Posted on

Fake News: CRISPR-Cas9

Here in Europe attempts are being made to get around GMO legislation by redefining what genetic engineering is.  In particular, even after the EU Court of Justice ruled that such attempts are illegal, the same arguments are being tried here in the Netherlands.

GMO ‘light’

It’s completely absurd to say this is somehow a different kind of genetic engineering.  The only ‘light’ thing about this technique is the cost and simplicity.  It used to be there was considerable cost and research behind each new genetically engineered variety, but this method can cost as little as US$75 and is much faster and easier to execute.  That means more corporate profits, but all of the other issues surrounding GMOs remain.

It’s absolutely silly to say that since this method only ‘turns off’ small parts of the genome, that this is somehow fundamentally different.

‘The question is: do you want potatoes that need to be sprayed 15 times or do you want potatoes that can do without this amount of spraying because of this technology?’

This is a ridiculous question, completely rhetorical and grounded in fake news.

For one thing, in Europe the chemicals you might spray a potato with are being phased out.  There isn’t a question of spraying a potato 15 times anymore.

There are also traditional breeding efforts underway, including F1 hybrids and organic breeding, which all show promise.

While it might seem very exciting to use genetic engineering to modify potatoes to resist blight, this has also been described as ‘gene mining’.  That is you take all the currently known genes that resist blight and put them into a single potato, something that would be very difficult with traditional breeding.  The problem with this is you can also overlook other gene ‘markers’ (combinations of genes that also resist blight), and once blight has evolved it will overcome even this resistance.  This is the same mentality behind spraying crops with chemicals, thinking even after the chemicals stop working, it will always be possible to develop new and stronger chemicals.

In fact with all GMO varieties to date promising to resist diseases or pests and reduce the need for chemicals, they have all failed in their promises.  The diseases or pests simply develop resistance, and the need for chemicals returns.  There’s no reason to think GMO potatoes will be any different.  In the case of for example bt based GMOs, these crops have seriously interfered with organic efforts.  There’s no reason to think GM potatoes won’t also interfere with organic efforts in a similar way.

A better approach is a combination of stopping with the use of chemicals, traditional breeding, permaculture techniques and improving the environment through reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants.  This will reduce the disease pressure in agriculture, and allow the potato genome to evolve and create it’s own resistance to potato blight.  In the longer term this will be a sustainable process.

Competing with Centuries of Evolution

All GMO techniques are competing with centuries of evolution.  While you might be able to find some short term quick fixes with GMOs, there’s not likely to be any major breakthroughs with genetic engineering.  It’s not likely to speed evolution.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are Too Strong

Especially over the last few decades, IPR have become too strong.  These have mostly been implemented in undemocratic ways, with very unpopular trade agreements or rules put into place by international institutions inaccessible through democratic principles.

There are direct rights like patents, and indirect rights like what the Convention on Biological Diversity convey.

The economic driving power behind GMOs is too strong, and severely limits any sort of reasonable public debate.

Everyone would benefit if this sort of science existed in the public domain, and independent (amateur) scientists also had an opportunity to demonstrate what they can offer.

Nothing for the Consumer

Things like improving yields, or resistance to pests, are fine for farmers and corporate interests.  No agricultural GMO has ever been marketed according to consumer demand.  Nothing.  If science has nothing but fake news to address consumer demand with, they should accept there is nothing to put on the market.

Lack of Functioning Democracy

I guess there are problems with democracy almost everywhere, but since this post was specifically intended to address the situation in The Netherlands, let me say something about democracy here.

There is a serious deficiency of free expression here.  I understand this is a problem for many people, but it’s particularly acute for people with a foreign background or those unable to communicate fully and fluently in Dutch.  While there have been some very public examples of this recently, there’s very little acceptance this is a common problem, also in smaller less dramatic ways.

A government can simply not say there is a public consultation on an issue like this, if there is no truly democratic forum in which to express and freely discuss opinions.

Posted on

Bayer Needs an Aspirin

Bayer 1-year share price
One year share price of Bayer

Bayer seems to be wrapping up their purchase of Monsanto, but investors are not impressed.

$289 Million Verdict

The first in a series of lawsuits over Monsanto’s glyphosate based weedkiller Round Up has resulted in an award of $289 million for the plaintiff.  Like Bayer is quick to point out this is only one jury and one verdict, which is subject to review and appeal.  There are many reasons to believe this amount could be reduced or eliminated altogether.  It’s clearly enough to make investors nervous, but might not be a serious issue for Bayer in the long run.  We’ll have to wait and see how this develops.

Divestment of Assets to BASF

Bayer themselves identify the unexpectedly large sale of $9 billion in assets to BASF as one of the reasons for falling earnings.   In part this probably comes out of their ‘fake news’ Glyphosate ECI here in Europe.

