In the wake of the 2008 worldwide economic crisis, filmmaker Alexandros Ikonomidis watches his optimism and income fade away as he comes to the realization that he is unable to sustain himself anymore. Overwhelmed with worry about things he used to take for granted, like the shrinking size of his grocery list, he spends most of his time sitting in isolation to avoid spending any money at all.
After extensive research, he is convinced that growing his own food, without the need of a financial income, is the key to a viable solution for the global depression that was detracting from the modern lifestyle – everything linked back to agricultural seeds.
As seeds have become patented, genetically locked, and in the hands of very few private companies, Ikonomidis embarks on a journey to look for lost reproducible seeds and the know-how for growing his own food for free—a simple individualistic solution that soon proved to be a very complex global problem.
Directed by Alexandros Ikonomidis Produced by Alexandros Ikonomidis Written by Alexandros Ikonomidis Country – Greece 75 mins. Subtitled
http://schedule.sbiff.org/films-events/2016475046
Independent Greek film maker Alex Ikonomidis sent me an email about a screening for his new film A Seed for Change. I have posted about this before. As far as I know, the film can only be seen if you’re lucky enough to live near one of the screenings. If you live in southern California you can see it at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on the 5th and 6th of February. The Facebook event is here. Also his Facebook page has more information.
I haven’t actually seen the film, and so can’t vouch for the contents. If any readers of this blog get a chance to see it, I hope you’ll report back here and let us all know what you think.
I think it almost went unnoticed, but a few weeks ago a decision was sort of made on gene drives. A gene drive means the releasing of a genetically modified organism into the environment with the intention of these genes spreading through the entire population. At issue are tests in an effort to introduce a fatal gene into wild populations of mosquitoes that carry malaria.
While it sounds wonderful, the idea of ridding the world of a horrible disease like malaria, this isn’t likely to happen. It’s just not logical to think evolution in mosquitoes can be simply stopped in this way, without some potentially very dangerous adaptation on the part of the mosquitoes themselves or other organisms in their natural environment. There is really no scientific justification for attempting to do this. It’s also outrageous to play with people’s sense of using technology to help people, when there’s no proof or even a reasonable suggestion this technology could really benefit anyone in the long run.
The reality is, backed by money from wealthy families, there is an effort to create an ever expanding technology of fixing nature with genetic engineering. Once the malaria mosquitoes are gone, and some other problem emerges, a new technology will be introduced to deal with this new threat, and so on and so on.
This is the same logic, and even the same people, responsible for the cycles of destruction in commercial agriculture. This is where a pest appears, and a chemical is developed to combat it. A new pest takes the place of the old one, and a stronger chemical is developed to deal with this new pest. Then genetic engineering is used instead of chemicals, and the pests evolve to over come this. It’s a losing battle, and it threatens the extinction of life on earth.
Interestingly enough, the gene drive technology is regulated by the Cartagena Protocol, which is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes the Nagoya Protocol, which is where all the problems of OSSI are from. Okay, got that?
The Decision
Just what was the decision on gene drives? Here is an excerpt from a convention document marked ‘Draft‘:
9. Calls upon Parties and other Governments, taking into account the current uncertainties regarding engineered gene drives, to apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with the objectives of the Convention, and also calls upon Parties and other Governments to only consider introducing organisms containing engineered gene drives into the environment, including for experimental releases and research and development purposes, when:
(a) Scientifically sound case-by-case risk assessments have been carried out;
(b) Risk management measures are in place to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects, as appropriate;
(c) Where appropriate, the “prior and informed consent”, the “free, prior and informed consent” or “approval and involvement” of potentially affected indigenous peoples and local communities is sought or obtained, where applicable in accordance with national circumstances and legislation
Draft decision submitted by the Chair of Working Group II
Just to give you an idea of how opaque the whole process is, I couldn’t find this document in the list of official documents on the CBD website, but rather it showed up in Google. There’s no apparent way to confirm if this text was actually adopted, or further modified before being adopted.
Looking at the text, does it support the use of gene drives or restrict it? There is some further documentation on the CBD website on what gaining consent of indigenous people really means, but it really seems there are a lot of excuses not to do this, for example according to local legislation or circumstances. It would appear to authorize gene drives if the other criteria of risk assessment and risk management are met.
This resolution is being hailed by a number of environmental and farmers groups as a significant step forward, but I’m aware of many of these groups receiving funding from the same sources as OSSI is funded and generally have very undemocratic internal structures which suppress the opinions and freedom of expression of the members. While they’re publicly supporting a moratorium on gene drives, it’s almost certain they’re doing the opposite behind the scenes, especially as they seem to be involved in negotiating the text of the resolutions.
This is not democracy. In fact this is one of the most undemocratic mechanisms I have ever seen, and if the sole purpose of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to justify and legitimize the use of gene drives, there’s no reason for it to exist.
