page 18-19

hands off our seeds!

gmos threaten biodiversity

juan lopez villar, foe europe

We know that there can be no future without diversity. We depend on biological diversity for our survival, and biological products and processes constitute the basis of 40 percent of the world's economy. Yet in the last century, genetic resource erosion, species extinction and ecosystem destruction have taken place at an unprecedented pace. The aggressive introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will enhance these problems, especially in southern countries where more than 90 percent of the remaining biodiversity is hosted.

seed diversity eroding
More than 7,000 plant species have been used by humankind since agriculture began more than 10,000 years ago, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Yet more than 90 percent of the agricultural diversity that existed at the beginning of the 20 ^th century has been lost.

Seeds are the basis of our food. Local farming communities have preserved and used diverse indigenous seed varieties generation after generation. Women have been the primary contributors to this biodiversity management, identifying and storing seeds each year.

diversity shrivels in green revolution
The industrialization of agriculture that began during the Green Revolution marginalized the role of women in food production. It promoted a small number of cash crops, which undermined genetic resources and the knowledge associated with them. Traditional seed varieties suffered a big blow. For example, in 1930 there were thousands of local varieties of corn in the US, but by 1969, 71 percent of all US corn was made up of only six hybrid varieties. This drastic reduction in biodiversity has been accompanied by an expansion in intensive agrochemical use.

gene revolution: the wrong paradigm
Rather than learning from past mistakes, we are now being thrust into a new “Gene Revolution” led by the US government and biotech corporations. This has resulted in the planting of millions of hectares of just a few crops, such as Monsanto's Round-Up Ready soy beans genetically engineered to resist the company's own chemical pesticide.

The Gene Revolution has much in common with the Green Revolution: it is based on developing genetically modified (GM) crops that favour monocultures with high genetic homogeneity. Yet the rapid introduction of just a few GM crops since the mid-90s is threatening to displace traditional varieties even more aggressively than did the Green Revolution.

corporate control through concentration
The GM seed market is highly concentrated. In 1999, Monsanto overwhelmingly dominated it with 80 percent of the market. Four other companies share the remainder of the market (Aventis, seven percent; Syngenta, five percent; BASF, five percent; Dupont, three percent). It is chilling to note that if GM seed penetration into the world food supply were accelerated, these few companies would enormously increase their control over the global food supply.

the selfish gene owner
Another tactic to increase corporate control over seeds is through the introduction of intellectual property (IP) rights. Since the 1980s, the evolution of IP laws has allowed patents to be placed on life forms. Patents on biological processes and products have increased incentives for private investment in biotech companies. One consequence is that US seed companies are now requiring clients to sign licensing agreements that forbid farmers to save, sell or reuse patented seeds for any purpose.

percy schmeiser case
At the end of March 2001, a Canadian judge ordered farmer Percy Schmeiser to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars because a patent-protected variety of GM canola from Monsanto was found growing in his fields. The ruling was passed even though Percy consistently stated that he never voluntarily grew these seeds, but that pollen from his neighbours' modified plants had cross-pollinated crops on his property. Several such lawsuits have been filed against farmers in North America, but this was the first to culminate in a trial.

“I've been using my own seed for years, and now farmers like me are being told we can't do that anymore if our neighbours are growing (genetically modified) crops that blow in. Basically, the right to use our own seed has been taken away.”
Percy Schmeiser, Canadian Farmer

right to save seeds under threat
The rights of farmers to save, use and exchange their seeds and other planting materials is a cornerstone of agricultural practice. Traditionally farmers saved their best seeds from year to year. Now, however, contracts between seed companies and farmers for genetically modified seeds stipulate that the seeds be used for only one season. Farmers are thus forced to buy the company's seed every year.

Percy Schmeiser's case underlines the increasing tension between farmers and large biotech companies, which threaten to forever alter traditional agricultural practices with the introduction of patented genes. For the first time in agricultural history, farmers risk losing their right to save seeds.

key to food security
The loss of biodiversity, especially of traditional farmers' varieties, would impact the food security of the world's poorest people. If farmers lose the right to save seeds, they will lose their autonomy and become increasingly dependent on big agribusiness. In Africa, more than 90 percent of people's food requirements are met by indigenous farming systems. Saving seeds is a customary practice of indigenous and local communities which guarantees access to vital foodstuffs at all times. Shifting control of these seeds into the hands of multinationals would undermine these communities' household food security. The worldwide impact on farming communities could be tremendous.

Across the South, where people are unlikely to be able to afford high tech seeds and associated chemical inputs year after year, GM seed introduction presents a clear threat to food security and food sovereignty for thousands of local and indigenous farming communities.

Food security must be conceived within a framework that fosters food autonomy and keeps control of food production systems within local and indigenous communities.

bolivia spits out gm potato
Bolivia, where the potato originated, is home to hundreds of wild and cultivated potato varieties. Potatoes are the nation's most important and fundamental food, forming the basis of Bolivian food sovereignty.

In 2000, attempts were made to introduce a GM potato in Bolivia. National civil society organizations put up strong opposition, sounding the alarm about the serious potential impacts for biodiversity. These impacts include genetic erosion, disappearance of some varieties, and disappearance of traditional cultural practices connected to the potato. Ultimately, under pressure from civil society organizations, the institution that applied for the field trial withdrew its application.

the bottom line
The current model for GMO introduction is based on increasing the uniformity of planting materials and is controlled by a small handful of northern-based companies. This model presents a risk to biodiversity, especially to already-threatened traditional seed varieties.

Sovereignty over food systems is vitally important for communities, and control of seeds should not be transferred from farming communities into the hands of a few multinationals. The Percy Schmeiser case is an alarming demonstration of the fact that such companies will use intellectual property rights to enforce control over plant genetic resources.