| One
hundred fifty years ago the United States did
not have a commercial seed industry; today we have the world’s
largest.* Some view
this as real progress, a form of genetic Manifest Destiny. A
nation once a ‘debtor’ in plant genetics now supplies
the world. In 1854, seeds were sourced in the U.S. by way of
a small number of horticultural seed catalogs, farmer (or gardener)
exchange, on-farm seed saving, and through the beneficence of
the United States government. Specifically, beginning in the
1850s, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (PTO) and congressional
representatives saw to the collection, propagation and distribution
of varieties to their constituents throughout the states and
territories. The program grew quickly so that, by 1861, the
PTO had annual distribution of more than 2.4 million packages
of seed (containing five packets of different varieties). The
flow of seed reached its highest volume in 1897 (under USDA
management) – with more than 1.1 billion packets of seed
distributed.
The government’s objectives in
funding such a massive movement of seed stemmed from the recognition
that feeding an expanding continent would require a diversification
of foods. To the early colonies, the introduction of wheat,
rye, oats, peas, cabbage and many other vegetable crops was
as critical to food security as was the adoption of the corn,
beans and squash. Immigrants were encourage to bring seed
from the old country, founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson
engaged in seed-exchange societies, and by 1819 the U.S. Treasury
Department issued a directive to its overseas consultants
and Navy officers to systematically collect plant materials.
To the early colonies,
the introduction of wheat, rye, oats, peas, cabbage
and many other vegetable crops was as critical to food
security as was the adoption of the corn, beans and
squash. Immigrants were encourage to bring seed from
the old country
The first commercial seed crop was not produced until 1866—cabbage
seed produced on Long Island for the U.S. wholesale market.
The industry flourished to some degree, but early seed trade
professionals felt their growth was stymied by the U.S. government
programs as well as the self-replicating nature of their product
(that is, the factory contained within that product). In 1883,
the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) formed and immediately
lobbied for the cessation of the government programs. The
organization developed powerful allies, such as Grover Cleveland’s
Secretary of Agriculture, J. Sterling Morton, who wrote that
the government giveaway was “antagonistic to seed as
a commodity-form and in direct competition with the private
seed trade.” But the program was very popular with constituents,
and the USDA’s seed budget was kept intact – at
one point counting for a full 10 percent of the agency’s
overall annual expenditures.
In the early part of the 20th century, the first wave of
hybrids began to provide seed companies with a potential increase
in product profitability (as farmers would now need to return
to the seed distributor for materials each year). However,
most of the hybrid development was occurring at Land Grant
Universities, and these universities refused to give the companies
exclusive rights to the seed. Once again, the industry felt
its growth hindered by federal programs and complained of
unfair trade practices. Mounting data also indicated a slowing
in yield increases from seed developed in government programs.
The industry used this last point to strengthen its argument
for the privatization of seed development in order to foster
greater food security.
In 1924, after more than 40 years of lobbying, ASTA succeeded
in convincing Congress to cut the USDA seed distribution programs.
The USDA still supported breeding at the state agricultural
schools, and for a time these programs continued to compete
with seed companies by developing ‘finished’ commercial
varieties. Associations such as the American Society of Agronomy
and American Society of Horticulture Science eventually convinced
the public programs that their appropriate role was in training
plant breeders, performing fundamental research, and creating
raw materials and technologies for private industry to capitalize
on. The LGUs began to increasingly serve in this capacity,
developing inbred parental lines and breeding stock that the
seed trade would use to create proprietary varieties.
These changes in the public role, along with improvements
in hybrid techniques, led to the growth of the seed trade
following World War II. The trade was well represented during
this period by regional companies. The conversion to monocropping
and large-scale corporate agriculture had not yet moved into
full swing. The Santa Clara Valley grew vegetables and fruit
and not internet startups, and Americans still planted their
Victory Gardens. The seed trade reflected this diversity in
food production.
In a few short years,
there were billions of dollars in mergers and acquisitions—with
little to no regulatory oversight . . . . No other natural
resource (marine, timber, minerals) has ever shifted
from public to private hands with such rapidity, such
intensity of concentration, and so little oversight.
