The notion of farmers saving seed from one harvest to plant for the next is deeply ingrained, especially in ideas about subsistence and sustainable farming. Indeed, that process is usually seen as the foundation of all agriculture, to be abandoned at our peril. In the early 1990s, we saw attempts to shift the discussion on intellectual property from the farmer’s right to save seed of a formally-protected variety to the farmer’s privilege to do the same. Much of the rhetoric that attempts to stick it to The Seed Man focuses on seed saving, and the impact that F1 hybrids, GMOs and other evils will have on farmers who want to save their own seeds.
It is not surprising, therefor, that there’s a lot of sound and fury around the subject. From which melée I offer two snippets.
Bifurcated carrots is keeping a close eye on the progress of the proposed new European seed laws through the labyrinthine corridors of power. He’s hopeful that the lack of progress is a good thing, because it will start the whole process again.
While the seed industry thinks the proposal can be fixed with a few small changes, this is not the position of most seed related NGOs around Europe. It is certainly not our position. The current proposal is not without some good aspects, but overall it’s seriously flawed and should be rewritten.
James Ming Chen, a lawyer, will have no truck with any silly emotional, nostalgic idiocy.
Seed-saving advocates protest that compelling farmers to buy seed every season effectively subjects them to a form of serfdom. So be it. Intellectual property law concerns the progress of science and the useful arts. Collateral economic and social damage, in the form of affronts to the agrarian ego, is of no valid legal concern.
But would he actually prevent seed saving?
The question doesn’t seem sufficiently specific (or is that your intent?). If you mean “Will seed saving (legal or otherwise) actually be prevented” then I can’t say from skimming Chen’s paper cited here. However, if the question amounts to “Is he serious”, then I’d have to say – very much so.
I’m not finding any mention of publicly available germplasm in the piece, perhaps I’ve not looked closely enough. All the argument seems to be in favor of breeder’s rights and indeed there is plenty of disgust with the opportunity cost borne by breeding businesses that must invest in protection schemes so as to capitalize on their investment in breeding.
What I’m curious about in the seed law discussion on your side of the pond is how public domain germplasm will be treated… would seed of an heirloom variety be only available through gifting and non-commercial exchange? If someone grows a public domain seed and subsequently offers the same for commercial sale, will a purchaser have any recourse or claim if said seed is found to be other than described?
Both the current seed law, and the new proposal, start by forbidding all seeds. They then go on to define how seeds intended for commercial monoculture can be registered and permitted, and then go on to make a few other exceptions, mostly through ‘light’ registration procedures. This is just for varietal registration, and on top of this are phytosanitary controls. Key to all of this is currently the requirement that germplasm be stable enough to be identified and classified as a particular variety.
There are substantial costs involved in all of this, so small varieties with little commercial potential, are generally not worth registering.
If germplasm cannot meet these requirements, or if no one bothers to classify it as a variety and register it, it probably won’t be legal for sale. It may or may not be legal for informal exchange, this is far from clear.
There is no particular consumer recourse in these seed laws, except for maybe being able to shut down a seed company for selling illegal seeds. These laws are all about classifying what seeds are legal for sale or not. There are other laws that offer some consumer recourse, but honestly this is less than in the US, where for example if you are unhappy with your purchase you can almost always ask for a free replacement.
Patrick: I am curious (and ignorant) whether the current law mentions `commercial monoculture’? Pasture seed here in the UK is often `polyculture’ and is advertised and sold as such. For example, the field near our house was seeded with 8 varieties of rye grass, two of varieties of timothy and two species of clover, all ready-mixed. Farmers can pick and choose all kinds of varietal and species mixtures for their pasture needs.
Crop monocultures – especially in the highly disturbed conditions of tillage – actually mimic monodominant grassland of which there are numerous natural examples. Agroecology in action!
Dave: Simply an effort to make a long story short for someone who might be unfamiliar with our terminology. I’m not as familiar with the existing laws as I am with the new proposal, but I don’t think it’s mentioned explicitly in this way. I was just referring to DUS/VCU.