Los cultivos transgénicos no representan solamente una amenaza al medio ambiente y la salud. Además son un mal negocio, para cualquiera, salvo las seis trasnacionales dueñas de las semillas transgénicas a nivel global y algunos de los funcionarios y científicos que reciben prebendas para que ellas puedan continuar con sus ganancias.

En los últimos años se han publicado varios estudios independientes sobre los resultados económicos de los transgénicos, que convergen en demostrar pérdidas significativas para los agricultores. Greenpeace México publicó recientemente el informe Cultivo$ transgénico$, cero ganancias, basado en un informe elaborado por Edward Hammond, acrecentado y adaptado al contexto mexicano.

Esas pérdidas afectan directamente a los agricultores de varias maneras (semillas más caras, menor rendimiento, resistencia en insectos y malezas, mayor laboreo para deshierbe, juicios por contaminación, pérdida de mercados) pero también significan costos importantes que al ser absorbidos por instituciones públicas, se trasladan a todos.

Uno de los casos referidos es la contaminación con el arroz transgénico LL601 de Bayer. El departamento de agricultura de Estados Unidos detectó en 2006 que la contaminación con este arroz transgénico no aprobado para consumo humano, había llegado al suministro de alimentos. Ante el anuncio, inmediatamente cayó el precio del arroz estadunidense en los mercados de futuros, provocando una pérdida promedio de 70 mil dólares por granja arrocera. Japón y Europa cerraron sus puertas a la importación de arroz procedente de ese país. Pese a ello, se encontró contaminación en países europeos y luego de África y Asia, desde Filipinas a Ghana. El informe detalla las pérdidas que les significó a los agricultores estadunidenses, estimadas entre 740 y mil 290 millones de dólares en total, debido a caída de precios, pérdida de mercados y limpiezas de sus campos y graneros. Esos costos no incluyen los de pruebas de detección ni tampoco los gastos legales para demandar a Bayer, trámites que aún siguen. No se permitió una acción de clase (o sea, que el juicio contra Bayer fuera válido para todos los afectados, sino solamente para los que entablan el juicio). Bayer no explicó nunca cómo había llegado la contaminación a los alimentos y pese a que se le sentenció por su conducta laxa en bioseguridad, la empresa afirmó que había excedido los estándares de la industria para evitar contaminación y que ni las mejores prácticas pueden garantizar la perfección.

El caso debería ser aleccionador para México, porque aquí las empresas se comportarán de la misma o peor manera frente a la contaminación transgénica, que será inevitable si el maíz se siembra a campo abierto. Cualquier costo relacionado con la contaminación será automáticamente transferido a los agricultores y campesinos (que deberán afrontar cualquier costo legal por sí mismos). Seguramente habrá menor fiscalización que en Estados Unidos, porque los contaminados serán sobre todo campesinos y maíz nativo, que no es considerado valor monetario a proteger. Las empresas dirán que el problema de la contaminación en ningún caso es de ellos, porque el gobierno y los agricultores son responsable de las medidas de bioseguridad, no ellas.

Otro ejemplo tomado en el informe son los costos por la resistencia de las hierbas invasoras. Como la mayoría de los transgénicos son manipulados para ser resistentes a herbicidas, el uso de éstos aumenta considerablemente, generando resistencia en las hierbas que se pretende combatir. A nivel global, hay 16 hierbas que se han tornado resistentes a glifosato. El departamento de agricultura de Estados Unidos reconoce 9 como problema serio. El documento toma el caso del quintonil, una amarantácea que existe y se consume en México, prima hermana del amaranto blanco ampliamente difundido en el país, con el que se elaboran los dulces de amaranto. El quintonil es considerado hierba invasora en los cultivos industriales, en Estados Unidos se ha hecho resistente al glifosato (debido a los transgénicos) y ha invadido de tal modo los campos de algodón, maíz y soya, que en varias zonas, principalmente algodoneras, ya sólo se puede hacer deshierbe manual. Para los agricultores, significó pagar mayor costo de semilla, mayor costo por herbicidas (por precio y mayor volumen) y terminar haciendo o pagando el deshierbe manual.

En México además de los impactos sobre los agricultores industriales, significará arruinar junto al maíz al amaranto, otro de los cultivos nativos del país, esenciales para la vida campesina y elemento altamente nutritivo parte de la alimentación popular.

El reporte nombra varios otros ejemplos que dan una sólida muestra de las pérdidas económicas que significan los transgénicos. Otro informe publicado en 2010, titulado Quién se beneficia con los cultivos transgénicos, de Amigos de la Tierra, complementa el panorama.

Quizá se pregunte por qué los agricultores siguen cultivando transgénicos si dan pérdidas. En parte, porque los agricultores industriales no tienen semillas y dependen totalmente de lo que les ofrezcan las trasnacionales. Éstas controlan el mercado de transgénicos pero también el de las semillas comerciales. Prefieren vender transgénicos, porque cobran la semilla mucho más cara y pueden cobrar extra por otros rubros.

Adicionalmente, las empresas gastan decenas de millones de dólares anuales en influir a los gobiernos y reguladores a su favor. Según Business Week (21/6/10) sólo en el último trimestre de 2009 y primero de 2010, Monsanto gastó 4.99 millones de dólares en cabildear al gobierno de Estados Unidos. ¿Sería necesario si el producto fuera bueno?

*Investigadora de Grupo ETC

Publicado en La jornada, México, 31 de julio de 2010

Es grave e irresponsable el intento de FAO de legitimar los transgénicos como solución al hambre y la crisis climática en el tercer mundo, cuya expresión más reciente es la conferencia Biotecnologías agrícolas en los países en desarrollo (Guadalajara, México, 14 de marzo). Frente a las críticas que van en aumento, los funcionarios de FAO (Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura) declararon que la biotecnología es más que transgénicos y ellos sólo plantean opciones. Pero los documentos que coordinó la FAO para la conferencia no recogen cuestiones fundamentales sobre biotecnología, como el dominio de las empresas trasnacionales sobre todo el sector. Ignoran también los resultados a la vista del uso de biotecnología agrícola: la contaminación transgénica de las variedades campesinas, el aumento del uso de agrotóxicos de esos cultivos (que empeora el cambio climático) y otros impactos sobre el ambiente y la salud de los consumidores.