In the 1960s, a few larger seed firms began to purchase smaller
companies (mostly to acquire strong hybrid holdings). But
the consolidations of this period were minor compared to the
frenzy that would come with a Supreme Court ruling on June
16, 1980, in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Prior to
the Chakrabarty decision, a plant (or animal) could be owned,
but the genetics could not. This case cleared the patenting
of life forms on the bases of their genetic coding. The PTO
granted more than 1,800 such patents following the ruling.
Companies that had no historical seed interests—primarily
chemical and pharmaceutical firms—began purchasing seed
companies. In a few short years, there were billions of dollars
in mergers and acquisitions—with little to no regulatory
oversight—creating for the first time a majority ownership
of plant genetics by a few multinational companies. No other
natural resource (marine, timber, minerals) has ever shifted
from public to private hands with such rapidity, such intensity
of concentration, and so little oversight.
The Immediate and the Future
“There is a direct threat to our food system when we
have a preponderance of genetic resources controlled by institutions
whose only goal is profit,” plant breeder Frank Morton
expressed emphatically when asked for his perspective on the
Monsanto acquisition. He went on to compare the present with
the past, “When these services [breeding and production]
were diffused amongst many individuals and groups with diverse
motives, we had a much more diverse and healthy food system.”
Diversity and competition have historically made for healthier
economies as well as ecologies. Ecological and economic systems
have another thing in common; as one group abandons a niche,
it leaves room for others to move in and utilize it. Many
of the seed company representatives and breeders I spoke with
felt that the organic community can and should develop a less
centralized seed system. Steve Peters, seed procurement manager
for Seeds of Change, shared his firm’s vision: “Part
of our strategy is to go into neglected markets and respond
to these needs. We want to offer true organic alternatives;
this means we not only pay attention to the regional needs
but also have a different approach to breeding – building
new alliances in crop development. We’re not chasing
single-gene resistance but looking at horizontal resistance
in traits like Downy mildew in spinach.”
Adaptability has historically been an integral part of the
organic movement– responding to customer inquiry and
opinion, personal service (a face on the food), localized
and decentralized – all traits that help make the organic
sector healthy and promote its vigorous growth. “The
organic seed world is where the organic produce market was
twenty years ago,” said veteran organic grower and seed
producer Nash Huber. “Produce quality wasn’t always
so great then, but we worked it out and now are better than
the conventional systems. The potential in seed is that the
customers – we farmers – will see that, in the
long run, an organic seed trade will serve us.” Farmers
like Huber are investing in the organic seed trade. He works
as an educator in the Organic Seed Alliance’s WSARE
organic seed production trainings, is leading a participatory
plant breeding project with the Alliance, and produces seed
for the organic seed trade as well as his own on-farm use.
Carrots are the main cash crop on Huber’s 400-acre farm,
and he produces 80 percent of his own seed to insure quality
and availability. “I can’t afford to have a company
drop my source,” he explained.
“The organic
seed world is where the organic produce market was twenty
years ago . . . The potential in seed is that the customers
– we farmers – will see that, in the long
run, an organic seed trade will serve us.”
Seed companies and farmers are not alone in their rising
to meet the need for changes in the seed world. In 2003, more
than 70 university breeders, representatives from farmer-based
NGOs, and policy specialists met at the “Summit for
Seeds and Breeds for the 21st Century” in Washington,
D.C. The breeders who represented a diverse set of crops,
from schools that have traditionally served clients of large-scale
Green Revolution style agriculture, called on each other to
“reinvigorate public breeding” to meet the needs
of organic and sustainable agriculture. The group will host
a full-blown conference in Ames, Iowa, in September 2005.
While the seed consolidation trend seems to have reached
a particularly dark moment in the Monsanto-Seminis acquisition,
it may also serve to fuel a momentum in the developing organic
seed community. The issues are immediate and fraught with
complexity; the answers are long-term and require commitment.
Said C.R. Lawn of Fedco, “We need to keep working on
creating a farmer breeding community. But this is long, slow
work. You find and replace varieties one by one. You work
slowly in the direction you want to go. Seed work is slow
work.” 
go
to the latest Organics in the News: Monsanto buys Seminis
>>
|
