|
Protecting
Free Market Choice or
Developing Natural Resource Management?
Author Matt Dillon
reflects on the missing ingredient at the discussions
in Rome.
The genetic resources of plants are a living
natural resource fundamental to the health of
humans and the ecosystem at large. While we can
place values on such a resource, modify it to
increase these values and build systems of commodification
and distribution, we cannot fabricate natural
resources on our own. We are dependent on vast
historical time and environmental development,
with humans as one factor in that development.
Our modern plant genetic resources are a combination
of “wild” evolution, ten thousand
years of farmer-based selection, hybridization
and the recent advent of genetic engineering.
To discuss coexistence in terms of consumer choice
and free market rights is to narrowly view seed
as a human created, commodified input. It is a
dangerous oversimplification that will only lead
to the continued erosion of this resource.
Seeds were the last natural resource to have
been commodified, in part because the mechanism
for production (or the factory) was contained
within the product (vis-à-vis reproduction
and seed saving). With recent innovations of hybridization
and genetic engineering, and subsequent patenting
of plant material, corporations gained the ability
to control production. Commodification is not
the “ill”, but rather the lack of
consideration that has gone into a system to manage
the resources. We need to develop plant resources
to feed ourselves, just as we are dependent on
harvesting products from oceans or forests.
But we lack the development of ethical, legal,
ecological and human health strategies in plant
resource management, lagging far behind other
fields of resource management (such as forest
or water resources). What are the far reaching
implications of valuing corporate rights over
resource management? How does the release of genetically
engineered material affect the evolution of a
living resource? Scientists, governments and regulators
do not have a unified approach to research or
regulation of genetic resources. In the United
States, the EPA, FDA, USDA and US Patent Offices
all have some degree of power when it comes to
approval of GE technology. But they are not communicating
together, much less considering the far reaching
implications of coexistence with other production
systems. Add an increasingly globalized and consolidated
economy with international trade agreements that
have the potential for overruling state or federal
regulations, and we increase the risk of further
degradation of this resource.
Forestry management professionals are realizing
that replanting trees in a clear cut is not the
most sustainable way to manage a forest; that
forests are more complex than the sum of the species
that inhabit them and cannot be reconstructed
as such. They are also learning that the value
of a forest is greater than the materials that
can be extracted and modified for human consumption.
Those of us in agriculture might learn from them
that preventing degradation is the optimal situation.
The natural systems that provide us with resources
can be altered only so much before they reach
a critical point at which no amount of self correction
or human restoration will stop an erosive momentum
in system health. The
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety recognized
the value of prevention. The Protocol reaffirmed
the application of the Precautionary Principle,
the ecological equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath,
and set a baseline for discussion of genetic resource
management.
Coexistence cannot be planned, regulated or successfully
implemented until we fully analyze the ethical,
biodiversity, economic, ecological, sociological
and human health impact of any technology that
affects the resource. We need an integrated and
honest approach to regulation, research and investments
in the development of this resource. The issue
in the end is not “how” differing
production systems will coexist, but “if”
we will develop responsible policies to manage
a resource that is fundamental and finite.
|
|
|
 |
Back in June
Matt Dillon, Executive Director of the Organic Seed Alliance,
called and offered to cover the 1st World Conference on
Organic Seed in Rome. He described it as a unique event—the
first attempt, ever, to bring GM and organic seed representatives
together to address issues of coexistence. I’ll warn
you now: This first piece is not chock full of detailed
strategies for protecting organic seed from GM contamination.
But it is a fascinating peek at the first organized effort
by two mortal enemies to at least talk about how they might
coexist. In what is undoubtedly a poor metaphor, it’s
kind of like being there when Palestinians recognize the
right of Israel to exist, and Israel accepts a two-state
solution.
Matt is well qualified to give the events of this conference
their proper perspective. He has been involved for decades
with the conservation and development of seed resources,
first as a seed farmer, then as Executive Director of the
Abundant Life Seed Foundation. A year ago the ALSF reorganized
itself as the Organic Seed Alliance (OSA), with a stronger
emphasis on farmer education, seed research and the charitable
distribution of open-pollinated seed. As Executive Director
of the Organic Seed Alliance, Matt manages its education,
research and World Seed Fund programs. He is currently overseeing
a regional seed education program which is a collaboration
of state agricultural universities, seed industry professionals
and organic farmers. For more on OSA, visit www.seedalliance.org.
