You Are What You Read

Excellent article in the upcoming Sunday Book Review, and it even blends food and story:

You Are What You Read

Fedco Seed Experiences GMO Contamination of Sweet Corn Seed

Fedco Seeds, a fantastic cooperative seed company from Maine that specializes in fresh market varieties for the Northeast, has reported GMO contamination in two of their sweet corn lots. The 2007 Feco catalog identifies varieties Tuxedo and Lancelot (both are hybrid varieties) as testing positive in random sampling. 

It’s tough to find information on their web site on this, but on page seven of their catalog they do a nice job of describing the situation. You can go HERE for a PDF of the Fedco catalog and scroll down to page seven.

Fedco has taken the Safe Seed Pledge, tests their varieties for contamination , and is run by some of the best seed people in the business. CR Lawn is a seed wizard and works with great staff like Roberta Bailey and Nikos Kavanya. Thanks for all your work guys.

Also, an update from Fedco on the Seminis-Monsanto issue. Two years ago when I reported on Monsanto’s buyout of Seminis, many seed companies were in a bit of a dilemma. Seminis has some great varieties that their customers have grown to love, but many of their customers also weren’t fond of Monsanto. Fedco decided to work diligently to replace their Seminis varieties with equivalent genetics. CR Lawn writes of the progress towards replacement :

So How Are We Doing? Two years ago when Monsanto bought out Seminis, we decided to phase out our Seminis line. ..At the time of our decision, Seminis was our biggest supplier, accounting for 70 varieties and more than 11% of our gross sales. We set about, through our research and trials, to replace the Seminis selections with the best varieties we could find. In two years we have fulfilled exactly half our quest. For 9 of the varieties we have found alternate sources and for 26 more we have found comparable or superior replacements. We pledge to persevere. Some niches will be easier and quicker to fill than others.

New Book – Good Crop/Bad Crop

Two links for you to check out. The first is GRAIN, a fantastic international organization “which promotes the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity based on people’s control over genetic resources and local knowledge”.

The second is a link to the book Good Crop/Bad Crop written by GRAIN’s Canadian coordinator Devlin Kuyek. The blurb: In Good Crop / Bad Crop Devlin Kuyek deftly examines the economic and environmental background of the modern seed trade from a Canadian perspective. Historically seeds were viewed more as public goods than as commodities, and plant breeding objectives were widely shared by scientists, governments, and farmers. Now that approach is changing; seeds have become increasingly commodified, and plant breeding has become subject to corporate priorities.

The Boondoggle of the “Biotech Yield Endorsement Program”

Warning – this is not objective reporting and contains cynicism and sarcasm. But then again, who needs objectivity, not our Federal agencies…read on….

On September 26^th Monsanto announced the “Biotech Yield Endorsement Program”(BYE), a partnership with the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) which will give a 20% discount on crop insurance premiums to farmers who plant Monsanto varieties that feature YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple technologies. In recent days there have been a slew of new press releases and articles on this (it is time to be buying your spring seed you know).

Before I get into this and complete blow a gasket, let me first key you in on the mission of the FCIC. From the FCIC web page:

“The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) promotes the economic stability of agriculture through a sound system of crop insurance and providing the means for the research and experience helpful in devising and establishing such insurance.”

Product not Practices, and Protocols without Public Oversight

The big news isn’t the USDA having a partnership with Monsanto, as they already hold a joint patent on Terminator Technology with the seed company, but rather that it is the first time that the FCIC has allowed a premium discount for a specific commercial product. Normally the FCIC supports farmers making good decisions in practices, that is minimizing risk by choosing the best strategies in irrigation practices, pest management, harvesting or processing, and so on. Product premiums are a bit odd. If John Deere makes a cultivator that leaves less of the harvest for the field mice (thus reducing risk of loss), should farmers get a discount on their crop insurance for using the new model? Is the FCIC really going to go into the product endorsement business?

