Seed Broadcast
seed broadcast
Organic Vegetable Farmers - WARNING - you may be engaging in contract agreements with Monsanto
Five years ago, in February of 2005 I wrote an article regarding Monsanto's purchase of the vegetable seed conglomerate Seminis. At the time many organic fresh market farmers relied on Seminis varieties. Since that time Monsanto has acquired additional vegetable seed companies, and continued to identify traits in vegetable crops for patenting. Some organic farmers and organic seed companies found replacements for Seminis varieties. However, speaking to farmers at conferences and field days, it is apparent that organic farmers are still buying Seminis products, particularly for tomato, cabbage, peppers, cauliflower, lettuce, and squash cultivars. This is in part because the infrastructure, skills, and investments necessary to develop and breed new varieties for organic agriculture have not developed adequately to be able to serve all the needs of organic growers. One reason new innovation and breeding is slow is due to concentration of resources in seed systems (Monsanto monopoly) and the utility patents that have been granted loosely and broadly that limit access to plant genetic resources for public and private sector breeders. I've spoken with university breeders who say they are afraid to breed in some vegetable crops due to the tsunami of patents for things as vague as "heat tolerance" in broccoli.
With organic farmers underserved by the public and private breeders and seed industry, some farmers have taken breeding into their own hands. OSA works with many such farmers, including some who have made selections from saving seed from hybrid vegetable material to develop new open-pollinated varieties. They do this because they fear that favorite varietals will be dropped (Copra onion from Bejo is an example of one such hybrid that organic growers have been loyal to, but has nonetheless been dropped). It is a common practice for breeders - both formally trained and farmers - to use existing varieties in their breeding efforts. Congress had a goal of stimulating breeding innovation when in passing the Plant Variety Protection Act they allowed for a breeders exemption to save seed. That exemption has been removed with the advent of utility patents, which disallow any form of seed saving for any purpose. Seed companies enforce their utility patents in a variety of ways, the most egregious being the thousands of threats and lawsuits Monsanto has brought against farmers for saving seed. Monsanto claims that they warn farmers of the law by placing a technology agreement (TLA) - a legal contract according to our courts - on each bag of seed that states that the farmer is agreeing to not save seed for any purpose, including breeding.
The TA and the lawsuits that come with it have been most noted in biotech crops, and even Monsanto's own "Technology Use Guide" describes the licensing agreement for their biotech traits. However, we've recently been made aware that Monsanto owned Seminis has begun to place this TA on vegetable seed packets. Organic farmers, when you open your bag of Big Beef tomato or Speedway cucumber, please carefully read the licensing agreement you are making with Monsanto-Seminis by simply opening the bag. Unless you want Monsanto agents taking samples from your farm, suing you in court for thousands of dollars in patent infringement, and causing you to go into debt for legal counsel (regardless if you were guilty or not) you might want to think twice about ordering Seminis varieties from your seed companies this year. We've been made aware of new language on Seminis seed packets that you should be aware of as well, as it would indicate that the company has their eyes on enforcing their patents in vegetables, and they are informing farmers on the packet of seed in fine print - it's information you should take as a warning as it makes your farm open to investigation and threats of the kind mentioned above.
At recent seed Organic Seed Alliance workshops at the MOSES Organic Farming Conference we heard several organic producers claim that in 2009 they started seeing a "Notice to Purchaser" on the back of their seed packets. We asked farmers to send us the packets. They did (see below), and indeed several of the standard hybrid varieties that we know organic farmers plant have the TA. If you are a farmer and have purchased Seminis seed and have these packets please consider either scanning and emailing to us, or mailing us the packet. It is not stated clearly, either in the catalogs that sell these varieties or on the packet, what patents have been applied to them. A search of patent database shows many Seminis patents, and in Speedway, for example, this could be a patent on resistance to certain races of CMS, but it is not clearly stated. Of course resistance to CMS has been in cucumbers long before Seminis began breeding them, and in fact is a natural biological trait that no human invented. We need to change patent law, demand the congressional judiciary committee investigates patents of biological life, to role these back. But in the meantime, consider not planting Seminis varieties.