In the lead up to Monsanto-Bayer merger, a suspiciously funded European Citizens’ Initiative was launched to remove glyphosate as an unpatented product from the EU market.  Through the ways I describe in the link above, I was able to see it was completely staged.

The issue was Bayer had a competing patented product called glufosinate, marketed under the name Liberty or Basta.  Bayer was trying to remove glyphosate because it was cheap and generic formulations were available.

I wrote some letters to Dutch and EU politicians, alerting them to these things.  After I wrote these letters, the EU launched an investigation into the then pending merger between Monsanto and Bayer.  As a result of this investigation, it emerged Bayer had an entire agricultural chemicals unit dedicated to making chemical analogues of glyphosate, and glufosinate was one of these.  Bayer was clearly planning to combine Round Up Ready technologies of Monsanto with their own chemical variations of Round Up, and create even more herbicides and herbicide resistant crops.

The EU then required Bayer to sell it’s entire agricultural chemical unit to BASF, as a condition of the merger between Monsanto and Bayer.  The US justice department later required even more assets be sold to BASF.

The announcement that glyphosate was to be removed from the EU market was also pretty sudden, and farmers did not have enough time to plan for this.  This would have created an unusually high demand for Bayer’s alternative patented herbicide products.  It was agreed to extend the licensing of glyphosate for a few more years, in order to reduce the impact on farmers and allow competing organic products to be developed.

This is really how politics is supposed to work.  It’s an example of politicians being responsive to citizens, and doing what they can within the rule of law to make things better.  It’s the kind of thing that happens behind the scenes, that we don’t always hear about.  We should all be very happy with the way this turned out.

Bayer’s Shareholders

What reason do the Bayer shareholders give for loss of confidence in the company?  Some are pointing to a lack of direction in the company.  Bayer has been unable to give a clear statement on the way forward, and what their new products will be.  It seems at least in the short term their business model has been disrupted.

Other Comments

EU Parliamentary elections are around the corner.  Everything that transpired above was with ‘normal’ politicians.  If I had to deal with politicians from populist parties, it would have probably all been a lot harder.  I think mainstream politicians in Europe have learned a hard lesson from the last parliamentary elections, Brexit and the populist parties that are coming into power around Europe.  I think they are trying harder now.

I want to work constructively with whomever comes to power, and never choose one party over another.  I hope however that when readers of this blog vote, they choose candidates with a constructive agenda.

Posted on

Why I’m Against the Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI)

The OSSI is a mechanism to facilitate the privatization of the world’s agricultural biodiversity.  It’s no different from what the US Seed Savers Exchange and similar organizations have become.  It’s a tool of the wealthy and powerful families who use it as a way to promote division in those who work with biodiversity, and then to spread fake news to replace reality.  It’s an extension of the vision some social studies academics have, and it’s purpose is a place for us to occupy in the future they’ve designed for us.

In the US OSSI takes the form of a fairly innocent pledge, but elsewhere in the world it’s a legally binding contract with wide ranging consequences.

Nothing to do with Open Source

As someone who has a number of years experience working with Open Source software, let me be clear that OSSI is something completely different.

First of all there is no source with open source seeds.  This is a really important difference.  Seeds are not software.

Open source software can be modified and sold, and the programmer can retain the rights over their own enhancements.  The legally binding version of OSSI in Europe is all encompassing, and also applies to all enhancements or future developments.  Any plant breeder who works with OSSI material looses rights of control over their own material.

Open source software is available to anyone, even those to don’t agree with or accept the licensing terms.  OSSI seeds cannot be legally transfered without a binding contract, and those who do not accept the contract may not legally use the seeds.

Open source software exists in an environment where downloads are always free over the Internet.  This is not the case with seeds, which require physical ownership, and are not always free.  This means not everyone necessarily has access to the material for a reasonable price.

The philosophy of Open Source software concerns what you are allowed to do.  Pretty much the only thing you aren’t allowed to do is claim ownership over it.  The philosophy behind the legally binding OSSI is that you must share it, and don’t have the right to keep it privately in your own garden if you choose.  This is perverted and wrong.

The Real Purpose of OSSI

The worlds genetic resources are being privatized, with some falling into private hands.  This can create a situation where some of it is not usable, or possibly not usable by everyone.  For example, maybe a plant breeder has discovered a gene that no one else has, and decides to only let a small number of farmers grow it.  Suddenly this could be a major marketing advantage compared to a company like Monsanto-Bayer.  The purpose of OSSI is to legally require all genetic material be available to the larger agricultural companies.