On September 26^th I called FCIC to confirm that this tax-payer funded, federal insurance program, administered under the US Department of Agriculture was indeed offering such a program. FCIC Board Executive Secretary, Brent Doanne, did confirm that this was a first for the organization, but noted that section 1523(D) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act allowed for the development of discount policies if a company could prove that their product clearly demonstrated reduced risk in the field. In this instance the FCIC board allowed for Monsanto’s field trial data to stand as sufficient evidence of clear demonstration; third party verification that the biotech products really reduce risk and maximize yield wasn’t necessary according to Mr. Doanne. But, as he said, “They have thousands and thousands of acres of data.” And hey, big numbers always means good science.

Let’s outsource regulation to the private sector!!

Yes, yes, the government has spent billions of dollars creating agencies to manage regulatory oversight of our environment, public health, economy, and so on. But people still get sick and rivers get polluted, so maybe they haven’t done such a good job. In fact, they’ve done such a bad job let’s go ahead and hire someone else to do it for us. Besides, we can’t afford to spend tax-payer money on regulatory testing – as we have the newly approved energy bill and the oil industry needs that $13.5 Billion in taxpayer funded incentives that the new Energy Bill provides because they only made $35 billion in NET profits last year. Let’s outsource regulatory oversight to people who know how to make money, not spend it, like those government bureaucrats.

Okay, enough sarcasm. The reality is that the FCIC trusts the Monsanto generated data, but they are going to keep their eyes open. Mr. Doanne did say that the FCIC will monitor yield for several years to determine if Monsanto’s products really do result in reduced yield risk. I find this to be an odd regulatory protocol, kind of like buying a mail order bride isn’t it? Not sure what you’ll get but boy they say she’s a beauty, so let’s trust em. Just as the FDA and other federal agencies are now trusting corporations to verify their products efficacy and safety (and isn’t Vioxx great? And nah, OxyContin isn’t addictive), so now another USDA agency continues to avoid regulatory responsibility. They ignore not only their public duty, but deny the immense economic benefit that unregulated approval of these products has for the corporations whose revolving doors they sashay in and out of like belles at the ball.

What? Benefit to Monsanto?

As states such as Iowa launch anti-trust investigation into Monsanto marketing practices the FCIC has in one fell swoop approved a policy that will result in an obvious marketing advantage to the company that already dominates the corn market. In addition to calling Mr. Doanne I also tracked down Curt Sindergard. Mr. Sindergard is a FCIC board member, and Iowas soybean and corn farmer, and seed dealer for DeKalb – which is of course owned by Monsanto. Mr. Sindergard told me that the FCIC board does not see this as favoritism to Monsanto in that other seed companies may petition for similar discount programs. “Monsanto invested a lot of money and time in getting this approved by the (FCIC) board. Other seed companies, competitors to Monsanto, will likely benefit from the precedent and put their own traits forward for similar programs.”

Mr. Sindergard also noted that this will benefit biotech usage, and that the usage of any technology that reduces risk of yield loss is a good thing for farmers. As he put it, “We (FCIC Board) see this as a way to support future enhancement of biotech traits.” Is this the FCIC mission? To support particular technologies? I thought they were in the insurance business. Oh yes, but the insurance business often colludes with the pharmaceutical sector in human health, why not in agricultural systems? Could it be that having a representative from the biotech seed sector on the FCIC board, such as Mr. Sindergard, is just a tad bit inappropriate? Just what does he know about insurance? Economics? Research? Here’s his bio: http://www.rma.usda.gov/fcic/sindergard.pdf

I suppose being a deacon he does have some insurance background. Plant your seeds and say your prayers.

But Hey, the FCIC gives Organic special treatment too

Meanwhile organic farmers are forced to pay an additional 5% surcharge for federal crop insurance, but are paid out on claims at conventional crop values as opposed to the higher, true, organic market value. When I asked Mr. Doane about this surcharge he said that it was, “Necessary because of the higher risk associated with organic farming.” When I pressed him to document that additional risk with research he said that the FCIC was still collecting data to determine just how high the level of risk was from growing organically. Well thank goodness they’re doing their regulatory homework and spending our dollars researching the dangers of organics. In other words organics is presumed guilty of being a substandard system of production with higher risk until proven innocent, whereas industry driven biotech claims are taken as the gold standard of acceptable research? Does the FCIC have an organic or low-input agricultural representative on their board? No. At least not until Monsanto goes organic.