Si FAO hubiera querido realizar un proceso de discusión sobre opciones, no podría haber organizado una conferencia sesgada, sin la participación de los actores fundamentales, y desechando las posiciones críticas. Ahora, lo que hace la FAO es condonar la apropiación de las semillas y la cadena alimentaria del planeta que crece por parte de unas pocas trasnacionales de transgénicos, lo cual agravará el hambre y el caos climático.

La conferencia partió de un proceso errado desde el inicio: no estaban –y siguen sin estar– los campesinos y agricultores familiares y sus organizaciones, que son nada menos que los que producen la alimentación de la mayoría del planeta y son la clave más importante para enfrentar la crisis climática y alimentaria. Este rol fundamental de las campesinas, pastores, pescadores artesanales y otros pequeños productores ha sido confirmado con nuevos datos en varios reportes recientes. (Por ej. ¿Quien nos alimentará? Preguntas ante la crisis climática y alimentaria, del Grupo ETC www.etcgroup.org/es/node/4952)

Pero la FAO no se preocupó por esta notable falta, sino que consideró que invitando a una decena de individuos de organizaciones no gubernamentales internacionales cumplía con la formalidad participativa. La mayoría de esos invitados seleccionados por FAO son de organizaciones de las trasnacionales de la industria de los transgénicos (como Croplife y Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO) u organizaciones de grandes agricultores industriales y ONG e instituciones que son favorables o turbiamente ambiguas a los transgénicos. Como excepción, Pat Mooney, director del Grupo ETC, aceptó integrar el comité de pilotaje de esta conferencia, luego de mucha insistencia de parte del secretariado de la FAO que aseguró sería un proceso justo y neutral.

El 23 de febrero 2010, Pat Mooney, Premio Nobel Alternativo y uno de los más profundos conocedores del trabajo de la FAO desde hace 40 años, renunció públicamente a este comité, luego de constatar que en todo el proceso, la FAO nunca tomó en cuenta ninguna de sus observaciones y recomendaciones, pero sí usó su nombre para justificar ante organizaciones mexicanas que no les permitirían participar en la conferencia, pero que Mooney representaba sus preocupaciones.

Entre muchas otras ausencias graves en los documentos, una de las más ofensivas es el hecho de que aunque la conferencia se realiza en México, centro de origen del maíz, la FAO no se ha dignado incluir en el reporte ni pedir cuentas al gobierno mexicano sobre la contaminación transgénica de variedades nativas. Ni sobre la ya ocurrida ni la que ahora promete el gobierno con la aprobación de 24 siembras experimentales de maíz transgénico a favor de las trasnacionales Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer y Dow.

Uno de los principales organizadores de la conferencia, Shivaji Pandey, por décadas funcionario del Centro Internacional del Investigación Agrícola sobre Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT) ubicado en Texcoco, México y actualmente presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Biotecnología de la FAO, contestó con una breve y aséptica nota a las preocupaciones que dirigieron a la FAO más de mil 500 organizaciones de 70 países demandando que la FAO debía llamar la atención del gobierno mexicano ante la escalada de contaminación y restablecer la moratoria, por ser centro de origen del maíz. Pandey contestó con su mantra de que la biotecnología incluye muchas tecnologías, que tienen mucho potencial y los transgénicos sí, algunos riesgos, pero que en definitiva era un problema nacional. ¿Cómo puede un funcionario de la FAO considerar el centro de origen del maíz del mundo –siendo además uno de los cuatro principales cereales bases de la alimentación de toda la humanidad– un problema nacional?

No hay en los documentos para la conferencia ninguna mención a la gravísima contaminación transgénica en centros de origen y diversidad como México. Sin embargo, los mismos funcionarios de Cibiogem que en México aprobaron en forma irresposable condonar la contaminación trasgénica pasada y aumentarla para permitir el lucro de las trasnacionales, serán ponentes en la conferencia de la FAO ¡en el tema de bioseguridad! Seguramente no mostrarán las críticas que han recibido de más de 700 científicos contra la aprobación de siembras de maíz transgénico (www.uccsnet.org).

Mientras tanto, afuera, en calles, plazas y centros de Guadalajara y otras partes del mundo, habrá una gran variedad de actividades de la sociedad civil y organizaciones campesinas para denunciar estas falacias y defender, realmente, las alternativas campesinas que necesitamos para enfrentar las crisis. Definitivamente, no incluyen transgénicos.

Publicado en La Jornada, México, 27 de febrero 2010

I am leaving Montreal for the international summit tomorrow although the conference actually got underway today.  In between urgent emails over the weekend I found the time to take my ten year old daughter and two of her friends to see A Christmas Carol, a Geordie Theatre production of the Dickens classic.   The play was great but it was hard to keep my mind off what was going on in Copenhagen — plus Scrooge kept reminding me of Stephen Harper.

May the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future visit him in his sleep.  May he be reminded continuously for the next two weeks  – and far beyond–  of his appalling record on climate change, his indifference to the suffering people are already living in countries where crops, livelihoods, homes and infrastructure are being destroyed by the ravages of climate change.   May all Canadians read George Monbiot’s article before the next election!

Stephen Harper last week had this to say about the conference:

“The key to all this is not the setting of targets. It is actually the development and implementation of the technology that over time will make significant targets possible.”

These are the talking points we have been expecting from the Conservatives for some time.  This government has its head stuck in the tar sands and there is no way it will agree to meaningful targets on carbon emissions (which would mean tackling the tar sands) or meaningful money for adaptation (which would mean stop pouring good money after bad in Afghanistan).    A technofix is exactly what this government wants.   Not only is it pouring hideous amounts of money into carbon capture and sequestration and biofuels, but– we can anticipate that Canada, along with other governments will be championing a “Breakthrough on Technology” over the next two weeks.  In fact, a “deal on technology” might look good for lots of people — so we need to see what is behind that.

Unfortunately, if there is a breakthrough on technology it is likely to make a bad situation worse.   The draft negotiating text make much ado about “enhancing action” on technology  – but the chain of command is “research, development, deployment, transfer, diffusion” with nary a pause to stop and evaluate whether or not a particular technology is appropriate — or whether, like biofuels have proved to be — it will have side effects like hunger, poverty, land grabs and rising food prices.   That’s why we (ETC Group)  have worked to put together an international coalition of groups to call for assessment in the texts on technology.  See Lets Look Before We Leap

In Copenhagen we shall also be releasing two new reports — one on geoengineering and one on “Who Feeds the World”.   Both of these reports are in final stages of production so everyone is madly multitasking and editing trying to get them ready.

