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.

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.

Tripadvisor and Fake Reviews

I’ve just been on holiday to India.  Trying to use TripAdvisor for hotels and other information was a completely new experience this time.  Normally I prefer TripAdvisor over booking.com, because while both generally let you say anything you want, booking.com mixes so much marketing with the reviews that it’s too hard to identify places with significant numbers of negative reviews.  Even if I end up booking hotels with booking.com because it’s cheaper, I have been using TripAdvisor to actually choose the places.

The Fake Reviews and Profiles

Of course both TripAdvisor and booking.com are loaded with fake reviews, and it’s always been an issue identifying them.  Booking.com requires a booking before you leave a review, but if you are the owner of a particular hotel, it’s no problem to generate fake bookings, and then leave fake reviews.  Booking.com doesn’t seem to care about this kind of fake review, because of course they get a commission for every fake booking.  TripAdvisor has always been a bit of a sandbox, but since every user has a profile with a history of reviews, it’s a lot of work to create a credible profile to go along with every fake review.  Reviews where the user has only ever placed less than 5 reviews can easily be identified as probably fake, and any property that has a pattern of suspected fake reviews can also be identified as suspect.

Cheap Computer and English Skills

Visiting India was a whole new ballgame.  This is a country where many people have above average computer and English language skills, and labor is very cheap.  Unskilled labor costs about US$4 per day, and for a little more you can pay for full time fake review writing.  Also, if you’re a hotel and your staff isn’t very busy, you can ask them to create fake reviews in their spare time.

As I was planning my trip to India I encountered elaborately made profiles, with an extensive history of reviews.  There were positive reviews left by owners on their own properties, and negative reviews on competing properties.  I think everyone understands a new hotel may feel they need to write a few positive reviews about themselves to get started, but what I saw mostly went far beyond this.

In general I had to look for patterns like writing style that was the same, or possibly existing profiles with exactly the same number of previous reviews.  Sometimes cultural or language mistakes in reviews from countries I was familiar with.  In general, it just wasn’t possible to tell, and the sheer volume of fake reviews was often overwhelming.

Reviews About Fake Reviews

One of the only ways you can identify a property with fake reviews, is to actually go there and see for yourself it doesn’t match the other reviews.  It follows that you can then express this in your own review for that property, right?  Not so.

By way of fake reviews, I found myself staying at the Wood Castle Grand in Delhi, which at the time of making this post had 245 reviews on TripAdvisor and was ranked #9 out of 892 hotels in Delhi.  This hotel was not great, but okay.  Even though I am of the opinion that probably all 245 reviews are fake, I understand that the hotel is getting started, can’t do that without any reviews, and so has to write the first few reviews themselves.  In fact, as far as I was able to see, the hotel only had 2 functioning rooms, and simply didn’t have the traffic justifying 245 reviews anywhere.  I was there for 4 nights, and only saw one other visitor who was leaving just as I arrived.  I was there during what should have been the busy season for them.

In my review of this hotel, I didn’t want to be overly hostile, but I mentioned you should consider some of the reviews don’t seem right to me and may be faked.  TripAdvisor was very clear about this.  They rejected my review saying:

We don’t allow accusations that reviews are biased, suspicious or fake.

If you feel a review is suspicious, please use the flag / “Problem with Review” link, located at the bottom of each review, to alert our investigation team.

Flagged Reviews

Okay, if we’re supposed to flag suspicious reviews, let’s have a look at one of the things I’ve flagged in the past:  La Pizzateca Madrid

This place has no reason for a positive review.  There is just nothing here, and no reason for anyone to visit.  When we were there, they had only a few types of pizza slices, none of which were vegetarian.  We ordered a pizza, and it was disgusting.  Plastic chairs and tables.  They only have a few customers.

This is not rocket science, all anyone has to do is walk in there and have a look.  There are few more obvious examples of abuse on TripAdvisor.

At the time of writing this post they are #97 out of 10285 restaurants in Madrid, based solely on fake reviews.  After I left a 1-star review, there was a flurry of fake 5-star reviews, mostly from people who had only ever written one review in their lives, to compensate and bring them back up to what was at the time the 50th or so best restaurant in Madrid.

If this place is still there years after I flagged it, how seriously are we supposed to take TripAdvisor’s request to flag suspicious reviews?

End of an Era

While I can understand TripAdvisor’s position, not wanting to risk removing someone’s real review and claim it’s fake.  The one thing they used to have going for them was they never censored legitimate reviews.  That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

I’m really going to be in a quandary when it comes to my next trip.  Anyone have any suggestions on what should come next, after TripAdvisor?

Demands by Indian Farmers

I was in India recently on holiday and happened to read in a newspaper about demands being made by Indian farmers to their government:

1. The right to be free from debt
2. Because now many of their products are sold below the cost of production, they would like the government to establish the cost of production for all commercial crops, then establish a minimum sale price of 150% of this cost.

Obviously there are details to be worked out, but it makes you wonder why the world has such a hard time agreeing to demands like these that seem so reasonable.

Surely there’s some room for compromise here?

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.