 

Consolidation continues

Bayer-Crop Science’s vegetable seed division is known as Nunhems. Nunhems announced today that they have aquired what is likely the world’s largest lettuce seed company – Paragon – with annual sales of over $8 million in what is thought to be a $60 lettuce seed industry (no one really knows, the seed companies keep that very private, so these are analyst’s guetimations based on publicly traded companies that do report sales). This will place Nunhems in direct competition with Semenis (Monsanto) who also has a huge lettuce division (and one with RoundUp Ready Lettuce in the pipeline). The only good news in this consilidation – I hear from the seed industry reps I know that Nunhems is not planning on investing in transgenic/GMO vegetable crops.  Hope the rumor is true.

Reuter’s article on the buyout

Perennial Wheat

Here’s a broadcast from KPLU radio that reports on research being conducted by Dr. Stephen Jones of Washington State University (Pullman). Dr. Jones has been an ongoing inspiration to many of us in the world of plant breeding. He was the first plant breeder I asked to join the board of Organic Seed Alliance, and was honored when he accepted. He’s a public plant breeder who believes and acts from a standpoint that his job is to improve the public good via improving wheat varieties. He’s not working for royalties, for corporate favors, or a new campus building bought and built by Monsanto with a bronze plaque honoring his name. And he teaches his students these ethics along with excellent classical plant breeding methods.

Enough of me. The radio broadcast.

I knew bird brain was a compliment

Purple barley is a favorite of mine. Grow it in my garden – it has wonderful flavor as well as great beauty, and I guessed it might be good for me. Now THE ECONOMIST, of all places, reports on research into birds’ abilities to visually identify antioxidants in fruit. But it’s more than color identification, as you will read. Pertinence to SeedStory? Seed dispersal of course, as well as breeding for color in vegetable or grain crops.

The Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10205178

FULL ARTICLE from researcher’s web site:
http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/data/bio1/schaefer/pdf/birds.pdf

Assessment of 2007 Farm Bill – Oh no, not again!?!

 I’d like to have the time to write a larger opinion piece on this, but am relieved to see others doing a fine job of it. In particular I send you to Tom Philpott’s blog on Grist. I recommend subscribing to his posts.  Senate farm bill post-mortem.

Canadian Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Saskatchewan Farmer’s Appeal on GMOs

Organic canola farmers in Canada have been involved in a longstanding suit against Monsanto asking for compensation for the loss of their organic market due to “extensive contamination of canola seed and cross-pollination by GMO varieties.” The denial by the Supreme Court is not based on the merits of the case, but on it as a class action, and the plaintiff’s plan to continue the fight. More info the recent action and the background of this story at: http://www.cban.ca/

An old principle of English common law that made it’s way over to the North Americam colonies was that of “Neighborhood Effect”. Summed up, we have good neighborhood effect when I grow apples and you, my neighbor, raise bees. You get honey from my flowers, I get pollination from your workers. We cross the fence for the good. Bad neighborhood effect is when I raise flowers and you raise cattle and your cattle get into my field. In common law you were expected to pay damages, and to keep your cattle contained. It’s pretty simple. My kids get it (“when the music in your room keeps me awake, we have an issue with neighborhood effect”). The courts don’t???

Wild Garden Seed

It’s seed catalog time. A catalog that I wait for (and wait and wait and wait at times, as breeding and producing seed seems to be their priority way ahead of printed things on glossy paper or a digital web) is Wild Garden Seed. I’ve invited Frank Morton, founder of WGS and head plant breeder, to be a guest writer here any time he likes. To get an introduction to Frank’s vision of seed check out two pieces from the 2007 WGS catalog on ” Where do Seeds Come From” and “An Organic Seed System”. Scroll down the PDF to page 2 (although page 1 is a nice peak at the catalog): Frank’s 2007 Essay