THE SEED AND THE PADLOCK

Since the birth of agriculture 10,000 years ago, man has been sowing and what he harvests allows him to feed in return men and livestock. Each year, the farmer resows the seeds that he has kept from the previous harvest. He makes sure that these seeds come from the strongest, most productive, disease and insect resistant plants that are best adapted to the local climate. The work of these farmers, who have made this qualitative selection over the centuries, makes them actors in a « human contribution to the expansion of the living world », according to François Partant. according to the expression of François Partant. Thus each farmer in his own region tried to find the balance between his production and his ecosystem. The seeds thus obtained benefited from an optimal adaptation to the soil, a method known as « massal selection. » Until the end of the 19th century, farmers exchanged and sold these seeds between neighbors, which today are called « peasant seeds. » 

That time has passed. At the turn of the 20th century, agronomic science decided to modernize farming techniques, in particular by studying and crossing plant varieties in order to create « better » ones. The government encourages farmers to buy their seeds from them for more security and quality. The latter, trusting in off-farm specialists, gradually abandoned their self-production of seeds and thus put their finger in a Fordist gear, based on a separation of tasks and a standardization of work in a logic of mass production and consumption, which ensured them, at the time, a stable economic income but which would cost them their know-how in the field and eventually their autonomy. Peasants are gradually becoming « farmers. » 

Varieties produced by plant breeders and large seed companies are soon to conquer the fields. But the seed companies don’t get enough money for them, as farmers continue to replant these seeds year after year without paying. In the name of agricultural progress, they militate to establish an intellectual property right on their seeds. The regulation of the seed market will involve the establishment of a catalog of so-called « certified » seeds. The original idea was paved with good intentions: for example, on the rapidly expanding seed market, there were varieties labelled « x » that were in fact variety « y »; to strengthen the farmer’s confidence and protect the seed producer, a whole system of tests was set up before these varieties could be registered in the official catalog. 

However, after the Second World War, Europe had difficulty feeding itself properly and aspired to food self-sufficiency. The member countries then embarked on a resolutely productivist path, the strategy being to modernize agriculture, and therefore to industrialize on a large scale, in order to produce enough, to the point of excess, to guarantee its food security and become a major economic power once again. This is the objective of the Common Agricultural Policy, one of the foundations of European construction. « The seed appears to be a priority for public action, since it is the most rapidly perfectible production factor and the most accessible to administrative intervention. Moreover, selected seeds also seem likely to act as a « Trojan horse », a powerful lever for modernizing agricultural production, insofar as « modern » varieties are selected precisely to make the most of chemical inputs and their homogeneity favors the mechanization of harvests.⁽¹⁾

The first battery of tests that a seed must pass before entering the catalog consists of three facets: Distinctness, Homogeneity, Stability. Distinction implies that each variety must prove that it is strictly unique from other varieties already registered. Homogeneity means that when the seed is used, the plants obtained will all be identical (which is perfectly suitable for mechanization and monoculture). Stability, means identical generation after generation.

THE RUSH TO SEED 

Europe opens its doors wide to the industrialization and capitalization of agriculture, a corollary of mechanization and the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides. The official catalog then becomes the tool that allows only seeds adapted to intensive industrial agriculture to be put on the market. The public authorities are stubbornly following the path of productivism, which has the consequence of limiting agronomic research to varieties tailored to monoculture. And little by little, the power of decision, coupled with economic influences, will move from the hands of public authorities to those of private companies. 

In the last quarter of the 20th century, F1 hybrid plants became widespread in Europe, which means that we are in the first hybrid generation. They are the result of crossing two pure lines that geneticists have selected for their vigor and high yield potential. This criterion is gradually taking precedence over disease resistance as it is fashionable to rely on pesticides to solve all problems. The phytosanitary community is a proponent of « better to cure than to prevent ». 

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the multitude of small seed companies at the beginning of the 20th century has been reduced to a handful of multinationals (Monsanto, Syngenta, DupontPioneer…) which house both the production and sale of phytopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical products on the one hand and seeds on the other. It is unlikely, therefore, that Monsanto will not favour the production of seeds requiring a high degree of chemical inputs. 

When a farmer buys a seed, he or she is also provided with instructions on how to make the seed perform at its best. « Increased fertilizer and pesticide inputs, as well as mechanized tillage, allow for a standardization and artificialization of environments, which neutralizes or limits the variations linked to the different terroirs, preparing them in a way to receive seeds that are themselves standardized⁽²⁾. » In our supermarkets there is a 99% chance that the tomatoes, onions or corn we can buy are F1 hybrids. 

It is important to know that hybrids cannot be replanted from one year to the next because their production will degenerate. That is, its yield in the second year will be much lower than in the first year. We will see a restoration of the production in the following years but a farmer cannot afford an empty year. So the only solution is to buy the seeds from the seed company. This considerably reduces the autonomy of farmers who are therefore dependent on the big seed companies from the first link in the food chain: the seed. 

Saving seeds costs money and requires land ready for planting. For example, to register a wheat species in the catalog costs 6,000 euros and to maintain it in the catalog more than 2,000 euros for the first ten years. What small seed producer can afford that? And in order to make it into the pages of the official catalog, you have to meet the DUS criteria, which « farmers’ seeds » do not meet, since they are inherently more heterogeneous than the DUS criteria allow. 

