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

Lies About Air Quality, Around the World

I’ve written before about the EU air quality directive, which is completely lacking in real science and focusing on the wrong things.  While I appreciate clean air, and dislike any sources of pollution in our environment, I also dislike lies and don’t think it’s necessary for people to have to spend extra money on useless technology.  In addition, right now carbon emissions and global warming are more important than any other type of pollution, and I dislike the way air quality is being conflated with greenhouse gases.

Rice Fields

Recently it’s been possible to see the way similar lies are being told around the world.  It’s not obvious the way agriculture, and in particular burning rice fields, impacts air quality.  Growing rice generates a great deal of straw.  There’s no question returning this straw to the ground is the healthiest solution for the environment, but it’s also the most expensive.  For a long time now various solutions have been explored, but in today’s need for the cheapest possible food, the only real practical solution has turned out to be burning the straw in place after the rice is harvested.

Rice also grows in specific areas.  It’s generally grown in flooded paddies, and it can’t tolerate northern latitudes.  It also can’t be grown too far south where the climate would be too tropical and there would be less water.  It’s usually grown in slightly mountainous areas, so the water can be captured as mountain snow melts, then released to flow downstream.  It’s a major crop in Asia, and the most populated part of Asia is in areas like this.

When Paradise Burned

I live now in Amsterdam, Netherlands.  It’s a little bit of a coincidence, but before living here I lived in Paradise, California, and before that in the nearby community of Chico, California where I was a student.  Paradise has been in the news recently because it burned down, together with the surrounding area in what is known as the Camp Fire.

Before I lived in Paradise and Chico, I lived in several parts of the Bay Area, where I moved after growing up and going to High School in the Chicago area.  I remember when I moved to the Bay Area in autumn how acrid the air seemed — like something was burning.  I had never encountered that before.  Growing up in Chicago I lived through the period pollution controls were introduced on cars and leaded fuel was phased out, and the Bay Area seemed to have a very different kind of pollution.  The Bay Area is known for it’s air pollution, and all car owners at the time had to get their cars regularly tested for emissions.

When Paradise and the surrounding area burned, the smoke caused serious pollution in the Bay Area.  I thought it was a little strange that no one seemed to question why this happened.  These two areas are about 5 hours driving distance from one another, and there are other populated areas around.  Why did the majority of the smoke seem to blow into the Bay Area?

Air Quality in Paradise and Chico

When I lived in Paradise and Chico, the air was generally clean.  The one major exception was in the autumn when they burned the rice fields.  This area is a major rice area, one of the largest in the US.  As is the case in many agricultural and rice areas, the farmers have a lot of political clout.  They were allowed to burn their fields, and everyone else had to accommodate this.  The farmers were given a schedule, to prevent air quality from getting too bad.  Other people, like gardeners who wanted to burn their garden waste, had to get special permits and weren’t allowed to have fires when there were air quality issues.

So where did all this smoke go, and isn’t it logical the air currants were similar to when the Camp Fire took place?  Isn’t it logical to think this was the acrid smell I encountered when I first moved to the Bay Area?

Another study showed about 29% of the air pollution in the Bay Area came from China. China is a major grower of rice. Even though this particular study concerned a particular lead isotope, it’s a clear indication that smoke from rice fields can travel long distances.

If pollution in the Bay Area comes from other sources, clearly doesn’t even smell like car exhaust, why all the lies? Why is it necessary to constantly blame cars, diesel engines (but ignore diesel trucks) and other obviously incorrect sources, but not talk about agriculture? Diesel especially, how can it be there are so many diesel trucks, but for some reason it’s bad to drive a diesel car? How could anyone think anything can be accomplished by driving an electric car?

Vacation to India

While Paradise was burning, I went on holiday to the only place in the world with worse air quality than the Bay Area.  I went to New Delhi, India.   I went expecting to find a congested and polluted city, which I did, but it wasn’t completely what I expected.

Air pollution has been a problem there for a long time.  In addition, Indians have something of a culture of believing what others tell them.  For example the problem of farmer suicides is well known, and at least part of this is Monsanto selling them seeds promising huge harvests and big profits, which turn out not to be true.  Recently in the news has also been lies spread on social media resulting in mass violence.

In Delhi it’s clear all the advice has been taken on how to solve the problem of air pollution.  Except for a few old timer cars, nearly all the vehicles on the road are reasonably new with modern pollution control systems.  Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is very popular there.  Except for a few old 2-stroke models, nearly all the tuk-tuks are electric.  One old smoky diesel truck passed me while I was there, otherwise none of these were visible.  Even many of the streetlights were LED.  We arrived just after Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, and there were signs this had been enthousiasticly celebrated at least in part with low energy light bulbs.  There didn’t seem like there was very much left for the people of Delhi to buy. 

On the sides of the streets, no pollution from cars was obvious.  The air was very polluted, and in particular there was lots of dust everywhere, but little if any pollution from cars.

If you ask almost anyone in Delhi they will tell you the air pollution comes from the nearby rice fields being burned by the farmers.  If you take a train in almost any direction from Delhi, you will travel through the burned out landscapes or see the clouds of smoke hanging over the fields.

If you read the newspapers you will read about all the solutions from the politicians.  No round the clock construction, only dawn to dusk, in order to minimize dust.  Plans for the introduction of odd-even days for driving according to your car license plates, with exceptions for CNG and lady drivers, because walking in some areas can be dangerous for women.  There’s really a major disconnect between the politicians and reality.

Many Other Problems with Burning Rice Fields

Air quality is only one of many problems that go along with burning rice fields, and only one reason it’s not a sustainable practice.