The sick irony is that on the Seminis web site recognizes that they don't invent the non-biotech traits they are patenting, yet our government still grants them patents (bold, italics, and underlines are mine): "Biodiversity is not just a concept for seed companies like Seminis. It's one of our greatest assets, and the source of our innovation. Seminis has inherited the seeds and knowledge collected from more than 600 years of combined experience. Today, we are preserving 1.5 million breeding lines — one of the world's largest collections of vegetable and fruit seeds, known as germplasm. In short, this diversity makes our work possible. We are always looking for new traits that are still locked in the vast reservoir of the wild relatives of cultivated vegetables. Today, Seminis is developing "super broccoli" with three times more cancer-fighting compounds than varieties currently grown. This breakthrough resulted from a trait discovered in a wild broccoli plant growing in the Mediterranean region."
Here's the front of packet:
Here's the back with TA:
Fine Print:
- Matthew Dillon, OSA Director of Advocacy
March 15, 2010
Afternoon Update from DOJ-USDA hearings on competition in agriculture
Battery died and so was off for a bit. We had a good panel with state Attorney Generals who seem quite geared up on these issues. They also admit their limitations, that they rely on interpretations from judiciary to prosecute potential infractions. They pointed to several victories - including the cessation of the JBS merger in cattle (where 2 of the top 4 cattle processors were trying to merge) and a recent rejection of a Dean Foods acquisition in dairy. But, Montana AG Steve Bullock also pointed out that it would be easy to be skeptical and pessimistic and feel we have been here before. He pointed to competition hearings in 1999 that talked about many of these same issues (particularly concentration in livestock), and yet from 1999 to 2010 we didn't see much done about antitrust and plenty of consolidation. Steve believes we are in a different situation this time; that there is a new strong partnership between two agencies (DOJ and USDA), that never before have the head of these two agencies met to discuss these issues (as they did today), and that we have a particularly strong antitrust division in DOJ (as Christine exemplified this morning).
I want to believe Steve Bullock - that this is different and we have leaders that care. However, so much of this does feel like a shadow puppet show. The reality on the ground is that this room has farmers who are on the verge of going out of business, and several likely will this year. We have a government that in 1962 was public about reducing the number of farmers to 1/5th of its status - that wanted the sons and daughters of rural America to leave the farm. The reality is that we have a government that out of one side of its mouth talks about protecting us and at the other side compliments Monsanto for all the improvements they have provided to our farmers and our economy. This room has very few organic farmers, but every one of these conventional farmers here can empathize with many of the same issues that organic farmers feel. They are not only underserved, they are served poison. I talked to one who said he'd like to go organic, but feels it would be "unethical" because he grows corn-cattle in a sea of GMO pollen and he knows that he would get contaminated, and that even if the standard allows that, he couldn't stand it.
One farmer, George Naylor, said that it was hard to trust this process. He said, "It's like you're trying to close the door not only after the horses are out of the barn, but after the horse thieves have taken them and so we can't even get them back." He was one of several farmers who fear it is too late for them and their children. I spoke with over a dozen organic farmers and organic field crop seed companies and asked them to attend, and over and over I heard "I don't believe that they really want to, will, or can do anything." This hopelessness is one of the most dangerous traits that impacts the well-being of our agricultural systems. The antidote that most of us take is passionate anger at the system edged with ocasional humor, and work at times with blinders on to not see just how rough and scary things are. That said, I do believe that there will be some benefit from these hearings. Not everything we want, but there seems to be a possibility that the utility patent issue might really be examined. That would be big. Things are wrapping up, and I will post more stories, interviews, video, and pics in the coming week. Keep the faith, never stop. - Matthew
Afternoon Panel - How have technological developments and structural changes affected the competitive dynamics of the seed industry?
Afternoon Panel: How have technological developments and structural changes affected the competitive dynamics of the seed industry?
This is a depressing one to report on. Really scripted. Real b.s. - other than Neil Harl
This includes:
Now Tobin tells us that Monsanto has a 2,4-d resistance trait in the pipeline to replace roundup ready resistance. 2, 4-d!! So wait, their claims they are saving the environment with Roundup is temporary and they are going to push farmers into spraying a major cancer causing herbicide!!! And he sees this as a success and innovation.
Jim McDonald (ERS) - moderator - lobbing softballs at these guys to try and show that everyone is working together.