Next month, Matt will continue his coverage of the
Rome conference by looking beyond the conference workshops
to a grassroots coalition of farmers, educators, scientists
and activities who came together during the conference and
drafted a bill of rights for farmers that they think will
be sorely needed in a future world of coexistence.
--NF
Posted August 17, 2004: The “First
World Conference on Organic Seed”, organized by IFOAM,
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), and The International Seed Federation (ISF), brought
together over 260 participants from 57 countries to explore
issues pertaining to the production of organic seed. The overall
conference goals were broadly described as creating scientific
and technical dialogue between the conventional and biotech
seed sector and the organic movement, as well as an evaluation
and possible harmonization of differing regulatory requirements
in the area of seed. The three organizing bodies certainly
also held their own specific agendas, but there was one subject
that they all agreed needed to be addressed - genetic engineering.
|
Event organizers expressed fears that
the session optimistically titled “Coexistence of
Organic and GE Agriculture” would degenerate into
name calling, a world wrestling cage match of “Eco-terrorists
vs. Gene Jockeys” or “Luddites vs. Mad Scientists”. |
|
The topic of genetic engineering is unavoidable in a meeting
between the organic movement and international seed trade,
but what the organizers wanted to avoid was, “a full
out riot”, as one FAO representative put it. Prior to
the event organizers expressed fears that the session optimistically
titled “Coexistence of Organic and GE Agriculture”
would degenerate into name calling, a world wrestling cage
match of “Eco-terrorists vs. Gene Jockeys” or
“Luddites vs. Mad Scientists”. The session moderator,
Mahmoud Solh of FAO’s Agricultural Production Division,
began by stating that FAO views coexistence as “inevitable”
and that this was an issue of “not if, but how”
we would coexist. Solh attempted to create additional guidelines
for discussion by pointing out that this was a scientific
and not a political discussion.
One can only imagine that Mr. Solh meant the session would
approach coexistence of these distinct production systems
from the biophysical sciences as opposed to social sciences.
Regardless, the session’s seven panelists delivered
presentations that were a collision of political (regulatory),
economic (consumer choice and GE seed industry concerns),
and social (calls for improved communication) and for the
most part were grounded in opinions as opposed to scientific
data. Noticeably lacking were reports on issues such as pollen
drift, crop specific risks of contamination, economic data
on loss of seed crops from coexistence contamination to date,
issues of intellectual property and breeder rights, or reports
of damage to organic foundation stock seed.
The gap in the reports presented is in part due to the fact
that there are few such studies, and certainly none that are
long term and integrate a multidisciplinary approach to examining
coexistence. But there is also the question of disagreements
in research methodologies and outcomes. For example, reports
on pollen drift in corn vary drastically, and the data often
seems to work in alignment with the agenda of the organization
disseminating the data. At a conference organized by three
entities who all serve very different constituents, one can
imagine that there would be difficulty and politicization
in the selection of presentations. Nonetheless, the organizers
were brave to make a stab at a topic that is so loaded with
absolute sentiments if lacking in objective studies.
The Presentations
Birte Boelt of the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences
followed the moderators opening remarks with a presentation
on the process of creating a Danish bill on the coexistence
of GE and non-GE crops. The working group that helped draft
this first of its kind legislation concluded that “zero
thresholds of contamination are not achievable” and
so acceptable threshold values must be defined. The Danish
bill calls for crop specific controls that include separation
distances and cropping intervals as well as supporting increased
communication amongst farmers. Unlike a German law that is
still pending approval, the Danish bill does not have clear
protocol for financial reimbursement to farmers whose fields
are contaminated by GE pollen. The German bill in consideration
would allow a farmer who suffers contamination to seek compensation
from their neighboring farmers who have planted GE crops.