La Academia Americana de Medicina Ambiental (AAEM, por sus siglas en inglés), hizo pública en mayo 2009 su posición sobre los alimentos transgénicos. “Por la salud y la seguridad de los consumidores” llaman a establecer urgentemente una “moratoria a los alimentos genéticamente modificados y la implementación inmediata de pruebas independientes y de largo plazo sobre su seguridad”.
Llaman a los médicos “a educar a sus pacientes, a la comunidad médica y al público para evitar los alimentos genéticamente modificados”; a “considerar el papel de los alimentos transgénicos en los procesos de enfermedad de sus pacientes” y a “documentar los cambios en la salud de los pacientes cuando dejan de consumir alimentos transgénicos”. Instan “a sus miembros, la comunidad médica y la comunidad científica independiente, a recopilar estudios potencialmente relacionados con el consumo de transgénicos y sus efectos sobre la salud, y a comenzar una investigación epidemiológica para examinar el papel de los alimentos transgénicos sobre la salud humana”.
Una importante conclusión en la que basan su toma de posición es que, a partir de los múltiples ejemplos analizados, “hay más que una relación casual entre alimentos transgénicos y efectos adversos para la salud”. Explican que según los criterios de Hill (de Bradford Hill, ampliamente reconocidos académicamente para evaluar estudios epidemiológicos y de laboratorio sobre agentes que puedan suponer riesgos para la salud humana) “existe causalidad en la fuerza de asociación, la consistencia, la especificidad, el gradiente y plausibilidad biológica” entre el consumo de alimentos transgénicos y los efectos adversos a la salud.
Entre los efectos negativos, comprobados a partir de decenas de estudios en animales, mencionan “riesgos serios”, como infertilidad, desregulación inmune, envejecimiento acelerado, desregulación de genes asociados con síntesis de colesterol y regulación de insulina, cambios en el hígado, riñones, bazo y sistema gastrointestinal. Citan, entre otros, un estudio de 2008 con ratones alimentados con maíz transgénico Bt de Monsanto, que vincula al consumo de maíz transgénico con infertilidad y disminución de peso, además de mostrar la alteración de la expresión de 400 genes.
La Academia señala que ante la generalización del consumo de transgénicos, lo urgente es realizar estudios epidemiológicos. Esto es altamente relevante para el caso del maíz en México: aquí el maíz se consume cotidianamente en toda la población, por lo que los efectos de los trasngénicos en este tipo de alto consumo son diferentes y muchos más graves que lo que se puede observar en casos puntuales.
Una fuente citada por el documento de la Academia es el extenso libro Genetic roulette (Ruleta genética) de Jeffrey Smith, que documenta en forma minuciosa y con cientos de referencias científicas, 65 casos de efectos adversos de los transgénicos sobre la salud de personas y animales, incluyendo casos de vacas y ovejas que murieron en Alemania e India, luego de alimentarse rutinariamente con cosechas transgénicas. Este autor alerta que todos somos conejillos de indias para la industria biotecnológica –que ha podido liberar en campo e invadir los alimentos con transgénicos sin necesidad de probar su inocuidad para la salud humana en ninguna parte del mundo– pero que particularmente los niños y las mujeres embarazadas son las que corren mayores riesgos.
La asociación médica refiere también el reciente estudio de la Unión de Científicos Preocupados de Estados Unidos, que analizando 13 años de cultivos transgénicos muestran que éstos tienen menores rendimientos y que si hubo aumento de producción no se debió a transgénicos sino a manejos de tipo convencional. Introducen este análisis sobre productividad, para concluir que tampoco en este aspecto muestran ninguna ventaja, por lo que nada justifica el “serio riesgo para la salud en las áreas de toxicología, alergia y función inmune, salud reproductiva y salud metabólica, fisiológica y genética” que representan los transgénicos, por lo que lo único sensato es aplicar un estricto principio de precaución, estableciendo una moratoria total e inmediata.
A los riesgos que plantean los transgénicos en sí mismos, se agrega el aumento de uso de agrotóxicos y las enfermedades que éstos provocan (están diseñados para usar más agroquímicos, nuevamente no por casualidad sino por causalidad: los fabricantes de trangénicos, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer, Basf, son también los mayores fabricantes de venenos agrícolas del planeta).
La trampa está en la inversión de lógica que las trasnacionales han logrado imponer : en lugar de etiquetar con una advertencia a los alimentos que contienen agrotóxicos y transgénicos, obligan a que se tenga que separar, etiquetar y cuesten más caros los alimentos orgánicos y sanos.
La solidez de las posiciones argumentadas por la Academia de Medicina Ambiental contrastan con la supina ignorancia del secretario de Agricultura Alberto Cárdenas y otras autoridades gubernamentales que declaran –sin ninguna prueba de ello– que los transgénicos no son un riesgo para la salud. Igual que con los cerdos industriales de Granjas Carroll y otros grandes criadores. ¿Cuánta gente tendrá que enfermar o morir para que dejen de proteger –y subsidiar– las ganancias de las trasnacionales que crean las enfermedades?
Existen muchas alternativas para producir y alimentarse sanamente, que no implican riesgos, mantienen las fuentes de sustento para las mayorías, cuidan la biodiversidad, afirman la soberanía alimentaria y los derechos de los campesinos. Los transgénicos solamente crean riqueza para unas pocas trasnacionales, amenazando la salud de todos.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC
Publicado en La Jornada, 15 marzo 09
www.etcgroup.org

Posición de la AAEM en castellano:
www.biodiversidadla.org/Principal/Contenido/
Noticias/Alimentos_geneticamente_modificados

El 6 de marzo, el gobierno mexicano anunció que consideraba terminado (en todos los sentidos de la palabra) el marco legal de bioseguridad en México, abriendo las puertas a la experimentación con maíz transgénico. Un delito histórico, que marca la decisión del gobierno de enajenar y colocar en alto riesgo el patrimonio genético alimentario más importante del país.