Another grain of sand has been added to the cogs of confidence that can be placed in the disinterestedness of multinational seed companies. By placing themselves in a dominant position in the seed market, they are in a position to negotiate the arrival of GMOs on the European market, in which they have invested for many years.

FORCE THE EARTH 

In the past, the variety adapted to the soil over time. Today, the land is forced to accept this seed, no matter what it costs in irrigation, fertilizer and chemical inputs. « What we do with this genetic uniformity based on the concept of the pure line is that we take away from the variety created any ability to adapt to its terroir in space and time, » explains Marjolein Visser, professor at the ULB’s Department of Ecology and Plant Production Systems. This « ability to adapt » is likely to be all the more essential in the face of the upheavals that climate change will undoubtedly bring with it in the decades to come. 

Yet today, as the mirage of « sustainable intensification » fades, it is time to move the lines before the point of no return. An alarming sign is the progressive disappearance of seeds that are not registered in the official catalog. Because in order to preserve these varieties, it is necessary to plant and multiply them in the fields. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) mentions that the number of cultivated plant varieties has decreased by 75% since the beginning of the century. The weakening of our biodiversity threatens the stability and resilience of our ecosystems. 

According to the FAO, 7,000 species of plants have been used to feed humanity since the beginning of agriculture, but today only 30 species provide 90% of our calorie needs. Half of these needs are provided by only three species: wheat, rice and corn.⁽³⁾

This drastic reduction in the diversity of cultivated plants is also accompanied by a concentration in the hands of a few seed companies of almost all available seeds, which means that they have the power to decide what is planted, and above all, will be planted in the future to feed the planet. Today, the 10 largest seed companies own between 62% and 75% of the⁽⁴⁾ of the international seed market. The three largest, Monsanto, Dupont-Pioneer and Syngenta, together own more than half the market. In Europe, the five largest companies hold 95% of the vegetable seed market (i.e. vegetables). A worrying oligopoly for our right to choose our food in the future. Especially since the food chain is currently based on a « mining » system based on the idea of infinite resources and inexhaustible soil. « European agriculture has become a mining activity that exploits ecosystems like a coal seam is exploited: with no prospects for the future, no concern for renewal, its eye riveted on the prices of reference markets. »⁽⁵⁾

« BETTER REGULATION 

Currently, a reform of the seed regulations proposed by the European Commission is under consideration. This new regulation is part of the legislative package called « Better regulation » and aims to simplify and harmonize the European seed market. The growing concern, in scientific circles as well as among citizens, caused by the collapse of biodiversity has forced the European Commission to propose openings, such as the explicit recognition for small farmers of the right to produce and exchange their seeds, or the opening of the catalog to heterogeneous material, of which « farmers’ seeds » are a part. But the associations defending peasant agriculture are not satisfied because they fear that these new regulations contribute to keeping their practices in a marginal niche and leave the field free for seed companies to finish locking the market according to their will. Marginalizing alternatives to the agribusiness creed in this way may prove fatal for them, as they require political will and financial support to flourish. 

Another fear, which has provoked an outcry from organic farmers and small producers, concerns a part of the text that stipulates that professionals would have the right to self-control « under official supervision » (i.e. with a final right of review by the European Commission) for the examinations necessary for the certification and registration of seeds in the catalog. But, for obvious economic reasons, only large firms could afford to carry out these controls. Some saw this as the first step towards the privatization of controls and the potential disappearance of a public service that is the only one able to defend common interests. Ivan Mammana, member of Aseed Europe, specifies that these self-controls are part of the main requests of the lobby defending the interests of multinational seed companies, the European Seed Association, which would allow them to free themselves from rules that they consider burdensome and hinder their competitiveness. 

On March 11, 2014, the European Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the seed regulation. The mobilization of citizens and civil society organizations finally paid off, but this was not the only reason for the rejection, as many right-wing and socialist MEPs also rejected the text because they felt that the framework proposed by the Commission was too rigid. They denounced a transfer of too much competence to the Commission at the expense of the Member States. It will be necessary to wait until the new parliament is elected in May for the text to be re-examined. 

Far from the bureaucratic furrows of the Commission, another way has been emerging for a few years and intends to reappropriate seed production so as not to let varietal innovation be confiscated by the unique logic of agribusiness. Small seed companies and associations such as Kokopelli or Semailles have started to save and multiply farmers’ seeds adapted to the terroirs where they are marketed. We have also seen the emergence of solid networks based on the exchange of seeds and knowledge such as the Réseau Semences Paysannes in France. Other initiatives involving agricultural researchers and farmers, encouraged by the FAO and the World Bank, are setting up a new dynamic seed management system based on participatory functioning. 

Different ways of pursuing the same goal: keeping alive a living collection of thousands of varieties before reintroducing them to the fields of those who said no to mining. And to resist the rampant privatization of life threatened by an ever more intrusive and greedy intellectual property right. 

Aldwin Raoul

Thanks to Ivan Mammana, member of Aseed Europe (Action for Solidarity Environment Equality and Diversity) and former member of CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory), Marjolein Visser, professor at the Department of Ecology and Plant Production Systems of the ULB and Valerie Op De Beeck, project manager at the UNAB (National Union of Belgian Agrobiologists) for their valuable insights.