|
As the US produces more GE crops than
all other nations combined as well as having the largest
amount of organic acreage, there are already issues and
strategies in place regarding coexistence, and the audience
would have benefited from some overview of these. |
|
Chip Sundstrom, conference representative for the American
Seed Trade Association (ASTA) and California Crop Improvement
Association, called for better notification to organic producers
when GE crops are produced within a specific area. He noted
that this would in all likelihood not occur as GE crop producers
have a “fear of bio-terrorist acts” and called
on the agricultural and environmental communities to respect
GE farmers’ production choices. Unfortunately, as the
sole US representative from the organic community on the panel,
Sundstrom failed to address the specifics and stuck to safe
generalizations of “better communication.” As
the US produces more GE crops than all other nations combined
as well as having the largest amount of organic acreage, there
are already issues and strategies in place regarding coexistence,
and the audience would have benefited from some overview of
these. As an organic certifier, chair of ASTA’s organic
working group and a chosen panelist, Sundstrom must have experience
in this area and yet he gave no details regarding the US experience
of coexistence. Making the point that radicals cause GE crop
producers to live in silent fear may have been a successful
conciliatory gesture, but it failed to represent the organic
seed community.
The two representatives from the biotech industry were Reinhard
von Broock of the German company Lochow-Petkus (research in
sugar beets, rye, rape and potatoes) and Roger Krueger of
Monsanto. Both shared a similar stance that coexistence was
an issue of consumer and producer rights. Reinhard began by
arguing that GE presence is not a risk, but rather “It
is merely unwanted” and went on to call for a threshold
of 0.9% GE presence in seed stock as acceptable, arguing that
any lower threshold would be too expensive to control. Reinhard
recognized the recent emergence of GE Free Zones and offered
an alternative, “I would suggest the opposite: Why not
set up areas in which farmers declare that they would be willing
to plant GE crops?” but noted that this could only occur
“in an atmosphere of understanding and trust”
and made the accusation that “a minority tries to poison
the atmosphere to prevent fair talks and in the end, coexistence!”
Fred Kalibwani of IFOAM-Africa identified the key differences
amongst “informed stakeholders” as being in part
due to a “paradigmatic clash” between modernists
and post-modernists. Kalibwani’s critique at first seemed
a strange approach, a somewhat rambling discourse on intellectual
constructs, but he grounded it with an examination of the
biophysical and social sciences as well as underlining the
different issues amongst nations of the North (technologically
dominant) and South (technologically dominated). He ended
with a call for moving forward that included consensus building
amongst stakeholders, the application of the Precautionary
Principle (Scientific Uncertainty + Suspected Harm = Precautionary
Action) and Polluter Pays Principle. In closing Kalibwani
called for “Agriculture that is principle based.”
|
Beatrix Tappeser of the German Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation declared that given the
current gaps in knowledge regarding coexistence, prevention
of contamination is the optimum method for insuring freedom
of choice...She called for a ban on GE products in centers
of crop origin. |
|
Representing the American Seed Trade Association and Monsanto,
Roger Krueger argued that this is an issue of farmer and consumer
choice and that, “Coexistence is about the existence
of safe and approved production methods…not the exclusion
of systems.” Krueger called for approaches to coexistence
that are case-by-case and that “must be flexible, enabling
practical options for the seed industry” and said that
coexistence is already successfully occurring. He declined
to answer any questions pertaining to his ideas of “successful”
coexistence and how that fits with Monsanto’s lawsuits
against farmers whose seed stock have been contaminated by
Monsanto genetics such as the much covered Percy Schmeiser
case.
Beatrix Tappeser of the German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation declared that given the current gaps in knowledge
regarding coexistence, prevention of contamination is the
optimum method for insuring freedom of choice. Tappeser views
this as pragmatic from both a genetic and economic point of
view, as contamination will have high costs for producers
and major impact on genetic conservation. She called for a
ban on GE products in centers of crop origin.
Ranjith de Silva from the Sri Lankan farm and education project
Gammi Seva Sevana began his presentation with remembrance
of learning the golden rule as a child, “Love thy neighbor
as thy self.” Speaking of seed as a common resource
of local communities with farmers as custodians of the essential
resource, Ranjith asked “Can we bring new innovations
without harming our neighbor?” He called for a process
in which farmers have voice in decision making and for policies
that protected on site genetic conservation without risk of
contamination from harmful technologies. Ranjith ended his
presentation by answering his earlier question with an indictment
that brought applause from many in the audience, “This
system (GE) is damaging our diversity.”
"This system
(GE) is damaging our diversity."
