|
Concerns with Contamination and Coexistence
Biotechnology, organics, and the natural resource of seed
The Roundup Ready Beet Lawsuit
An Organic Seed Alliance Perspective
Organic Seed Alliance (OSA) recently joined as plaintiffs in a lawsuit that challenges the USDA-APHIS deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets. As a nonprofit focused on education and research, litigation is an action that we were hesitant to take. After consideration and debate we choose to engage in the suit for multiple reasons. Concerns for organic seed integrity guided our decision, but there is a deeper, more fundamental principle at work, one that is beyond the interest of organics.
We have been working with seed producers in Oregon's Willamette Valley for almost thirty years, first as Abundant Life Seed Foundation contracting for seed production, and then as Organic Seed Alliance contracting with seed farmers for breeding projects and seed education. As such, we had historical interests, partnerships, and constituents that were endangered by potential contamination from this biotech beet. In addition to these organizational and historical interests, the OSA board and staff also felt that the integrity of organic seed systems, and as such the whole of organic agriculture, was endangered. Organic integrity requires organic seed integrity.
But we do not want this issue limited to concerns for “markets”. The genetic resources of plants are a living natural resource fundamental to the health of humans and the ecosystem at large. To frame contamination in language of consumer choice, product integrity, and free market rights carries with it the risk of reducing seed into a human created commodity, an input, a cog. It is a dangerous oversimplification that does little to halt the erosion of the resource. We can place values on all resources, build systems to add value, and increase distribution. But, what we cannot do is fabricate natural resources; they are not synthetics derived in laboratories. In order to reach the guiding principles of good seed stewardship we must expand our perspective of plant genetics from a commodity input, to that of an essential element within a complex ecological system of life.
Modern plant genetic resources are the results of the interplay of “wild” evolution, ten thousand years of farmer-based selection, recent Mendellian-based breeding (only in the last 100 years), and the even more recent advent of genetic engineering. Of those four conditions, it is the first two—evolution and farmer interaction—that are by far the most important contributors. Modern plant breeding has not given us any new crops. Broccoli, carrots, wheat, corn, squash, tomatoes, lettuce, oats—you will not find a crop that was not selected out of wild relatives by gathers and farmers with no concept of genetics. Gains in yield and disease resistance have occurred via classical plant breeding (using Mendel’s laws of inheritance, with no transgenic alteration), but these gains must also be seen in the context of improvements in irrigation, cultivation, and pest management practices. In the big picture of crop development, we are the beneficiaries of vast evolutionary time and the resulting environmental-genome interaction, with humans as one factor in that development, with farmers as the primary innovators throughout history, and with modern science a minor footnote; but a footnote attempting to make a giant—and dangerous—footprint through the application of biotechnology.
Plant genetics were the last natural resource to undergo commodification, in part because the mechanism for ongoing production (the seed) was a natural byproduct of growing the plant. When you bought the product it came with its own start-up factory. With recent innovations of hybridization and genetic engineering, and subsequent patenting of plant materials, corporations gained the ability to control the flow of production. But commodification in and of itself is not the “ill”; we need to develop plant resources to feed ourselves, just as we are dependent on harvesting products from oceans or forests. It would not serve us to abandon plant breeding, as there are modern breeders making excellent gains in crop improvement, breeders with an ecological approach to genetics with a foundation in classical plant breeding and an understanding of organic principles. Again, seed is an evolving resource—from weed to crop—and one necessary aspect of that evolutionary dynamic is human interaction. The “ill” comes from the poor choice to develop plant genetics for an extractive economy that views nature as something to be manipulated for short-term shareholder gains without concern for long-term ecological or social impact, which results in compromised and contaminated genetic resources and marginalized farmers and greater public. The alternative is to develop plant genetics for an ecologically complex, economically diverse, and locally based agriculture system.
Forestry management professionals are realizing that replanting trees into clear cuts is not the most sustainable way to manage a forest; they are learning that forests are more complex than the sum of the species that inhabit them and cannot be reconstructed by reintroducing all the parts that made the whole. They are also learning that the value of a forest is greater than the materials that can be extracted and modified for human consumption. The optimal situation is the prevention of system degradation. Protection is much less costly than restoration, and in any case “perfect” restoration remains only a theory, never a complete success in practice. More critically, the natural systems that provide us with resources can be altered only so much before they reach a tipping point at which no amount of self-correction or human restoration will stop an erosive momentum in system health that leads to collapse.
There are guiding principles from which we can start to develop a healthy long-term approach to the stewardship of seeds. The Good Neighbor Principle of English Common Law, continued in the Americas, is a simple starting point. When one neighbor violates the other’s freedom to operate, then a social and economic wrong has been committed. Justice calls for the compensation of loss, and the creation of adequate protocols (fences) to prevent future loss. The neighbor who has committed the injustice, (the “bad neighbor”) cannot engage in such activity until prevention has been addressed. If you can’t play nice, you can’t play at all. Additionally, we have the Precautionary Principle, the ecological equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath. It sets a baseline for discussion of genetic resource management that can be summarized as “do no harm”. As you can see, the two principles work quite nicely in concert. We feel these principles are not being followed in the case of Roundup Ready Beets, requiring us to participate in this lawsuit.
Again, this does not mean we cease to engage in plant breeding activities. Human life demands that we continue to breed new varieties to serve food and fiber needs. But need must be guided by vision and values. Investments in farmer-centered systems of breeding, seed production, and distribution are needed—guided by a vision of the value of local food systems. Breeding partnerships amongst farmers, the organic seed industry, and public institutions are needed—guided by a vision of shared purpose in supplying varieties that are resilient to a changing climate and decreasing available resources. Ethical systems of seed stewardship and development are needed—guided by a vision of seed as a common cultural heritage and a living natural resource fundamental to the sustainability of food production. It is with this urgency of need, and guided by these values, that Organic Seed Alliance acts, not only in this lawsuit, but in our ongoing seed education, research, and advocacy programs. We thank you for your support in these endeavors.
Matthew Dillon
February 7, 2008
|
|