Under the terms of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, genetic material generally has to be transfered from one party to another by means of a legally binding contract.  Unless you have access to fairly extensive legal advice, developing these contracts is beyond the means of most people.  In addition, maintaining the administration and business aspects is generally beyond the means of a single farmer or plant breeder, and mostly has to be done within organizations and cooperatives.

For many people, legally speaking, the best option is to simply collect biodiversity and not share it with anyone, barring a few exceptions.  OSSI undermines this option.

The Social Studies Angle

It seems strange this issue would come down to social studies academics.  Most of us have no contact with this discipline.  Most of us were unaware while they were busy writing and implementing the CBD, and it’s now been adopted by almost every country on the planet.

Jack Kloppenburg, the founder of OSSI, has a sociology background which is part of social studies.

I don’t think the world or the seed movement needs our future planned and laid out by any one or any group.  I don’t think many people would willingly participate.

What Can We Do?

This isn’t an easy question to answer.  Certainly some of us are employed by OSSI or other social studies initiatives.  Everyone needs an income to survive.

Starting an independent initiative is increasingly difficult.  It’s not possible to start something like the Seed Savers Exchange Kent Whealy and his wife Diane did in their living room in 1975.  You are immediately up against a great deal of money and people who want to maintain control over the situation.  The reality is we need to get used to doing our own thing, under the radar of these organizations.

Certainly an important part of working with biodiversity is being very careful about accepting (shrink-wrapped) contracts and terms and conditions with seeds.  These are becoming increasingly important.

I think this is going to be a topic of discussion for a long time.  I welcome any comments anyone has, either as a public comment here or privately via the contact link on this blog.

Posted on

Biodiversity and Democracy

Old Paradigm

The old paradigm was a battle between civil society (us) and the food industry (them).  On both sides were agricultural scientists, playing an active role in both advocacy, and practical matters like plant breeding and food science.

I think many people are still thinking in this way, but the situation has become a lot more complex in the last few years.  I posted the other day about the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which is the privatization of biodiversity.  This has really changed the playing field quite a bit.

New paradigm

The new paradigm looks something like this.  Agricultural scientists no longer work on behalf of the food industry or civil society, but rather via the social studies academics.

I have posted before about the mechanism of fake news.  Beyond fake news, the academics in this paradigm are actually involved in rewriting history as well as designing future societies for us to live in.  Here in the Netherlands for example is the International Institute of Social Studies (http://iss.nl) in The Hague, and the associated publication The Journal of Peasant Studies.  They continue to be active in a very distorted version of Dutch history, especially surrounding WWII, and they promote a very racist version of Dutch society in which only white Dutch people are entitled to make decisions and have valid opinions.  They are actively researching and analyzing culture and traditions surrounding traditional agriculture, and are working to impose their own version of this on society at large.

Social studies academics and wealthy families have been working in the background for a number of years, taking over civil society organizations like The Seed Savers Exchange in the US, activist organizations in Europe and elsewhere like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, even creating new organizations like Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI).  Their goal is to make it impossible for any independent organization to exist that might challenge their goals.  Backing them is the unlimited funding of the world’s wealthiest 1%.

One of the most common type of NGO I encounter is one that claims to have a particular goal, but in fact is working in the opposite direction.  For example, recently I posted about fake news and mentioned a US organization from the 1980’s called Partnership for a Drug Free America.  While they claimed to be against drugs, this wasn’t true.  In fact we now know they were funded by the tobacco and alcohol companies, and their goal was to get young people to stop using illegal drugs and instead use legal ones.

One organization like this is Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO, http://corporateeurope.org/) whose stated goal is “is a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.”  You can imagine what the opposite of this is.  In fact they are a well funded organization that offers their services to the highest bidder.  Financial disclosures on the Internet suggest they turnover about €5 million per year, and this clearly isn’t helping society at large.  In fact much of this money goes into lobby efforts which support Europe’s wealthy families, as well as NGOs like Greenpeace which promote a very perverse sense of what’s normal in society.  By having such a stated goal, and virtually unlimited funds, they can keep out any organization that may truly have these goals.  They also have access to politicians ostensibly to lobby for their stated goal, but behind the scenes they can have private meetings with politicians where different ideas are expressed.

Because the social studies academics have virtually unlimited funds, in fact they and some of their partner organizations and groups are employers and other sources of funding for many well intentioned activists and others who work with biodiversity.  Actually, I hardly know anyone working in biodiversity who isn’t financially dependent on this part of the new paradigm.

What’s also happening is things are going wrong at many levels.  I mentioned some of these in my recent post on CBD.  Until recently many of the social studies academics and wealthy families were working quietly behind the scenes.  Because things are going wrong, many of them are coming out in a more visible way, in order to take charge and try to get things working again.

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.