Neil Harl (ISU)
- describes how PVPs worked and allowed for continued innovation by researchers and farmers. Points out that patents have done the opposite and limited choice. Says congress needs to intervene and referee to stop patent abuses. Points out that farmers don't want to "buy a lawsuit" when they buy seed. Reminds everyone that patented material does get into others seed, and this liability on farmers is unfair. Says we need regulatory action
Diana Moss (American Antitrust Institute) was funded by DuPont to write a paper against Monsanto's monopoly practices. But she is pro-patent and pro-biotech. Just wants generic biotech traits available, like we have in pharmaceuticals.
Jim Tobin (Monsanto)
- "patents have attracted a great deal of innovation. "
"Allows farmers to make more money."
(biotech) "saved kids from having to walk the beans every summer." (first job I ever had was walking soybean fields to seed them. what is wrong with laboring on a farm??)
Says there are 50 new traits being worked on in biotech by many companies. Licensed to 200 companies. A lot of choice today and going to be more in the future. Says Monsanto shouldn't be punished for being ahead of the competition.
Ray Gessner (soybean and corn farmer)
- No problems. Lots of choices for conventional growers in seed.
Dermot Hayes (ISU)
- We don't have strong enough intellectual property on wheat and so it lags behind. Need biotechnology and patents for wheat traits.
This panel is so imbalanced (other than Neil who really gets the negative impact of panels). This is the most stomach wrenching crap - exactly as we feared. They're talking about how exciting it will be when Roundup Ready goes off patent (2015) and lots of folks can use it. What they aren't talking about is that by 2015 Roundup (glyphosate) will be next to useless in US because of weed resistance to it from overuse.
They're bemoaning how expensive it is for Monsanto to get deregulation on a new product. Takes them so much time, money, etc. $100 million to bring a new trait from development, through regulation, and into the market = justification for patents.
Monsanto (Jim Tobin) patting itself on the back for how it's going to allow others to use the RR resistance trait and keep maintaining the quality of the trait for those who want to use it.
The crowd is rumbling. This all feels so scripted.
Someone from Monsanto contacted me and says that what Tobin said is the there is an "opportunity" for a 24-d trait" but that Monsanto does NOT have it in the pipleline. Several others I spoke with thought they heard it as being more active, but I can't be sure and we don't need rumors as there are plenty of truths to address when it comes to creating a healthier seed system.
Can't wait to see the published transcript of this session.
Morning Farmer Panel at Department of Justice hearing on competition in agriculture
Two great presentations from Eric Nelson (cattle and corn farmer from IA) and Jim Foster (independent hog farmer from Missouri). With a couple good mentions from Ken Fawcett.
Nelson hits hard on the patents restricting competition, points out studies that show that increased use of ROundup is damaging soils and increasing soil diseases, bemoans the loss of public sector research, and quotes Thoreau that a corporation has no conscience.
Points out that there has been a 153% increase in input (seed, fertilizer, herbicides) costs for farmers with a 20% increase in yields is what farmers - and that this is a result of consolidation and points out that farmers are not getting value worth increased costs. Rebuts Pam Johnson who claims that nothing is broken and that the biotech companies are only delivering new value. Keeps pushing the loss of land grant universities serving the needs of small and medium sized farmers. Says it's imperative we address this.
Ken Fawcett says "Farmers need opportunity to grow what they want to. And consumers should get to choose what they want and not what corporations tell them they should have.
Eddie Wise - ex-green bere (27 years) who returned to North Carolina to farm. Grew up on a share cropping hog operation. Now wants to have his own independent operation. Struggling to find the capital for his processing operation.
Foster says we need to see that "too big to fail" failed, that the system is not only cracked but broken. Paints a picture of how he has watched a vibrant rural economy become into collapsed silos, weedy abandoned fields, and rusted equipment. Points out specific sections of antitrust law that have been violated in packer ownership of animals. Points out America has deficit in ag - importing more than we export. Points out that Chicago style economics have failed us in multiple sectors. Says we need logical limits on farm payments to restrict growth that gives unfair advantage. Govt guaranteed loans favor farmers who have massive contracts with the likes of Cargill and Tyson, not his kids who want to run medium sized farms.
Says since 1980, in the US, we have lost
91% of hog operations
60% of cattle
80% of dairy
Crowd very fired up after Jim talks. Two rounds of applause.