Los funcionarios eliminaron de facto el establecimiento de un Régimen Especial de Protección al Maíz, al que están obligados por la Ley de Bioseguridad y Organismos Genéticamente Modificados, incorporando en su lugar unos cuantos párrafos en el reglamento de dicha ley. Como lo han argumentado sólidamente especialistas en la materia, esta medida viola la ley en varios puntos. (Alejandro Nadal, Maíz transgénico, funcionarios delincuentes, La Jornada, 11/3/2009).

Obviando la ilegalidad, los funcionarios argumentan que esta apertura es necesaria porque el maíz transgénico aumentaría la producción y además, no pondrá en riesgo las zonas que definan como centro de origen del maíz. Se trata solamente de experimentos, puntualizan, que serán evaluados antes de autorizar plantaciones comerciales.

Son argumentos falsos, empezando porque todo México es centro de origen y diversidad del maíz, entonces no debería haber maíz transgénico en ninguna parte. Pero fundamentalmente, ocultan la discusión sobre el punto nodal de los transgénicos. Todos los transgénicos están patentados y son propiedad de 6 transnacionales. Monsanto controla el 86 por ciento de éstos, y con Syngenta y DuPont-Pioneer, cerca del 95 por ciento. Un grado de concentración corporativa sin precedentes en la historia de la agricultura y la alimentación. Cuando hablamos de transgénicos, el punto de partida es la entrega de la soberanía alimentaria, dándoles la llave de toda la red alimentaria a unas pocas trasnacionales.

La falacia de que los transgénicos aumentan la producción, no se sostiene en las estadísticas oficiales de Estados Unidos, el mayor productor mundial de transgénicos. En promedio, los transgénicos han bajado los rendimientos. En el caso del maíz, la producción ha sido igual o casi imperceptiblemente mayor, pero como las semillas transgénicas son más caras, el productor siempre pierde, porque el supuesto aumento no compensa nunca el gasto. Las empresas arguyen que si fuera así, no seguirían plantando. La realidad, también basada en informes de la Secretaría de Agricultura de Estados Unidos, es que no pueden hacer otra cosa. Los agricultores han perdido sus semillas, y las mismas empresas de transgénicos controlan también el resto de las variedades no transgénicas. Aún cuando esas produzcan más, no las multiplican para la venta en suficiente cantidad, porque quieren vender transgénicos. La razón: son más caros, están patentados, la contaminación es inevitable (por viento, insectos o cadenas de distribución), y es detectable al tener genes extraños al maíz. Así pueden demandar a las víctimas de la contaminación por uso indebido de patente, una ganancia extra, y obligan a todos a comprarles semillas cada estación.

El argumento de que sólo es experimentación, es penosamente falso. Aún si los criterios de experimentación fueran muy estrictos (que no lo son), por ejemplo plantar en confinamiento o con muy extensas áreas de aislamiento, barreras de viento, retirar la espiga antes de polinizar, etc., ninguno de estos criterios se mantendrán en la siembra comercial. Los productores nunca repetirán esos criterios –son complicados, aumenta más los costos y el trabajo– y además la ley de bioseguridad no prevé ni avisar a los vecinos ni ninguna sanción real a quienes contaminen. Por lo tanto, llamarle experimental no es más que un eufemismo para la posterior plantación comercial sin ningún control.

Pero además, estamos en México, centro de origen del maíz, donde siguen viviendo en sus comunidades, millones de los campesinos que crearon la enorme riqueza y diversidad genética del cultivo, para bien de toda la humanidad. A la condena de dependencia económica y alimentaria, se suma la condena de la contaminación de la biodiversidad y del maíz campesino. Un hecho inherente a los transgénicos, comprobado en México y muchos otros países. Una vez en campo, el viento y los insectos no diferencian si es experimental o si no debieran polinizar otra planta: la contaminación es inevitable. Justamente al contrario de las cínicas declaraciones de Agrobio, agrupación de las multinacionales, de que Los activistas querían decidir por todos los agricultores mexicanos al rechazar la experimentación (Diego Cevallos, IPS 11/03/09), los transgénicos son los cultivos más imperialistas de la historia. Cualquier plantación de maíz transgénico, condena a corto o largo plazo, a todos los demás a la contaminación.

La absurda respuesta de los funcionarios gubernamentales es que también eso será un negocio: florecerán las empresas de detección –que públicas o no, para funcionar ¡deben pagar a las trasnacionales de transgénicos para usar sus genes!

Tanta falsedad contrasta con la sencilla verdad de los campesinos: tienen 10 mil años de experiencia en la creación y la resistencia y no piensan someterse a esta condena.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC
Publicado en La Jornada, 15 marzo 09

Una empresa semillera estadunidense presentó una solicitud para patentar las calabazas. ¿Suena a cuento? Lamentablemente, si la Oficina de Marcas y Patentes de Estados Unidos (USPTO) concede la patente US20080301830, la realidad habrá superado nuevamente a la ficción.

La empresa Siegers Seed Company, con base en Michigan, Estados Unidos, pretende lograr el monopolio sobre todas las calabazas que tengan alguna rugosidad (como verrugas) en la cáscara. Esto comprende muchísimas de las calabazas de mayor consumo en el mundo. La solicitud fue publicada el 4 de diciembre 2008, y aún no ha sido finalmente otorgada, pero pone al descubierto lo arbitrario y absurdo del sistema de patentes.

Siegers Seed Company presentó 25 puntos reclamando el monopolio sobre estas calabazas. Por ejemplo, sobre las que tengan una o más verrugas que cubran de 5 a 50 por ciento de su superficie y todas las que tengan determinadas formas, medidas y colores de esas rugosidades. También reclaman el monopolio sobre variedades específicas (Cucurbita maxima y Cucurbita pepo) que tengan verrugas, lo cual incluye las calabazas anaranjadas, el zapallo, calabacín, calabaza italiana, calabazas de cubierta dura (jícaras) y otras. Los reclamos abarcan la planta entera, la semillas y el tejido de cualquiera que cumpla con esas condiciones. Por si fuera poco, la solicitud también reclama que este monopolio se aplique a los predios donde cualquiera de estas calabazas se encuentren presentes de 10 a 75 por ciento.