--Ranjith de Silva,
Sri Lankan farm and
education project
Gammi Seva Sevana
The Response
It would be euphemistic to say that a discussion ensued.
The audience bombarded the panel with comments and questions
and received mostly, “next question” in return
so that the conversation became one amongst the floor with
little panelist participation. The pending German rule and
the recent Danish bill were criticized by several members
of the audience for its potential of creating hostilities
amongst neighbors in small rural communities. Michael Sligh
of RAFI-USA pointed out that the GE crop producer is only
leasing the patented seed, but would be forced to “own”
the liability. Like Kalibwani, Sligh suggested a “Polluter
Pays Principle” with the patent holder owning the responsibility
for compensation. He noted that it is impossible to trace
contamination to a particular GE crop producer’s field,
but that genetic markers in GE crops allow us to trace the
source directly back to the patent holder - the seed company.
Alternatively, representatives from the International Seed
Federation attempted to downplay the contamination issue.
In one such attempt to appease contamination concerns, Orlando
de Ponti, who works with the Dutch company Nunhems in biotech
vegetable seed research and represented the ISF as a moderator,
declared that “We have the technology to re-purify contaminated
seed stock.” Questions then arose as to who would pay
for crop testing or the possible re-purification of this seed
stock, and how this would work in a legal climate in which
crops with contamination from patented genes are confiscated
by the patent holder. These questions and many others, hung
unanswered as the moderator went on to the next raised hand.
|
When does accepting thresholds
become a compromise that alters the consumers’
faith in organics?
"‘Almost Organic’
is what happens when you don’t have a zero threshold."
--Felicia Echeverria,
National Organic Agriculture Program
Costa Rica |
|
Acceptable thresholds of contamination were also hotly debated.
If we accept 0.9-1%, what then? Is this a firm ceiling or
as contamination increases will we be forced to reexamine
these numbers and create new acceptable thresholds? What was
the basis for these numbers? When does accepting thresholds
become a compromise that alters the consumers’ faith
in organics? “‘Almost Organic’ is what happens
when you don’t have a zero threshold” said Felicia
Echeverria from the National Organic Agriculture Program in
Costa Rica. Echeverria, and many others, questioned why the
organic community was forced to bear the burden of the coexistence
compromise, and wondered how the organic consumer would react
when organic product identity is comprised by contamination.
In hallway conversations many participants questioned the
apparent consensus among organizers on the inevitability of
coexistence (“not if, but how”), particularly
asking if this was in reference to all crops or only those
in which a GE variety has already been released on the market.
In a post-conference interview, Zadok Lempert, Executive Director
for IFOAM commented on inevitability, “It is inevitable.
Although we (IFOAM) do not agree with their (GE industry)
approach, we cannot erase them from the planet and so we must
discuss coexistence.” Many participants came thousands
of miles to have such a discussion, but avoiding questions
in an attempt not to have the conversation turn “political”
(a term, I believe, that Solh used to mean “disagreeable”),
left these participants feeling ignored.
Zea Sonnabend of CCOF/OMRI said that while she had low expectations
of any real progress during the session, she was nonetheless
frustrated by the apparent refusal to engage in the difficult
aspects of dialogue, “The moderation was the weakest
part of the session. He refused to pass questions on to the
panelists.” Similar criticism came from Carolyn Lane,
manager of crop production and director of seed operations
for the Minnesota based Northland Organics, “I would
have liked to have heard more from the panelists”. Carolyn
was particularly dismayed that questions were passed over
regarding contamination of foundation and breeding stock seed
and the damage of organic intellectual property by GE intellectual
property.
The sense of being ignored was heightened by the choice of
panelists. While representatives from, not one, but two GE
breeding/seed companies were on the panel, there was a bizarre
absence of a chair for the organic seed trade - and yet organic
seed production was the focus of the conference. What do the
organic seed companies whose germplasm is at risk from contamination
think of coexistence? The organizers simply did not prioritize
this importance in their selection of panelists, and although
they had explanations for the complicated process of selection,
the omission is difficult to fathom. Carolyn Lane offered
examples of Maury Johnson (NC+ Organics, organic corn seed)
and David Vetter (organic corn farmer) as two organic seed
producers who have already been affected by the challenges
of coexistence, and who would have added to the integrity
of the panel. A recently released Organic Farming Research
Foundation survey found that 48% of the farmer-respondents
had a moderate to high concern of contamination of organic
seed stock from GE crops. Certainly organic farmers have something
to say about coexistence.
|
"It is inevitable. Although
we (IFOAM) do not agree with their (GE industry) approach,
we cannot erase them from the planet and so we must
discuss coexistence."