Pam Johnson and Todd Wiley - both big producers (and Pam with a seed company that sells Monsanto products) keep repeating that the system is basically fine. Pam thinks we need to all get along and stop bashing poor old biotech. Says she "used to be small too" and so she "understands" the struggles of folks like Eddie, Jim, and Eric. Pam says GMOs "makes agronomic and economic sense" and believes price reflects the valu. sees a robust competitive marketplace in the 5 companies providing biotech traits.
Vilsack says - 900,000 of americas 2.2 million farmers have to work 200 days off the farm to keep the farm, along with loss of farms - he questions if we have the right mix of companies serving farmers. Concerned that we don't and that farmers will keep disappearing and that this is a crisis. Asks what we have to do to reverse the trends of abandoning farms.
Concluding comments from Christine Varney (Ass Att Gen): Joint task force between usda and DOJ to enforce packers and stockyard act is needed. She'll send lawyers DOJ way - Vilsack agrees to this here and now. They want to look for these places where DOJ and USDA intersect.
A few pics from the day
A few pics of the day so far:
where we are:
Attorney General Holder speaks with a rancher
Kristina Hubbard (Out of Hand Report), Harvey Howington (Arkansas rice farmer contaminated by Liberty Link GMO rice), me
Finally - a recognition of patents role in monopolies - big applause
Christine Varney - US Assistant Attorney General
"Patents have been used in the past to create or extend monopolies. We will be looking closely at any attempts to do so via abuse of the patent laws." - the first time mentioned and the audience responded with their first big burst of applause of the morning.
"We will closely scrutinize mergers that come before us." If they restrict competition
"They will not go through during this department of justice."
Companies that are large "have responsibility to behave in ways that keep the competitive market open"
They also have criminal authority. "It is illegal for competitors to fix prices and we will prosecute that criminally."
After she speaks Eric Holder recognizes what a great leader Christine is. The room is a little more electric and awake after her talk.
He also underlines that they won't allow big companies to misuse power. "Big is not bad. But big companies who misuse power will be stopped by this department."
Holder calls it an issue of national security. Believes his job is to make improvements that impacts people's day to day lives.
IA Attorney General Tom Miller's and Sec of Ag (IA) Bill Northey remarks
Tom Miller - IA Attorney General
- thanks Vilsack and Holder for creating this new relationship. Great for public interest for many reasons. Antitrust law is fairly limited, and judiciary interpretation even more limited.
Need to look at this from consumer protection law as well as antitrust law.
The states have never had the kind of healthy relationship with fed DOJ as they have right now in this administration. "Trust, cooperation and respect" that is in the public interest.
In IA office they have had an "obsession", some with examine contract problems in pork producers as well as seed. AG office went to IA legislation with "Growers bill of rights". They had a small victory in those rights, but not everything they wanted. Did protect farmers from poor contracts, whistle blowing, and release from contracts for getting involved in organizing.
With some other state AGs they have added their comments to federal DOJ on these issues. "seeds, cattle,hogs, dairy, and transportation" are of serious concern to several states. Competition in regards to seeds a particular concern. Mentions recent AP story - in soybeans 95% of soy has RR traits. 67% in corn. Additional the price is a concern, "Monsanto's place in seed is a competitive issue that needs to be examined."
- He did call Roundup a "wonderful trait" but other than this lack of understanding his competitive comments were strong.
IA Secretary of Agriculture - Bill Northey
Changes in last 10 years have been fairly dramatic. What's the impact been on producers from price increases in seeds. 10 year ago - $1billion in seed. Now closer to $2billion, but points out that the "value" of those crops has increased - that this has almost doubled as well. And that new technologies are a part of it. He's giving the biotech party line - if you get more money out of it than the seed is worth more and so will cost more.
"Don't want to lose the encouragement for developing new technologies".
"Seed has increased in value."
Rise in cost of inputs doesn't mean that they weren't worth it, and that there is anticompetitive practices. Everyone should be happy according to this guy as far as seed and other inputs. Farmers are just buying good value.
This guy is a mouthpiece for fertilizer, herbicide, and biotech industry. Farmers I see in my row are fidgeting and scowling more at each word he speaks.
The worst of all speakers in terms of recognizing the issues, much less respecting them.
Senator Grassley and Representative Boswell Remarks
Grassley (Iowa Senator) - needs to understand process as much as substance. Compliments DOJ and USDA for doing this "badly needed" and the cooperation across departments is essential for taking on lack of competition in agriculture.