Una patente no es más que un pedazo de papel en el cual una oficina de patentes concede al solicitante el monopolio exclusivo de un “invento” por 20 años –y la fuerza legal para ejercerlo. Para ello, el solicitante tiene que demostrar que lo que intenta patentar es nuevo, es inventado y tiene utilidad industrial. Las calabazas, zapallos, calabacines, etcétera, o sea todas las cucurbitáceas, tienen centro de origen en México y otras zonas de América del Norte. Han sido adaptadas desde hace 10 mil años, con enorme diversidad –que por supuesto incluye las rugosidades de la cáscara– por las y los campesinos e indígenas de esa región, proceso que continúa hasta nuestros días. Por lo tanto, todos los reclamos de Siegers Seed Company no son más que clarísima y ramplona biopiratería. El Grupo ETC y otros, incluyendo cultivadores y vendedores de calabazas en Estados Unidos, han enviado numerosas evidencias a la USPTO demandando que no se otorgue esta patente. Lo lógico sería que la USPTO la denegara, por tener una amplia historia de “arte previo” –así se llama cuando algo no es nuevo ni inventado, en la jerga del sistema de patentes.

Sin embargo, aunque parezca absurdo, hay riesgo de que la USPTO otorgue esta patente. Baste recordar otro caso similar: en 1999 concedió a Larry Proctor, en Colorado, Estados Unidos, una patente monopólica sobre los frijoles amarillos mayocoba, llamados “Enola” en la patente. Pese a que era obvio y existe abundante documentación mostrado que esos frijoles son una variedad campesina desde hace cientos de años, Proctor obtuvo la patente e inició demandas contra cualquiera que intentara venderlos en Estados Unidos, asestando un certero golpe económico a todos los exportadores mexicanos de ese frijol y a los importadores en el país vecino. El año pasado, se logró, luego de años de denuncias públicas y varias engorrosas y costosísimas demandas, que la USPTO declarara nula esa patente, pero aún podría haber una apelación de parte de Proctor. Mientras tanto, escudado en la injusticia, viene ejerciendo el monopolio de mercado sobre estos frijoles amarillos desde hace 10 años, la mitad del tiempo de validez de una patente que nunca debió existir. Siguiendo el mismo camino, aún sin tener la respuesta final de la USPTO, la Siegers Seed Company ya envió cartas a productores de semillas de calabaza, reclamando su monopolio.

Son sólo dos ejemplos, particularmente claros, entre miles de casos de biopiratería sobre semillas, plantas, microbios y conocimiento indígena sobre ellos. Lo que ponen de manifiesto es que el sistema de patentes en totalidad y de origen, está construido para favorecer a los privatizadores, legalizando el robo social que implica toda forma de patentamiento. Todas las formas de conocimiento (todas las semillas son producto de un vasto y sofisticado conocimiento colectivo) siempre han tenido y tienen una base colectiva y abierta, mientras que las patentes otorgan monopolios excluyentes a personas, empresas o instituciones. Quienes argumentan que es posible combatir estos despojos patentando antes que otros lo hagan, están apenas colaborando con el mismo sistema. La forma de combatirlos realmente es terminar con los sistemas de “propiedad” intelectual, un absurdo que de tanto repetirlo, parece que fuera normal.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC
Publicado en La Jornada, 15 feb 09

If radical vegan Ingrid Newkirk has her way, the nouvelle cuisine on vegetarian menus in five years time may be a big juicy steak.

Newkirk, founder and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has offered a $1 million prize to whoever can scale-up stem cell techniques that grow edible animal tissue – so called lab-grown meat – for a mass market.

This artificial meat, cultured from muscle cells and already been grown on a small scale, could spare millions of animals, PETA argues. It hopes for cruelty-free test-tube turkey meat in time for Christmas 2012. Industrial advocates, such as the New Harvest Foundation, point to the environmental benefits. They claim the technology might help offset the 18 per cent of current greenhouse gas emissions attributable to animal production. Taking land out of livestock grazing and diverting protein away from animals could also help rebalance the food system.

All of which are good arguments against meat-eating, but not necessarily for the proposed switch to flesh in a flask. Meat-eaters and vegetarians I floated the idea past seemed equally horrified by the idea – more so than eating dead animals. PETA’s prizewinner may need to spend further millions of PR dollars convincing the public. The New York Times reports ‘near civil war’ within PETA, with members leaving in protest. Opponents point out that meat’s known health problems are not addressed; others worry new safety risks might appear, especially if tissue engineers turn to genetic engineering to improve their cultured flesh.

Organic production will likely exclude lab-grown meat in principle, while kosher and halal will have a hell of a fight. Nor is it a shoo-in that lab-grown meat will replace the animal meat market. Culturing exotic meats opens new niche markets – anyone for lion? A panda burger? What about ethical human cannibalism?

Most intriguing about the PETA prize is the switch in strategy it represents for civil society activism. Newkirk and her colleagues appear to be giving up on the battle to protect animals through social legislation and putting their faith (and money) into a technological silver bullet, a lab-cultured quick fix. It’s a familiar story: climate change campaigners, depressed by the battle to change carbon-hungry lifestyles, embrace nuclear power. Global health advocates push for pharmaceutical ‘solutions’ rather than against inequality and poverty. The argument that social change is too hard leads single-issue fanatics to depend on technological and market fixes for the heavy lifting.

Of course social change is hard and sometimes dispiriting, but its also extremely important. Abdicating to the efficiency of the market means abandoning important nuances. Social justice and notions of equity tend to be ignored by markets that often hand technological control to the already powerful. If test-tube meat hits the big time, we will likely know by its appearance in a Big Mac or when agribusiness buys out the patent-holder. Farmers will not benefit at all. Lab-grown meat may taste cruelty-free to PETA, but it smells like the same old rotten industrial food system to me.

Jim Thomas is a research programme manager and writer with ETC group (www.etcgroup.org)

As G8 leaders meet this week in Japan, their ears will still be ringing from the bombshell dropped last week in a leaked World Bank report declaring that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 per cent, far higher than previously estimated.

The food crisis will be a major topic for world leaders, as millions of the world’s most vulnerable people call for help. According to World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who wrote a letter to G8 leaders last week, the world “is entering a danger zone” that will require $10 billion for emergency food aid and to help countries deal with the double impact of rising food and fuel prices.

Many of the G8 countries, including Britain, members of the EU and the United States, have brought in policies dramatically expanding the use of biofuels through mandatory minimum biofuel content in domestic gasoline. Some have speculated that the World Bank’s findings have been kept under wraps to avoid embarrassing U.S. President George W. Bush, whose administration has argued that biofuels are responsible for only 3 per cent of the rise in food process.

