current issue home => from the ground up archive

Seeds of Frightening Change Originally published in the October 1999 issue of the Co-op News. by Rosemary Fifield, Education Director. American Vegetable Grower is a publication with a title that defines its audience. It is a mainstream magazine written for the conventional farmer, and as one might expect, many of the ads are for insecticides, herbicides, and post harvest chemicals. Recent editorials have displayed great disdain for the Food Quality Protection Act, which requires the EPA to define pesticide risks and to eliminate from the market those pesticides that have been shown to cause cancer or other health problems. The magazine’s pro-agrochemical bias was evident in a recent article entitled: “Disease Strikes New Mexico’s Pepper Crop.” The writer stated that 80% of New Mexico’s chili pepper crop was in danger of being destroyed by curly top virus, a disease that causes the peppers to dry up and curl on the plant. The report concluded with the following statements: “Extension agents have yet to determine why the crop was so susceptible – as crops across the border experienced nearly identical weather conditions without damage. The fact that Mexican growers have access to pesticides that are banned in the U.S. is one possibility.” One possibility, perhaps. But among the possibilities that the writer declined to mention is that the crops successfully grown in Mexico may be better suited to their environment. Survival of the Fittest Plants that thrive in a given area do so because they are resistant to local diseases, have adapted to the weather and the soil conditions, and often have developed natural protective mechanisms against indigenous pests. They go on to successfully produce seeds for the next generation of strong, healthy plants, and the species survives. Over the centuries, this natural selection process has been aided by farmers who save seeds from the best specimens to plant the following year. It follows that these plants represent the individuals most well-adapted to the vagaries of the region in which they have been cultivated. When growers rely on big seed companies to provide them with the latest hybridized seed technology, there is a trade-off. Seed companies are looking for sales across an entire nation. They are also looking to accommodate those seed buyers who purchase in volume. Big seed companies are not interested in tomatoes that thrive in cool, New England climates, when the majority of commercial tomato growers are in California or Florida. Furthermore, commercial growers want tough tomatoes that will withstand being shipped cross-country. They’re not interested in flavor; they need durability. They need a variety that can be mechanically harvested and will endure long periods of storage and transportation. And they need lots of that variety’s seed, because they’re going to be planting the same crop over acres and acres of land. Unfortunately, when farmers plant only one variety—a practice known as monocropping—they risk loss of the entire crop if it is exposed to a disease to which that variety has no resistance. Why, then, are they surprised when 80% of their crop succumbs to a virus? Yet biodiversity and the practice of seed-saving both face an ominous threat. Who Owns Nature’s Seeds? For several years, giant agrochemical conglomerates like Monsanto, Dupont, and Dow Chemical have been buying up crop seed companies—the suppliers of seed for commodities like corn, wheat, soy, and cotton. Meanwhile, a Mexican billionaire named Alfonso Romo has acquired enough vegetable seed companies to prompt The Wall Street Journal (January 9, 1999) to note that 40% of all vegetables sold in the U.S. are grown from seeds owned by Romo. If this doesn’t frighten you, it should. This handful of individuals and transnational corporations intends to own, and control, all the seeds that produce food and fiber for the world. If successful, they will decide which varieties remain available to farmers and home gardeners and which do not. They will have sole control over seed genetics, including maintaining or destroying the natural genetic diversity that, over the millennia, has allowed grains, vegetables, and fruits to survive pests and disease and to adapt to varying environmental conditions. They will bioengineer those seeds for resistance to the weed killers they manufacture, as Monsanto has done with Roundup Ready soybeans, in order to force farmers to purchase their herbicides; and they will be able to charge whatever they please for the seeds of life that once belonged to all mankind. By phasing out conventional seeds and replacing them with genetically modified versions, these few companies will be able to patent seeds. Once patented, the seeds then qualify for protection from seed-saving gardeners, farmers, and third-world growers through the genetic alteration known as “Terminator” or “Traitor” technology. Developed by Monsanto in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, this technology will render seeds sterile unless they are activated by the company’s own chemicals. In doing so, they will have usurped, for themselves and their personal profit, the gifts of nature that were once given to us all. The Cost of a Seed Monopoly In early 1998, when the USDA sought public input on allowing genetically altered crops to be classified as organic, over 250,000 Americans responded with a resounding “no.” Ironically, at the same time that the USDA is assuring the public that the National Organic Standards will not allow genetically altered foods to be considered organic, Monsanto and others have the potential to limit or eliminate the availability of non-altered seeds. And the USDA actively participates in the development of seed-sterilizing technology. If you believe agrochemical giants are genetically altering seeds to create more nutritious foods or to feed starving nations, and therefore need to have their patented seeds protected, you have been duped by the media and by those who will gain from the fortune to be made by controlling the world’s seed supply. Denying seed-saving capability to poor farmers in developing countries has nothing to do with saving the world’s hungry. Likewise, Monsanto’s stated intention to have 100% of U.S. soybeans converted to Roundup Ready technology by the year 2000 does not benefit anyone except those who make or sell Roundup. Perhaps you don’t care about organic food production, and you find it difficult to identify with the woes of starving people you never see. You feel that no one you know is falling ill from overexposure to Roundup, the FDA says genetically altered foods are safe to consume, and the news that pollen from genetically altered corn kills Monarch butterfly larva has little impact on your daily life. Then consider this: your basic rights are in danger of being usurped. Your right to eat a tasty tomato that’s fresh, ripe, and fragrant could be lost if Monsanto decides that farmers will grow the Flavr Saver tomato, a tasteless, genetically altered tomato designed to last for weeks in the Produce aisle without spoiling. When biological diversity is lost and farmers are forced to grow only the few strains that have been chosen for their profitability rather than for their sustainable characteristics, entire crops will be vulnerable to disease, ecological disasters, and changing environmental conditions. Many of your favorite foods may become prohibitively expensive or simply unavailable. Finally, when pollinators like bees and butterflies succumb to the unexpected side effects of a technology that tinkers with the essence of life itself, your world and the world of your children will be irretrievably altered as flowers, trees, bushes, and food production suffer from the lack of these vital participants in the cycle of life. Science fiction? Hysterical hype? Commodity farmers who save large amounts of seeds need to have them professionally dehulled and cleaned of weed seeds, broken kernels, and other debris. Monsanto is now seeking to push regulations through state legislatures that would require seed cleaning companies to keep records and samples of all seeds submitted to them by farmers and to test those seeds for genetic alterations. Monsanto could then keep track of who is saving seeds and what they are. Meanwhile the extra cost of storing, record-keeping, and testing could put small seed-cleaning operations out of business, making it more difficult for the farmer to find seed-cleaning services, thereby discouraging the practice of seed-saving. When that happens, we will be losing more than a supply of chili peppers for our next bowl of salsa.