Green Options

This is a followup post that will attempt to address some additional, wide-spread myths about the commercial sale of seed.  In this case the topic with be “GMO” seed improved through genetic engineering (an industry that is now 13 years old and which has been planted on well over 2 billion acres cumulatively, much of it in the developing world). As someone with substantial direct experience with this industry over the years, I’d like to try to speak to some distorted perspectives on this technology.

The First Biotech Crops

The four earliest commercial biotech crops commercialized in 1995/1996 were squash (virus resistant), corn (insect resistant), potatoes (insect resistant), and soybeans (herbicide tolerant). For the squash, corn and potatoes, commercialization was straight forward because it was already standard practice for farmers to buy new seed (tuber seed pieces in the case of potatoes) each year.

For soybeans there was a major commercialization challenge.  There was no question that the new technology was valuable — it would displace millions of pounds and hundreds of millions of dollars of herbicide sales.  It would also greatly increase the efficiency and convenience of producing soybeans. The challenge was that it was standard practice at the time for farmers to save-back some of their crop to use as seed the next year - more in some geographies than others.  If this practice were to continue with the new herbicide tolerant soybeans, it would have been very difficult for the company to recover its high risk investment in the new technology. Growers would simply buy seeds the first year, and then be set until they wanted to buy a new variety. This is not so different from the challenge that record labels with illegal file sharing via the internet.

The two standard solutions that most expected were either (a) charge enough upfront to make up for pervasive seed savings, or (b) raise the price of the herbicide to recover the genetic investment in that way. The first would have discouraged adoption; the second would have disrupted other crops and uses that also depended on the product. Instead, Monsanto tried something completely new (at least to the seed industry). They decided to charge a “technology fee” (”Tech Fee”) of a few $/bag and ask the farmers to sign a license agreement saying they would not save seed.  This was a pretty radical step at the time.  Monsanto also licensed the technology to many other seed companies and they too had to get growers to sign the licenses.

There is a lot of confusion and disinformation circulating today about seeds and the ethics of their commercial sale.  Actually a healthy, commercial seed industry is critical for agricultural sustainability.  Because seeds are such a fundamental component of the sustainability of our food supply, this area deserves careful thought and accurate information even if you are never going to farm or even garden. I’ll try to address some of the modern “myths” about this.  I’ll talk about “farmer-saved seed,” and “hybrid seed.” In a later post I’ll talk about “GMO seed,” and the mythical “Terminator Technology.”  But first a little history.

Seed-bearing plants start showing up in the fossil record ~350 million years ago, first as gymnosperms like cycads, conifers… and eventually, flowering plants (angiosperms) like most of the living plants today.  Other than pine nuts and sea weed, I can’t think of any crops that are not angiosperms (Contest! - 5 virtual sustainability points to someone who can come up with another non-angiosperm crop plant)

Jarrod Diamond’s wonderful book, “Guns, Germs and Steel” talks about how the initially accidental and later intentional collection and planting of seeds is what made human civilization possible - the move beyond the hunter/gatherer state that happened about 10,000 years ago in the “fertile crescent.”

www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/press_room/C68/pb4_ch7_datarelease

In Chapter 7 of the recently released Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Lester Brown lays out the Plan B goals for eradicating poverty and stabilizing population. Behind the scenes are a number of datasets and graphs that delve deeper into the trends discussed in the chapter. Here are some highlights from the Chapter 7 data:
World population has grown steadily over the past half century, increasing from 2.5 billion in 1950 to a projected 6.8 billion in 2009. The United Nations medium fertility level scenario projects that world population will grow to 9.2 billion in 2050. Their high projection takes the world to 10.5 billion in 2050. Under their low projection, which assumes rapid reductions in fertility rates, population peaks at just over 8 billion in 2042, then begins to decline.

Though life expectancies around the world have increased in the past half century, large discrepancies remain among different regions. Overall, world life expectancy increased from an average of 47 years in the mid-twentieth century to 68 years today. While life expectancy in 1950 hovered around 40 years in both Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, it has since increased far more rapidly in Asia, reaching 69 years, compared to 51 years in Sub-Saharan Africa. On a regional basis, the United States and Canada top the world with an average life expectancy of 79 years.