In Canada, Stephen Harper’s government, with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s support, is poised to set a 5 per cent minimum biofuel content level in our gasoline, adding fuel to the food crisis fire.

But unlike other governments, many of which moved too quickly to promote biofuels, the Canadian government has the opportunity to consider the growing evidence that mandatory biofuel content requirements do more harm than good.

Coming on the heels of these findings by the World Bank is the Gallagher Report, which will be released in the U.K. in the coming days.

Like the World Bank’s secret report, it points an accusing finger at biofuels as playing a “significant” role in the dramatic rise in global food prices that has left 100 million more people without enough to eat, the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper has learned. It also urges that far more research be conducted into the indirect impact of biofuels on land use and food production before the government sets targets for their use in transport.

The report, produced by a panel of government experts chaired by Professor Ed Gallagher, head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, is expected to trigger a review of British and EU targets for the use of plant-derived fuels in place of gasoline and diesel. It may even compel Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who campaigned on expanding the use of biofuels, to reverse course.

The World Bank’s sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, has confirmed that biofuel production puts pressure on food supplies as crops are increasingly grown for fuel, not food. The increasing demand for food has contributed to higher prices, which the IMF says have risen by 50 per cent this year. Particularly hard hit are Asia, the former Soviet Union, southern Africa and parts of Latin America.

Canadian policy-makers should also consider the fact that even U.S. food producers are calling on the Bush administration to ease minimum biofuel-content regulations for American gasoline.

Keith Collins, former chief economist in the agriculture department, released a study last month, funded by Kraft Foods, saying that as much as half of the sharp increase in corn prices over the last few years is due to the demands of corn-based ethanol production.

“We’ve seen a tremendous range of unintended consequences” from the requirement that increasing amounts of biofuels such as ethanol be blended into gasoline, Collins told the New York Times.

Texas has already lodged its complaints, and more states will follow. In April, Texas Governor Rick Perry said the “misguided” mandate was devastating the livestock industry in Texas. He asked for a large decrease in ethanol requirements in order to free corn for use as animal feed.

Given all of this new evidence casting doubt on biofuel regulations, it is utterly reasonable for the Canadian government to take the time needed to fully consider all aspects of the proposed minimum biofuel content regulations for Canadians’ gasoline.

Let’s be sure that the legislation is helping, rather than harming, Canadians, the environment, and the world’s most vulnerable people.

Pat Mooney is executive director of the ETC Group, an international organization addressing the impact of new technologies on rural communities.

Thank you. I will begin by confessing that I am not an expert on biofuels. I feel as though my life has been hijacked by biofuels over the last few months.

I know something about food security or global food and agriculture issues. I guess
that is why I have an opportunity to appear before you today and I appreciate being
before you.

Maybe I should say the issue of biofuels has been a bit of a shock for me. I have
been in three international meetings in the last few months where the topic was not
biofuels but, suddenly, the whole international discussion became biofuels. One
meeting was a major conference that took place on agriculture biodiversity that was
held in Bonn, Germany, in May. It was a two-week conference, known officially as
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or COP 9,
which Canada hosts in Montreal, though the meeting was in Germany.

The entire debate turned out to be about biofuels and whether they were good or
bad for the environment and whether they were good or bad for energy issues, even.
Certainly, a major concern expressed by governments there was that biofuels were a
real problem for food security.

However, that was a biodiversity convention meeting. I went right from the Bonn
meetings to the World Food Summit held in Rome at the beginning of June. Biofuels
and bio-energy were on the agenda. There were three topics, including, first and
foremost, the food crisis and how that links to bio-energy issues and climate change.
It was a large summit with 181 countries present. It became hijacked by the fight
over whether biofuels were good or bad for food security and for the environment. I
felt to such an extent that other issues were not addressed. The other really important
questions around that, especially the issue around climate change, were not discussed.

I was more surprised in an earlier meeting in April. I was invited by a major
conference called BioVision that is held every year. It is a global meeting of scientists;
about 2,000 scientists come together every year. There is a strong industry and
government representation in it to look at the current state of play of biotechnology. I
was invited to speak about nanotechnology, not about biofuels or biotech. However,
again, at this global meeting of 2,000 scientists, the only resolution that was finally
passed at the end of the conference – in a conference that does not allow resolutions –
was a resolution that opposed biofuels. There was such a range of scientists and
political actors at the table that I was astonished that biofuels became the topic.

I would urge the Senate to delay a decision here and spend more time looking at
this issue. I think the scene is changing day by day and week by week. There is a new
report we have seen a draft of coming out of the U.K. that was released to the
Guardian a couple of days ago. It will be out either tomorrow or it might be delayed
until next Monday. Apparently, it will force a major change in the U.K.’s position on
biofuels. We are hearing of other reports all along the way being developed by the
World Bank or by Food and Agriculture Organization. I am on one committee itself
that FAO has organized on this issue that will have a meeting on the topic next year.

I think the scene is changing and it is important not to rush into an issue where, at
the end of the day, when you look at ways out from who is on which side on the topic,
that is changing itself. Neither side seems to be able to deliver a sort of knockout blow
that says, “Here is the clear evidence, the absolute proof, that this is really good for us;
this will be beneficial.”

You would think that, after all of these years and discussion and experimentation in
Brazil and in Canada and the West, as well, if there was a clear knockout case to be
made for biofuels, it would have been made and we would know. We would not be
arguing whether it is a ratio of 1.2 to 1 or 1.25 to 1; that kind of discussion would be
resolved. It is not. It continues to appear in the press and scientific journals
constantly.

That should worry us.

At the biodiversity convention meetings in Germany, we had this strange feeling
that all of Africa as a block was asking for a moratorium against any development of
biofuels. They were saying, “Please go no further.” They are asking for an end to
subsidies in Europe. On the other side, we had the European Union – 27 countries –
that wanted to change their position. We talked to them individually. They wanted to
shift from supporting biofuels but they could not. Brussels, as a group, had made the
decision months before for the negotiations and they could not turn the ship around
that fast.

One country after the other is saying they know it is a problem and they know they
have to address this.

