The Shift of Power in Agriculture: Who Controls Our Seeds?
Written on
Chapter 1: A Family Legacy in Farming
For generations, my family has been rooted in farming. My grandmother still resides in the same farmhouse where she nurtured her family and cultivated the land. Although decades have passed since livestock grazed or crops were tilled, the old machinery and structures remain, remnants of a bygone era.
As a child, I delighted in exploring the expansive barns with my cousins, losing ourselves among the towering tractors and trailers. What was once a source of livelihood transformed into our playground, leaving our clothes dusty and worn.
In the past, farming could sustain a family; my grandparents raised five children on their farm. While it wasn’t opulent, it was a life filled with dignity. Farmers enjoyed significant autonomy, working hard but essentially being their own bosses.
Historically, it was the farmers who cultivated crops, engaged in plant breeding, and collected seeds. Although they may not have had formal training, their knowledge surpassed that of many. Each season, they would allow some crops to mature, harvesting and saving seeds for the following year, often sharing them with neighbors and family.
This practice has roots extending over 10,000 years, dating back to the Mesoamericans who began domesticating maize from its ancestor, teosinte. Unlike modern maize, teosinte bore only a few edible kernels encased in a hard shell. The Mesoamericans’ labor rewarded future generations with a crop that would eventually evolve into the sweet maize we know today.
Now, in contemporary society, most crops and seeds are governed by patents, user agreements, trade secrets, and licensing. The cucumber you buy at the grocery store is likely owned by a large seed corporation, not the farmer who nurtured it. The control of agriculture has shifted away from farmers and into the hands of a few mega-corporations.
The first video discusses why farmers face legal restrictions on replanting their own seeds, shedding light on the complexities of seed ownership in today's agricultural landscape.
Farmers no longer "purchase" seeds; they "rent" them. When they buy seeds, they are leasing them for the current growing season, bound by agreements that prohibit saving, sharing, breeding, or researching those seeds for future use. Additionally, these agreements often compel farmers to buy specific pesticides, which are also sold by the same firms, creating a cycle of profit for the seed companies while leaving farmers with minimal control.
Chapter 2: The Evolution of Seed Ownership
How did we transition from the belief that plants should be shared by all to the notion that a few powerful firms can own plant genetics? This shift began in the 20th century with an increasing focus on intellectual property, leading to a series of laws and court cases that fundamentally altered agriculture.
In the 1930s, the Plant Patent Act was introduced, granting certificates to breeders of new asexually propagated plant cultivars. However, this law was limited in scope, as it did not cover most annual crops that reproduce sexually.
This protection was short-lived. In 1970, the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) expanded patents to include sexually reproduced plants, granting inventors a 17-year patent for new cultivars deemed "distinct, uniform, and stable." This duration was later extended to 25 years, allowing entities with resources to monopolize their patented varieties.
Initially, the PVPA still allowed farmers to save seeds for replanting, recognizing a practice they had followed for millennia. However, from the patent holder's perspective, this practice represented a lost sale.
A critical aspect of the PVPA was that researchers could still experiment with protected crops, enabling the development of new cultivars distinct from the originals. This allowed for ongoing innovation in agriculture.
However, the landscape changed dramatically with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which established that living organisms could be patented. This decision altered the patent landscape, leading to a surge in patent applications for plants, seeds, and plant parts, drastically increasing restrictions on farmers and researchers.
The irony is that patent law was intended to promote innovation, yet it has often stifled it instead. In industries characterized by consolidation, like agriculture, a few companies dominate the landscape, limiting access to essential resources.
The number of mergers and acquisitions in the seed industry has surged in recent years. Notable examples include the 2015 merger of Dow and DuPont, valued at $130 billion, and ChemChina's acquisition of Syngenta for $43 billion. Bayer's purchase of Monsanto for $63 billion further consolidated power in the hands of just four firms—Bayer, ChemChina, Corteva, and BASF—who now control over 60% of global proprietary seed sales.
The second video explores the implications of Monsanto's dominance in the agricultural industry, highlighting the challenges and consequences of corporate control over the food supply.
As these corporations continue to tighten their grip on the seed market, the question remains: what lies ahead? Can we allow such concentration of power over something as vital as our food?
Chapter 3: A Movement for Change
A grassroots initiative known as the Open Source Seed Initiative (OSSI) is gaining traction as a counterforce to the dominance of large seed companies. This movement, founded by concerned breeders, researchers, and citizens, aims to reclaim plant genes and traits from corporate ownership.
OSSI has created a "protected Commons" where plant varieties are shared freely without restrictions. Their seeds come with a pledge encouraging sharing and experimentation, promoting collaboration rather than ownership.
The OSSI movement mirrors the concept of copyleft in the software industry, ensuring that any modified varieties remain accessible to the public. By design, OSSI seeds are not appealing to mega-corporations, as any new cultivars developed from them would remain open source.
Launched in 2014, OSSI has seen rapid growth, expanding its catalog from 36 varieties to over 465 in just six years. Their mission is to provide a product that will always belong to the public and cannot be monopolized by corporations.
Where do we go from here? In his essay "Free Software, Free Society," Richard Stallman eloquently states that when a program has an owner, users lose freedom. This sentiment resonates in the agricultural sector, where farmers are increasingly losing their ability to operate freely.
The founding fathers of the U.S. expressed concern about excessive ownership in the Constitution, emphasizing that the purpose of patents is to promote progress in science and the arts. However, the current state of intellectual property law strays far from this ideal, leading to significant profits for agricultural corporations at the expense of farmers and researchers.
As the concentration of wealth and patents continues in the seed industry, the question remains: will intervention come, or will the Open Source Seed Initiative stand as the only barrier against corporate control over our food supply?