Desertification is a major problem all over the world in agricultural areas.  It’s what happens when the ground is overused and basically turns to dust.  This dust by itself is probably a significant contributor to Delhi air pollution.  If rice straw is returned to the ground, either by composting and spreading or just turning it under the ground, it will build up the soil and add humus, which will counter desertification.

Rice straw, as with almost any agricultural product burned in the fields, is very high in volume and almost pure carbon.  When it’s burned it releases very large amounts of both air pollution with many particulants, and greenhouse gases.  These greenhouse gases would be sequestered if incorporated into otherwise healthy ground.

Rice straw being high in carbon is also needed to bind with sources of nitrogen pollution, like animal manure, in order to prevent this from polluting the environment.

Conclusions

Of course we can’t stop growing rice tomorrow, but there are a lot of possibilities for doing it more sustainably.  We need to stop entertaining lies about air pollution and global warming, and get serious about the underlying reasons and solutions to problems.

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

The War on Seeds

Nagoya Protocol Article 15.1:

“Each Party shall take appropriate, effective and proportionate legislative, administrative or policy measures to provide that genetic resources utilized within its jurisdiction have been accessed in accordance with…”

The world hasn’t faced something like this since the War on Drugs.

In other words, if you live in one of the more than 100 countries that have implemented the Nagoya Protocol as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), you are subject to potentially unlimited penalties for misuse of genetic resources.  Use of genetic resources can include seed saving or amateur plant breeding.  Misuse can include improper administration of the ownership of the seeds, if you are following the appropriate terms and conditions of use, and if you have paid the appropriate royalties.

It’s also widely accepted that the administration that goes along with maintaining or transferring seeds and other genetic resources between two parties is so legally complex, it’s often beyond the capabilities of an average person.  I don’t usually pay a lot of attention to Wikipedia, but in their explanation of the Nagoya Protocol (text subject to change), as a criticism, they mention:

Criticism

Many scientists have voiced concern over the protocol, fearing the increased red tape will hamper disease prevention and conservation efforts, and that the threat of possible imprisonment of scientists will have a chilling effect on research. Non-commercial biodiversity researchers and institutions such as natural history museums fear maintaining biological reference collections and exchanging material between institutions will become difficult.

In other words, even natural history museums aren’t completely sure how to exchange material with one another anymore, and this uncertainty is backed up with possible imprisonment for getting it wrong.  This is likely to impact a large number of scientific disciplines.

In addition, every time genetic resources change hands a new set of administration is generated, and in the case of breeding work involving crosses the administration of the parent lines is passed on to the progeny.  Restrictions, terms and conditions get passed on in their entirety, and royalties are divided proportionally according to the percentage of genes in the resulting crosses and their respective ownership.

In order to continue to work with biodiversity, seed saving, plant breeding and so on, for most people, it will be necessary to do it as part of a larger organization or cooperative that can manage the administration and commercial negotiations surrounding it.

If anyone does continue working on their own, the most likely scenario is that they will not want to trade seeds with others.  This means they will not be able to use material like OSSI seeds, because legally these must be shared with others on request.

Winners and Losers

The profit potential is clear.  If you own genetic material, you own the building blocks for agriculture.  It’s like owning real estate, everyone needs a place to live, and there’s lots of profit to be had in speculating and being a landlord.  Those who are successful stand to make a lot of money.

The devastation is also clear.  We saw what happened to the US Seed Savers Exchange.  Some scientists are also stopping or changing their areas of work.  With respect to this blog, I can also see a sharp decrease in interest in biodiversity and seed saving over that last several years, especially in Europe.  A lot of people are simply moving on to doing other things.

Scenario One:  The implementation of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol is successful.

In this case, if seed saving is going to survive in the countries covered by these treaties, it’s going to have to evolve and become more business oriented.  Everything is going to surround private collections of genetic resources and coalitions of collections.  It’s likely a group or groups of seed savers will come together and try to organize an alternative to what’s been collected in Svalbard and genebanks worldwide.

There are countries who are members or non-members of the different treaties.  For example the US is a member of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), but not CBD.  Mexico is a member of CBD but not ITPGRFA.  The link above shows what countries are a member of the Nagoya protocol.  Over time it will be possible to work out the different combinations of membership, the consequences and possibly some loopholes.  There will also be court cases, and the treaties themselves may change.

There is a lot of work here for those who are inclined to do this.  Be sure to read what I wrote a few days ago over this.

Scenario Two:  These treaties fail or partly fail.

Many things are not going well for those trying to implement CBD and Nagoya.  There is a shortage of funding and a lot of opposition.  The CBD was conceived about 30 years ago, and the world has changed a lot in the meantime.  I think there is a real possibility of everything falling apart.

There are some pretty serious consequences that go along with this scenario too.  Svalbard and the global network of genebanks is already having funding issues, and has not been generating as much income as expected.  If these treaties actually fail, there’s no obvious alternative funding.  The worldwide seed movement is really going to have to pick up the pieces and start from the beginning.  Not just seed saving, but all disciplines impacted by the CBD.

This could be made a lot worse, if there was a long period of uncertainty or a prolonged failure.

What You Can do to Help

It’s bad timing that we seem to be having a lull in interest in biodiversity and seed saving.  Regardless of which of these two scenarios we have to deal with, we all need to mobilize in the right way as quickly as possible.  It’s important we stay motivated, and keep doing whatever it is we are doing.

Whatever you can do to stimulate interest in biodiversity would be a good thing.  If you have a blog, write about it on the Internet.  If you have a garden, then grow, save and share heirloom seeds.  If you want to learn something, then teach yourself or find someone who can help you.

Even if you’re just a consumer or another unrelated professional, just talking about biodiversity and spreading the word can really help a lot.

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.