Africa is the hungry continent; the continent for whom it was a problem. The world
is saying to them that this is an industry that they can develop and take to their hearts
as Africans. Africa is saying, “We do not want this. We do not trust how this will play
out for us.”

Everyone basically ignored Africa. It was Brazil, the United States, Canada and the
European Union that pushed through their position. Even then, with enormous caveats
saying, “We are not so sure about this; it needs to be studied more” and so on.
However, they did not agree to the moratorium.

The same situation arose at the World Food Summit. We had Brazil, the United
States and the biofuels industry as the protagonists and Europe on the other side that
after a week of gaining more experience and developing more uncertainty becoming
rather quiet on the topic, not wanting to push too hard on the issue.

Again, Africa was saying they did not want this. It was dangerous for them and is a
great risk for their food security. They did not want anyone to go in that direction.
I was invited by the FAO to debate the issue with British Petroleum and the former
President of Niger to discuss the range of issues for governments. Three points stood
out in the debate. I would suggest these three points should be looked at by the Senate
committee and, I hope, by the Canadian public very broadly.

First is that we always tend to want to say we are only doing something for our
country. It will only be for Canada or Brazil and will not have an impact beyond that.
Having dealt with agricultural commodities for the last 40 years, I find that
remarkable. There is never a time when what we decide to do about agriculture in
Canada does not affect the rest of the world. There is always a knock-on effect from
what Canada does in wheat, corn or canola production, et cetera that affects global
food prices and stocks and who grows what where.

I talked to a colleague from Paraguay a few days ago who told me that soybean
production is moving into the forest lands in Paraguay. Soybeans are not used for
biofuels; therefore, I could not see the connection. She answered that the connection is
that corn is being grown in the old soybean producing areas for biofuels and soybeans
are being pushed into the forest areas.

Those kinds of links and connections are happening around the world and they can
have an enormous impact. Unless we can be assured that the unimaginable has
happened, that is, we can isolate Canadian agriculture from the rest of the world,
whatever we decide in Canada regarding fuel and food crops, it will have an impact on
the rest of the world and an impact on food prices.

Looking at the arguments about pricing in the world’s food supply and how much of
it is influenced by biofuels or other factors, look at who is saying what on this topic.
On one side, you have the United States government and the fuel industry saying only
2 per cent or 3 per cent of the increase in prices can be traced back to biofuels. On the
other side you have the IMF, the International Food Policy Research Institute which is
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research affiliated
with the World Bank and the World Bank themselves saying that biofuels impact on
food prices is 30 per cent and up to 65 per cent under some conditions.

I do not understand why the World Bank and the IMF would bite the hand that
feeds it in regard to the United States government if it did not have to. They are saying
those things because they have a point. Biofuels are a major impact on food prices.
Logic says that you look at who is saying these things and what are their interests. I
do not see what interest the IMF and the World Bank have not to try to support to the
United States. Basically, they could not because biofuels have a large impact.

The second issue is that of climate change.

We see ourselves in a food emergency, which will last for decade by all
considerations. It is not only a year or two. It will last for the next 10 or 20 years.

Within that time frame, we know there is this food emergency and we know that
food stocks are the lowest they have been in decades. However, we also know that
climate change is coming and we do not know what will happen to food production
because of climate change.

A few days ago I heard remarkable testimony here from industry representatives
suggesting that there is much more land available. They said the FAO suggests there
is all this land we can use. That is true if you cut down all the forests and get rid of the
protected areas, national parks and the tsetse fly in Sudan. Then there is land.

Otherwise the land is used. It is not there.

We simply do not know what will happen with crop production in the years ahead.
When I was in Rome at the World Food Summit, I was shown data by the FAO saying
that by 2030 — in 20 years time — corn or maize will not be grown in Africa as a crop.
It simply cannot be grown because conditions will make it untenable. Yields will drop
so low that there will be no point in growing maize. Currently, that is their major
staple crop.

In regard to the Canadian Prairies, I was in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago. People
there were telling me that the bottom half of the province will be a dust bowl.

When someone says do not worry, we have extra land and opportunities here, we
do not know what will happen with climate change. Therefore, to impose upon an
extraordinarily fragile food security situation by adding a whole new factor is simply
incredibly risky and dangerous. It is a new pressure that we will not be able to reverse
once it is established because the demand in the industry will be structured for it.

We must be sure what we are doing because if we are not sure, people will starve.
The estimate now is that we have 100 million more people who are hungry in the
world than we had 6 months ago. Some estimates indicate that it will increase to
290 million more hungry people by the end of this year.

To add to that pressure and to throw the factor of biofuels into this equation does
not make sense to me.

Whether it is at scientific or biodiversity conferences or the World Food Summit,
there seems to be a consensus emerging that the current situation is not good.
Generation one biofuels do not work very well, but we should not worry because
generation two biofuels are coming down the road. We can relax because that will
take care of all the problems for us.

I have some worries about that. It was interesting to hear the industry
representatives here talk about how you can convert rubbish and algae into fuel.
Without question, that is very interesting. It is absolutely fascinating. I hope it works,
but we do not know for sure that it will.

That is not what is being done now. We are talking about the land area in corn and
canola production, which is the big issue. It was unusual to have an industry lobbyist
present to you what is not happening yet. He did not talk to you about what is
happening, which is about corn, canola and sugar cane production around the world
today. This is where the impact will be for the next 15 to 20 years. The scientists and
governments I talk to about these generation two biofuel developments believe that
commercial yields — if the process works at all — are that far down the road.
We will continue to have the current problem of taking biofuels from major food
crops for a long time to come. This will all occur in the context of the current food
emergency and climate change.

Is that rational, then, to assume generation two biofuels will come? I cannot
imagine that it is. It does not make sense to me that we rely on this theoretical thing
that we are not quite sure what it will be exactly. Will it be an enzyme manufactured
that will gobble up cellulosic fibre? Will it be restructuring of the corn plant itself so
the stalk is more consumable as is being developed in California?

There are several possibilities. No one can put their finger on which it will be, how
it will work and what its impact will be. However, let us trust it, let us have faith and
pie in the sky when we die. That does not make sense.

How can we do this to ourselves? I have sat through and been part of many food
summits over the decades. I have heard these forecasts not to worry, hunger will not
be a problem in the future and we will take care of that. I was in high school in
Winnipeg in the 1960s, when I heard John F. Kennedy say we have the means and the
capacity to wipe hunger and poverty from the face of our earth in our lifetime; we need
only the will. He was wrong. It did not happen.