I have been looking at some of the seed offerings coming out for 2019. I came across this listing, and it’s given me some thought. If you compare it for example to this:
Adaptive Seeds, Oregon
I would assume both these varieties are what they are labelled. I don’t think either Ben or Andrew and Sarah have any reason to lie or misrepresent what they sell.
At the same time, there are lots of questions in my mind about these mixes. For example, lettuce will not normally cross when saving seeds unless hand pollinated. Ben specifically mentions his mix contains crosses. I do not see the exact variety name of the Real Seed Lettuce on the OSSI website, but see several similar ones. The description also mentions some varieties have been added, but by who is not completely clear. It is labelled as an OSSI variety, but is it possible some non-OSSI seeds have been mixed in and not crossed? This could mean the OSSI status is mixed, and some of the seed grown will be OSSI and some not. If I cared if this was an OSSI variety, this would be very important.
What about the mix from Adaptive? It’s not labelled as OSSI, nor is it listed on the OSSI website. Andrew and Sarah live a few hours drive from Frank Morton, and I’m pretty sure they all know each other. Is it possible some of the seeds from Frank’s OSSI lettuce have found their way into the Adaptive mix? If I was looking for non-OSSI seeds this would be really important to know.
If I wanted to buy either of these seeds, and I wanted OSSI or non-OSSI seeds, I could sort this out with an email or two. I’m sure both seed companies know where their seeds came from and could give me an answer one way or another.
What about 10-20 years from now? Suppose some of this lettuce, possibly with a different variety name, ended up in a completely different seed company? A DNA test could show where the seeds came from, but there probably wouldn’t be any other way. There’s also no guarantee there would be enough public DNA records to establish this conclusively.
OSSI seeds are threatening to contaminate seed collections all over the world in this way. This is just like Monsanto’s GMOs contaminating a neighboring farm, and the victim being sued by Monsanto for stealing their genes. The only difference is these genes are being spread by seed savers.
As much as I believe that both Adaptive and Real Seeds sell perfectly fine seeds, if I was trying to collect non-OSSI seeds, I would probably buy them somewhere else so there could be no confusion.
Lies and More Lies
Everything I’ve been able to establish about OSSI is that it’s a lie. I’ve written about this before, but it has nothing to do with open source software. Seeds are living things and not computer software, they just work differently and the laws governing them are different. It’s very unlikely Jack Kloppenburg just dreamed this up, or is doing it out of the goodness in his heart. There’s billions of dollars behind this in Europe and elsewhere, and everything is meticulously planned.
If some of you have been promised money, or think that profits are going into some sort of benefits fund or a not for profit organization, this is not very likely. I know very little about the organization behind the OSSI in Europe, but it isn’t driven by anyone in the seed movement here. It’s controlled by unknown people, and their intentions are not clear. Historically benefit sharing in relation to seeds has taken place in the form of a fund that loans money to farmers and is intended to itself make a profit. There have been other cases of farmers being paid a very small amount of money to breed a seed variety, that gets patented and the farmer themselves no longer has the right to grow that variety without purchasing seeds. It’s generally the intention to maintain the poverty of the person receiving the benefit. It’s very unlikely any meaningful amount of money will get paid out in any useful way. There’s certainly lots of money involved, but none of us are likely to see it.
It’s unlikely OSSI will be useful to protect against patents or other IPR. In theory it should not be possible to patent seeds in Europe, but it does sometimes still happen. In the US I don’t know of any legal mechanism to prevent seed patents with OSSI. The situation with patents in general is very messed up, both in Europe and worldwide. While there’s an urgent need for reform, it needs to include all seeds not just those protected by OSSI, and it needs to include many other sectors of the economy.
The only reason for OSSI is because outside of the US there is now full privatization of seeds, and there’s a rush to own the biological diversity in the US.
In the US all biological diversity is already in the commons. The OSSI is not necessary to establish this. There are exceptions to this however, according to some treaties: If the breeder makes known his or her wishes, like with the OSSI, ownership can be established outside of the US.
It can be deposited into a genebank and covered by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). When a material is requested from a genebank, the ownership of the material itself remains with the genebank and is not transferred to the requester. The US joined this treaty on 13 March 2018, so all material received from USDA genebanks after this date is owned by the genebank.
If you signed an SMTA when receiving the material, the genebank also retains ownership.
All other genetic material in the US is owned by the person owning the seeds!
It’s really a travesty that president Trump authorized the US joining the ITPGRFA.
If you have seeds that aren’t obtained directly, or are progeny from, seeds from a US genebank after 13 March 2018, and you haven’t signed an SMTA, and aren’t directly from an organization like the Seed Savers Exchange who has submitted their collection under the terms of the ITPGRFA, and are not OSSI or similar, you can probably sell ownership of them in other countries. Don’t give up this right without a good reason.
There are no labeling rules on seeds however, so it’s really important you get your seeds from a trusted source, and you know where they came from. There is a very real possibility of intentional contamination of public domain seeds in the US, and everyone should be on the lookout for that happening.
