.

An important issue used to be the common good, and this was one of the arguments for limiting patents to 10 years.   Afterwards the patent would fall into the public domain.  This idea is increasingly being sidelined, and patent holders supported by governments have increasing power to remove unpatented products from the market or exclude them from supply chains.

Background on Seeds in Europe

It’s different in different places in the world, but in Europe patents on seeds were introduced by the biotechnology directive of 1998.  This was after several years of debating, and a failed directive 10 years earlier.  This was also in the wake of GMOs being released into the environment in North America, and Monsanto suing farmers with contaminated fields claiming they were violating their patents.  Most famously was Percy Schmeiser in Canada who won his legal battle with Monsanto.

Among the controversies in Europe was the idea that genes which exist in nature should be patentable, just by virtue of isolating them.  This would not seem to be an invention, which is what patents are supposed to be about.

Unlike North America, in Europe conventionally bred seeds were explicitly excluded from patents, or so they thought.  Also in Europe, there was so much controversy surrounding the issue, there were agreements put in place effectively locking the dossier at the European Commission, and there is now a great deal of reluctance to reopen this dossier.

Supposedly this wasn’t something the food industry wanted, but rather was forced on them by the pharmaceutical industry.  A claim like this is very hard to verify, and depends on knowing the contents of private conversations between company executives.  Did one industry force it on another, or was there collusion?  It’s certainly convenient plausible deniability.

Near Diplomatic Immunity

One of the most undemocratic things about the patent issues is the way it’s been implemented.  It was implemented after a great deal of public protest, then with a closed dossier.  Now the patents are issued by an independent institution, located in Switzerland outside of the EU, in a building that effectively has a form of diplomatic immunity.   Apparently even the police need permission to enter the building.  The reason for this legal-political construction was to prevent ‘political interference’ in the issuing of patents.

This effectively puts the issue of patents outside of both EU and Swiss laws.  The issuing of patents is at the convenience of those applying, and the institution is largely self regulating.

The Mistake

In the midst of all this political wrangling, a mistake was made.  As it turns out, patents on conventionally bred seeds were not excluded as originally intended.  There was a small mistake in the original wording of the law, and this has resulted in scores of patents being unintentionally issued.  It’s been in the news; patents on potatoes, lettuce,  broccoli, tomatoes or peppers.

Now this mistake is buried deep inside this directive, which has been been closed and locked by the EU commission, and the patents are being issued within the legal-political construction that was intended to prevent ‘political interference’.

The Winners and Losers

Anyone who breeds fruits and vegetables are certainly the biggest losers.  This creates a situation where breeding techniques and well as entire ranges of fruits and vegetables might suddenly become a priority, because their company owns the patent, or something to be avoided because a competitor owns the patent.  It means any breeders have to pay attention to all the individual genes and traits their plants might have, in order to consider what patents might exist on these.

If you’re an independent plant breeder, this really has the potential to put you out of business.  It will be very difficult to avoid all the patents controlled by the larger players.

Most countries in Europe with commercial plant breeding activities have passed local legislation setting aside patents on conventionally bred products.  This means for the time being breeding activities can continue in these countries.  The problem will come in the marketing of these fruits and vegetables in other countries where local legislation hasn’t been changed.

Are there winners?  Probably consumers are winners to some extent.  A messed up system of patents means the food companies will have a harder time using patents to their advantage.

No Patents on Seeds

Along comes the food industry, in this case primarily meaning Monsanto because they owned most of the seed companies at that point.  They start a campaign, with a lot of resemblance to campaigns run around the time of the introduction of patents on plants and seeds in Europe.  They setup a website, run a marketing campaign in The Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, then collect many signatures on a petition for the purpose of getting rid of patents on seeds.  The name of this campaign is ‘No Patents on Seeds’.

Almost as soon as it began, but after they collected the bulk of the signatures, they announced they were going to work initially on just patents on conventionally bred plants and seeds.

In other words, they’ve turned a popular campaign for getting rid of patents on living plants and animals, and their genes, into a food industry campaign to fix the system of biotechnology patents in Europe to their advantage.

This campaign seems to have a virtually unlimited budget.  Not only are they sponsoring 30 minute TV infomercials in the Netherlands, but they have a large number of staff, in several countries, working directly and indirectly on the campaign.  It’s clear a number of organizations who put their name behind the campaign did so because they were paid.

There’s no money for a competing campaign, and for example this blog is the effort of a single person who’s own costs aren’t even paid.

I’m not aware of a single person supporting this campaign who didn’t either sign the online petition at the time it was promoting a complete end to patents on seeds, or doesn’t have a financial relationship with the organizers of the campaign.   As far as I can tell it’s completely paid for by the food industry.

The Importance of GMOs

It might be easy to dismiss GMOs as unimportant with respect to patents.  For example in Europe they are not completely prohibited, but very restricted and not common.  It might be tempting to believe an end to patents on conventionally bred plants and animals might be good enough.

In fact there are many reasons why this is not true.  With GMOs there are many gray areas.  There are a number of techniques being considered by the EU Commission now as possibly being exempt from classification as GMO.  In addition non-food items, for example bio-plastic packaging, can legally be sold in Europe as GMOs.  If these techniques and crops can be patented, there will be very strong commercial reasons why consumers can’t object to them and there may be the same environmental health consequences as GMOs in our food.

In addition, while as a consumer I insist on the right not to have GMOs forced into supply chains, and I insist on continuing to have the right to not buy GMOs if I choose, I don’t rule them out as a science.  I think in general consumers will be much more prepared to accept GMOs if they exist in the public domain and there are not strong commercial pressures behind them.  I think in the future there may be important reasons why GMOs may be used, and patents shouldn’t interfere with this any more than they should interfere with conventional breeding now.

The End of Plausible Deniability

I guess we’re all lucky one of the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies just bought the worlds largest agriculture company.  Now that the Bayer-Monsanto merger is a thing of the past, it’s a lot harder to say patents on seeds are being imposed on the food industry by the pharmaceutical industry.  Now it’s very realistic to expect the two industries to view it as a common issue.

The Real Solution

The solution is not to fix a broken system of patents on life.  The solution is for the food industry to convince us that patents on life are necessary and beneficial to the consumer, and if not then cooperate with reopening the biotechnology dossier at the EU Commission, for the purpose of ending all patents on living organisms or their genes.

If the food and pharmaceutical industries do not find this an acceptable solution, then the proper thing to do is negotiate a solution that also provides other real benefits to the common good.  In order to move forward with this, the fake news campaign has to stop.

It’s my hope this issue provokes a larger debate on patents.