I was at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1974, which was a very political
summit during the last food crisis, and heard Henry Kissinger say that within 10 years
no child will go to bed hungry. That is not true. That did not happen.

I was at the World Food Summit in 1996 in Rome when our government joined
other governments in saying that by the year 2015 we will have half the number of
hungry people we have today. It was to go down to 415 million from 830 million.
Today, the number of hungry people is 862 million. It has gone up, not down.
The estimate is that by the year 2020, there will be 1.2 billion people who are
hungry on this planet. Instead of reducing the number by half, we will increase the
number of people who are hungry by one-and-a-half times.

I have heard governments say for a long time that they will solve the problem of
world hunger, that there is lots of land, that they will increase crop yields or that they
will take care of the water problem. It has never happened.

What has happened is that energy consumption has increased and the hungry have
increased in numbers during that time. I would like to see proof that what is being
decided today, perhaps by the Senate, will truly be something that will not impede
upon the health and well-being of that 1.2 billion people who are becoming hungry.
I doubt that will happen. I worry that we will grab at straws and hope our usage of
fossil fuels will be reduced by 0.65 per cent or 0.7 per cent by the biofuels industry
because of this bill. It is so marginal. We could reduce fossil fuels that amount by
simply slowing down our cars by one mile per hour. Yet, it would cost $2.2 billion to
do it in terms of the bill. Pumping up our tires could have the same effect without
costing that kind of money.

With this bill, we would be setting in place the infrastructure and an industry that
will not get rid of the problem in 5 or 10 years. It will still be there. If Saskatchewan
or Alberta were to dry up and could not produce the required yields, the infrastructure
would disappear and we would have to turn to California or Brazil or Indonesia. Some
of the governments in Africa at the food summit said to us, please do not do this.

The press release is available here:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2008/25/c7668.html

Update: Bill C-33 was passed in the Canadian Senate on June 26, 2008.

Today, Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company — and makes more money selling seeds than chemicals. The company’s biotech seeds and traits accounted for 88 percent of the worldwide area devoted to genetically modified seeds in 2006 — and Monsanto earns royalties on every single one. No one needed to tell Monsanto: Whoever controls the first link in the food chain — the seeds — controls the food supply.

What better way to understand the perilous state of industrial food and farming than by starting with the seed? Claire Hope Cummings’ new book, Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds is a sharp and elegant analysis of the biotech seed debate.

Beginning with the tragic story of how the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq led to the destruction of Iraq’s seed bank, and the subsequent dependence of Iraqi farmers on U.S. aid and multinational agribusiness, Cummings explains what’s at stake when farming communities lose the crop diversity that they’ve nurtured and managed for thousands of years.

Self-reliance in agriculture — whether in Nebraska or Nepal — isn’t possible if communities lose control over seeds that are adapted over centuries to their needs, cultural preferences, and environment. Farmers have been saving seeds from their harvest for 10,000 years. Today, an estimated 1.4 billion people, primarily in the developing world, depend on farmer-saved seed as their primary seed source.

Cummings is passionate about seeds and crop diversity. Seeds aren’t merely an environmental or agricultural issue, she explains, but part of a human story that is sacred for many farming communities around the world.

A seasoned radio journalist, Cummings uses her finely-tuned storytelling skills to explain why crop diversity is important, who controls commercial seeds, and why it matters that the biotech industry has tried to systematically destroy — through legal means and technologies — the age-old right of farmers to save and reproduce their own seed.

In the process, industrial agriculture has laid waste to diversity, the environment and farming communities. The subtitle of her book, “Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds,” doesn’t do justice to Cummings’ work — because the subject she addresses goes beyond the debate on genetic engineering. This isn’t a diatribe against genetically engineered foods; it’s a highly-readable analysis that takes an expansive view of farming, food, and agriculture, focused on seeds, crop diversity, and farming communities.

Nonetheless, the first part of Cummings’ book does a masterful job of unpacking what is too often a cluttered debate on genetic engineering. If you want to deconstruct how genetic engineering has been used as a tool of corporate science and how powerful interests have worked hand-in-hand with the U.S. government to privatize plant breeding and obliterate the culture from agriculture, read this book.

Cummings shows how biotech corporations have used so-called “sound science” to dumb down government regulatory systems, and how publicly-funded agricultural research has been corrupted to serve private interests.

Seeds have been in the news a lot lately, grabbing headlines in February when the Norwegian government opened a Global Seed Vault on a remote island in the Arctic. Major media networks were captivated by the specter of a “doomsday” vault for seeds — a kind of agricultural Fort Knox — where the world’s crop diversity will be safe from war, natural disaster, electricity outages, even climate change. The seed vault raises some profound issues about control of seeds and strategies for conserving them. Some writers (who didn’t check the facts) mused that the Global Vault was just a corporate-funded plot that will ultimately benefit Monsanto and other gene giants. Others acknowledge that an insurance policy for the world’s seeds (basically, a back-up system) is a common-sense strategy.

But with all the attention that’s going to gene banks, the concern is that governments and the public will think that the problem is solved (the genes are in the bank!) — and, worse still, that funding and expertise will be siphoned away from farmer-based (known as in situ) conservation strategies.

But the real way to save our seed heritage lies not in vaults, but rather in fields: on-farm, community-based conservation in which farmers select and breed crops to evolve and adapt to changing conditions (like rapidly evolving pests and diseases) — just as they’ve done for 10,000 years.

In the face of climate chaos, it will be essential. Genetically modified crops will not provide the adaptation strategies that farmers need to ensure food sovereignty in the face of climate change.

I appreciate the way that Cummings treats the topic of the Doomsday Vault and the bigger issue of seed conservation. She explains that the rise of seed banks has occurred at the same time that the role of the farmer has been compromised and corporations have taken over plant breeding.

When it comes right down to it, Cummings notes, the issue isn’t gene bank vs. farmers. Both can be useful strategies. We shouldn’t have to choose. The vitally important thing is to reemphasize the public interest. She writes:

The rise of seed banking and the demise of the small farmer have turned agricultural seed saving on its head. The solution lies in putting the farmer, instead of agribusiness, back on top as the primary actor and beneficiary of all seed-saving strategies.

Exactly.