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

Gene Drives

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.

Posted on

More on OSSI, Clarity and Risks

Real Seed Catalogue in the UK

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.

Posted on

OSSI Follow-up, Seed Movement in General

In the past few weeks I’ve had some more thoughts about OSSI.  What I wrote about OSSI before was pretty stark, and I want to offer some ideas for the way forward for everyone.  No one has to read this blog, and no one has to do what it says.  I’m just trying to lay out the situation as I see it, so please do what you want with the information.

CBD and ITPGRFA

These two treaties, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) are causing a lot of problems now, especially as provisions of the CBD and associated Nagoya Protocol are coming into force.  The inherent greed of these treaties are causing problems for almost everyone.  If you’re in the US you’re in a special situation because the US is not a party of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol, meaning your seeds are very sought after.

The problems with the US Seed Savers Exchange were in part because the US was not a party to the ITPGRFA (the US is now a party to this treaty).  The ITPGRFA basically allows seeds to be stolen without the owners permission.  Because the US wasn’t a party to this treaty, it wasn’t as simple as just becoming an SSE member and requesting all the seeds, they either needed the permission of all the individual members or they needed permission of the management.  Kent Whealy refused to give this permission, so he was pushed out of the way.  He didn’t fully understand what was happening at the time, but was trying to explain it the best he could.

The CBD establishes rights of ownership over seeds.  It is the privatization of biodiversity.  If you live outside the US and buy a package of seeds you only have the right to plant and grow those seeds, not the right to save seeds or use the plants in breeding projects.  The situation is very different if someone who owns the seeds ‘gives’ them to you.  For this reason it’s now almost a requirement to transfer seeds with a contract, either attached to the package of seeds or buried in the terms and conditions of sale.

Exclusive ‘ownership’ of seeds is a valuable commodity, also in the US.

I’m not a lawyer, and the contents of these treaties are very complicated.  The largest private collections of seeds are owned by Kokopelli and Arche Noah in Europe, and they have lawyers busy working out all the consequences of the treaties on their collections.  I would guess over time these organizations and others will come up with some solutions.  In addition, I’m sure there will be court cases and other reinterpretations of the treaties, and the situation will change.  There is certainly a big fight ahead of us.

What Can you Do?

I hope very much these treaties will fail, and I believe they will eventually.  The issue is more how to manage the fallout and damage and, in the meantime, continue to work on saving biodiversity.

The cohesion of organizations supporting seed saving efforts is critical, and in many ways it’s hard to imagine the absence of this, but I think these days are gone.  Every organization of more than a few people will just be target for infiltration.  Every collection of seeds will be impossible to protect without the efforts of a dedicated lawyer.  I think it’s important to go back to the days of seed lists informally traded between friends, and in the US possibly seed companies offering their seeds over the Internet.  We probably have to explore the need for seed companies to have terms and conditions for their seeds, I don’t have a good answer for this now.

Written contracts, terms of use, SMTAs and pledges are all extremely important.  It’s very important you not sign anything, or otherwise accept any restrictions on any seeds you receive or give.  The OSSI seed pledge seemed innocent enough at the beginning, but turned out to be a problem.  It’s very important you don’t offer your seeds in any sort of exclusive manner.  If seeds do have restrictions or contracts, it’s important to keep track of these.  If there are future court cases, it’s important to know exactly how seeds have changed hands and what terms and conditions apply.  DNA analysis can easily establish pedigree, and can be compared to other seeds.  You aren’t doing anyone any favors for example by just ignoring the fact that seeds are OSSI or if you signed an SMTA, because this can be established with a DNA test.

Outside of the US, not keeping track of these contracts or the ownership of seeds is punishable on the level of the War on Drugs.  The CBD simply says the level of punishment should be sufficient to ensure compliance, limited only by your national constitution.  You have to wonder if their intention was to promote biodiversity or make profits.

Don’t willingly submit your seeds for DNA testing.  The fact is they will do this anyway, and there’s not much you can do.  I know of several examples in Europe where seeds are stolen for DNA analysis.  This usually results in the people or organizations involved paying the same price the Seed Savers Exchange did.

Avoid the resources of genebanks, and don’t pay more for biodiversity.  Already problems are occurring because people are not accepting SMTAs, and royalties are not being paid for the use of seeds.  Even requesting genebank resources as an individual contributes to this, because they are counting on you to use their seeds and pass them on to others without the knowledge that an SMTA was signed.  If not enough royalties are paid, the CBD and Svalbard will collapse.

Keep any seeds you have, and keep doing what you’re doing.  Being able to fight what’s going on depends on the information about seeds, and what sort of contracts have been signed, not the seeds themselves.  There are no bad seeds!  Hopefully we can fight these changes, and fully legalize all seeds again.  The best tactic for now is non-cooperation with authorities.

Be wary of Sociologists and Social Scientists.  Of course there are all kinds of people and not all of them are bad, but be particularly concerned if they ask you to give them all of your seeds.  There has been a lot of research in the last few decades concerning farmers and seed savers, and they know exactly how you think and what you expect.

Some Conclusions

If you gave your seeds to OSSI and they have been registered and DNA sequenced, they have been stolen.  You can possibly rectify the situation a bit by doing another final selection if you have some earlier generations.  If there is not an exact DNA match, you can release a new version of your variety to replace the old one.  In any case we should accept the situation and move on.

Certified Organic is not going to be a solution to global warming, and it’s not going to be the small, community or family farmer regenerative agriculture we need.  If your income or livelihood depends on certification, great go ahead, but you aren’t doing anyone any favors by otherwise promoting or participating with it.  Organizations like the Organic Seed Alliance and LIVESEED have some great people, but many of the fundamental principles behind them are flawed.  Work with the people, not the organizations.

At it’s peak Europe had about 50 seed saving organizations.  There are a couple of bad apples, but in general these all have great and dedicated people.  Kokopelli and Arche Noah are the largest, and both deserve your support.  If you live in the US, you can really help out by sharing your seeds with them on a non-exclusive basis, both the organizations and members.  Be sure to communicate with them any SMTAs, contracts or terms and conditions you are aware of.

I would be happy to facilitate a European organization that allowed seed savers in the US to try to market their seeds in Europe on an exclusive basis.  Along the lines of what OSSI was planning to do, but instead of being owned and controlled by the seed industry, and based on lies and fake news, one that was controlled and worked for the seed savers themselves, based on honesty and voluntary contributions.  If anyone is interested, get in touch.  In the meantime, you could look at Kokopelli and Arche Noah, and consider anything they might organize.  Anything like this is going to be problematic to say the least, but I would be happy to give advice and my opinions on it.