Grassley, "There's not enough competition. This is not only a problem today, but a problem for young farmers getting started and keeping next generation of family farmers strong."
"Poeple use the term family farm loosely, but its imprint we understand what real family farms are."
"The government needs to be a referee"
Needs to be a formalization - he has written ACE legislation (agricultural competitive enhancement act) that he is promoting to increase dialogue and cooperation across departments, to develop "competition guidelines" and beef up antitrust enforcement.
similar to regulatory reform with wall street. Need greater transparency which makes enforcement easier.
Boswell (Iowa Congressman) -
Starts out with the factor of feeding a growing world. Says that there's room for everyone. That we need more research to feed people. Points out the UCFW union members in the audience and applauds their efforts and achievement.
Bowell is giving the most political of talks so far. The first three were strong. He is walking back and forth across the fence and not giving any substance. Keeps saying "fairness"
Refers to "Two major research companies that are helping us" do our best to feed. Obviously refering to Monsanto and Pioneer who built this building and bought his allegiance. Ugh. He was corporate fluff talk.
opening remarks - Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder
Vilsasck says we've lost 80,000 "middle sized" farms in the last year alone. Vilsack states the these workshops are long overdue. Starts out recognizing that seed, packers,and dairy are concentrated - questions if farmers are getting a "fair shake."
Eric Holder starts out with a quote from Eisenhower: "Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field. He calls this "a historical milestone"..."Never has this happened since the founding of the Sheman Antitrust Act".
Expresses concerns that there are illegal activities, and that enforcement of antitrust laws are critical, but that this is bigger than DOJ and that is why they are partnering with USDA as there are likely regulatory issues at play. He gets it! Says we must not only keep up this work that we start to day, but that "we must expand it."
Holder:
"We are not afraid to hear from you what is on your mind. you have to be as frank as you can be."
"We have to protect both farmers and consumers from anti-competitive activity."
Mentions state attorney generals, FTC, and others as partners in these investigations.
"We will enhance our ability to do the job you expect from us if we have a very frank exchange of views this morning"
Questions for Dept of Justice and USDA
Here are some of the questions we'll be asking the DOJ-USDA today - these questions reworded in various days depending on who is at the microphone.
Questions to consider putting on the question cards:
1) How does the department of justice define an “independent seed company”? For instance, does it, as Monsanto does, include the nearly 30 companies owned by American Seeds Incorporated, a Monsanto holding company?
2) In their comments to the Department of Justice, Monsanto claims “farmer choice is increasing with time”, is there an independent study or reporting mechanism that assesses the loss or increase of diverse, site specific cultivars from which farmers might choose? What are the objective and independent measuring rods of competition, farmer choice and benefit?
3) What enforcement powers/mechanisms are currently available to ensure that there is a strong, vibrant competitive marketplace for seeds with fair pricing for farmers?
4) What role have patents and intellectual property in seeds played in the rapid concentration in the seed industry? Have patenting and intellectual property rights stifled innovation and seed development? How do we measure its positive or negative impact on innovation?
5) What changes in existing federal policy are necessary to restore competitiveness to the seed industry?
6) If anticompetitive practices in the seed industry are established/proven, what sanctions/remedies should be imposed/applied?
7) Organic producers continue to not have access to adequate quantities of organic seed. Have organic producers been disproportionally impacted by seed industry concentration in that the independent regional seed companies who might have served their needs are disappearing quickly?
8) What actions will the federal government take, not only to have better competition amongst the top 4-5 companies, but to improve market conditions so regional independent companies can thrive?
9) We used to have Land Grant Universities that released public cultivars to farmers through regional seed companies. Our public agricultural research programs are struggling and so they take funds from dominant corporate ag interests and don’t release varieties. Competition between public and private was a good thing, and helped make sure smaller markets were served. What happened to our public institutions, and what is the federal government going to do to ensure that these institutions serve public interests and not the will of the corporate trusts?
10) When congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act they allowed farmers and researchers to save seed both for usage and for further breeding. This was seen as a way of rewarding intellectual property but also keeping seed innovation healthy. The seed industry seemed to do just fine with the PVP prior to the allowance on utility patents. Why not return to the PVP as the sole form of breeders’ rights? Where’s the flaw?