Lester R. Brown

Our early twenty-first century civilization is being squeezed between advancing deserts and rising seas. Measured by the biologically productive land area that can support human habitation, the earth is shrinking. Mounting population densities, once generated solely by population growth, are now also fueled by the relentless advance of deserts and may soon be affected by the projected rise in sea level. As overpumping depletes aquifers, millions more are forced to relocate in search of water.

Desert expansion in sub-Saharan Africa, principally in the Sahelian countries, is displacing millions of people—forcing them to either move southward or migrate to North Africa. A 2006 U.N. conference on desertification in Tunisia projected that by 2020 up to 60 million people could migrate from sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa and Europe. This flow of migrants has been under way for many years.

Today I picked the grapes from my vineyard.  I got 366 usable pounds from my 25 vines even though I lost at least 100 pounds to birds that somehow penetrated my elaborate net system.  The harvest will still give me between 90 and 115 bottles of what I hope will be decent wine - at least as decent as the ‘06 I’m happily sipping right now.

I used the term “Suburban Farmer” as a shameless lure to get folks to read this blog.  To be honest, I’m not a “Farmer”  at all.   I grow grapes as a hobby, and since I am a self-employed consultant, the time I spend growing these grapes has an “opportunity cost” far greater than what the Syrah I bottle will be worth as a reduction in my substantial wine budget.  I think it is great to garden or do home wine making, and I wish even more people had the opportunity to do it.  It is good for body and soul - better than the money I could have made.  But this is still not farming.  I have too much respect for real farmers to call it that.

The Image above is corn growing in Zimbabwe.

There was a scholarly article published late last year by Dr. Robert Paarlberg entitled “The Ethics of Modern Agriculture.”  I would encourage anyone concerned about both the environment and about feeding people to read it.  It raises some important questions about the ethics of even well intentioned anti-technology activism.

Paarlberg is a professor at Wellesley and also an associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard.  He has no ties to agricultural interests or technology companies, but he has spent a lot of time thinking about the ethics of opposition to technologies that could help feed the poor people of the world.  His book “Starved for Science” is a detailed review of how the precautionary principle thinking of the rich countries (particularly in Europe) has largely kept agricultural technologies out of Africa including ones that would help feed poor people there.

Editor’s Note: This guest post is originally published at Green For All.

People often ask me what the environment has to do with poverty, and why communities of color are getting so active in the fight against climate change.

Today, we released a new video that says it all.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called on minorities to be a bigger part of environmentalism in a speech to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council on Tuesday. Sierra Club showed their appreciation for the EPA’s remarks and highlighted their own commitment to diversity on the same day. “We applaud Administrator Jackson’s call for the environmental movement to better reflect the diversity of all Americans, and we are proud that Sierra Club has such successful diversity programs already established,” said Sierra Club President Allison Chin.

Sierra Club went on to highlight its own diversity related programs, also pointing out that Allison Chin is the first Asian-American president of the organization.

In another effort to bridge the sustainability gaps in our society today, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson called for more diversity in environmentalism yesterday. Speaking to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, she stated clearly that low-income and minority groups are often hit the hardest by environmental problems. “The place where I grew up is like other places in this country. Places where the burden of pollution and environmental degradation falls disproportionately on low-income and minority communities – and most often, on the children in those communities.”

The first big victory against coal power plants in Virginia came a few days ago in a town of about 300. In a statement of independence, environmental justice, and the power a few people can have on the biggest issues facing our environment today, town councilors voted 3-2 to retain their zoning rights regarding a coal power plant proposal and essentially prevent the plant from being built (at least for now).

Big coal brought in all their artillery of propoganda, promises for jobs and a better living environment, and tax revenues for the town, but small groups of informed and regional activists, along with residents willing to listen and think for themselves, helped to stop this process from moving forward in its normal way in the small town of Dendron, VA. They came up with clever tactics and got enough support from the people in the area to make the decision-makers not only listen but vote in a significant and landmark way.

The NAACP has joined with environmental groups to oppose the construction of three power plants because of concerns that burning the feces will expose poor people to arsenic and other contaminants.

“Everyone wants jobs, but you have to be against a job that on the back end may bring disease,” said William Barber II, president of the state NAACP. “I guarantee you if they attempted to put it in a suburban community or a higher-income area, it would be an all-out fight against it.”