--Zadok Lempert
Executive Director
IFOAM |
|
The criticisms of this session were not criticisms of the
conference as a whole. Most of the attendees that I spoke
with were quite pleased with the event, but frustrated by
a session that was bound to be highly charged. People were
also grateful for the information gained and that the organizers
had provided this opportunity. Amy Nankivil, also of Northland
Organic, appreciated “everyone coming to the table with
their own issues.” She also felt that the conference
as a whole was a good start, a sentiment echoed often.
Nadia Scialabba, a member of the FAO steering committee responded
to criticisms of both the moderator and panel selection in
a post-conference interview. She expressed her own disappointment
in Solh being “a bit too cautious” and agreed
that “critical questions were stopped.” She did
point out that FAO is an organization accountable to its member
governments, and that this put Solh in a “straightjacket”.
“All governments, even those that are pro-organic, do
want biotechnology,” said Scailabba in explaining that
FAO must work to serve divergent interests. As to the make-up
of the panel, Scialabba believes that there was no intent
to ignore the organic seed or production industry and that
it was more likely an oversight. Personally she also wished
that the conference would have been able to address issues
of breeding and intellectual property rights as an aspect
of coexistence. The FAO has done some work in the area of
intellectual property, Scailabba noted, but much of this work
has not seen the light of day because of “governmental
pressures to block it.” The “Draft Code of Conduct
on Biotech” was created in 1992, over a decade ago,
and yet has not received further attention or release, bound
in another political straightjacket.
Looking Forward
The presentations, if not a full spectrum approach, were
certainly a compromise that resulted in a lively and important
debate that will no doubt continue. Stakeholders from both
the GE and organic community recognized that trust is a major
stumbling block. In this regard, the organizers felt successful
in having even begun the discussion. IFOAM’s Lempert
was glad that the event went off “without any tomato
throwing” and believes that the FAO and the ISF gained
faith in IFOAM as a partner for future discussions, “We
showed that we are non-militant - open to exchange of ideas.”
FAO’s Scialabba praised an audience that was “respectful
even in their differences” and expressed relief that
there were “no riots”.
Scialabba pointed to other measures of success, “The
private sector (seed industry) realized that there was another
reality. They perhaps don’t always respect the others
(grassroots organics) as scientific, but they recognized them.
Also, the hard core organic people were less aggressive by
the end.” She also noted that this conference was the
first time that the chairman of the FAO had declared coexistence
as inevitable, and that this was a major shift. In discussions
amongst the organizing bodies immediately following the conference,
the FAO agreed to take the leadership role in facilitating
how these distinct systems can “develop without encroaching
on each other.” Scialabba is at work to develop a mechanism
for future discussions that will allow a reflection of differing
opinions. In September she will assist in the establishment
of a network of seed industry and organic sector collaborators
that will begin to discuss and prioritize case by case studies
of coexistence. She has her work cut out for her, in that
as she pointed out, the FAO is accountable to governments
and these governments are influence by constituents with seed.
As for FAO taking the lead, IFOAM’s Lempert said that
he was particularly pleased that the FAO had agreed to take
over the leadership of future meetings and sees it as the
way forward. Forward into a straightjacket? Forward into a
collision of perspective? Will FAO be able to truly hear the
voices that do no have the backing of large governmental powers?
Is this the gamble that the international organic movement
wants to take?
Outside of the future collaborations of FAO, ISF and IFOAM,
a coalition of farmers, educators, lawyers, scientists, policy
analysts and activists emerged during the conference with
a vision of future steps. Taking the name, “Community
Seed Network” they loosely defined themselves as a group
representing principles of “farmers’ rights”.
In the hours following the closing session they drafted a
document expressing their vision of the next steps on the
issue of coexistence. This included six specific points of
respect that must be achieved in order for coexistence to
be achieved. A future article will examine the formation of
this international coalition and share their conclusions.
|
