Heirloom seeds exposed

The New York Times carried a long article on heirloom seeds on Wednesday. It is both balanced and iconoclastic, but anyone reading in Europe, might, like me, have raised a metaphorical eyebrow at this paragraph:

But the “universities have basically shut down all their programs for home gardeners,” Mr. Gettle said. “Most plant breeders are owned by a few large seed companies. I wish they would develop more things for the home garden.”

You don’t get to be a large seed company by paying any attention to home gardeners who, in any case, say they want to be able to save their own seeds from year to year. Nevertheless, the NYT went on to talk about some of the backyard breeders and small, regional seed companies that are doing precisely that, developing varieties for home gardeners and smaller commercial growers. In the US, and many other places, the market determines what people can get. If the marketing claims made for heirlooms are sketchy, the New York Times will find people to say so. And if large seed companies are failing to satisfy some market segments, other suppliers can try to do better.

European growers and breeders still don’t have that luxury. Directives on conservation varieties do nothing to encourage future breeding efforts, they merely permit old varieties to be marketed under certain conditions. In England and Wales, at any rate, new varieties will still need to be formally listed on the Common Catalogue. As far as I know, the conservation directives so far have been implemented only in Ireland, 1 and a report assessing the value of the directives, due in late 2010 or early 2011, has not surfaced either.

Anyone in Europe wishing to grow unregistered varieties — whatever their motivation, and no matter how misguided they may be — has to find other channels. Of which, I’m glad to say, there seems to be an increasing number.

The economics of nutrition

Or nutrition in The Economist at any rate. Three — count them! — nutrition-related pieces in that venerable organ today for your delectation. Here come the money quotes:

People’s spending choices are a good way to assess levels of hunger. “Using data on people’s choice of what to eat leads to an estimate of hunger that is about half as large as the estimate using the standard method.” Which “typically involves fixing a calorie threshold—2,100 calories per day is a common benchmark—and trying to count how many people report eating food that gives them fewer calories than this number.”

How much can farming really improve people’s health? Haven’t read this yet, but Jeremy says the article takes you round the block, from farming has no impact, to the right kind of farming has great impact. Sounds like quite a ride.

Why small doses of vitamins could make a huge difference to the world’s health. “Public money should be concentrated not on supplying cheap food but on providing for those who do not control what they eat: babies and children.”

Meanwhile, away from the world of think-tanks and economic analysis:

Keeping track of those pesky CRPs

We’ve been keeping an eye on the CGIAR change process, of course. Of course. Particularly as it relates to what they will do about agrobiodiversity, of course. Of course. But it really is not that easy to keep track of what’s happening with the megaprogrammes, or CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) as they are called now. The old CGIAR website is not much use. The blog on the change process they used to have doesn’t seem to be open to all any more. 2 Their knowledge sharing program doesn’t seem to focus much on the changes that are going on. And the page on the CRPs on the new Consortium website is of Saharan aridity. One is left to the information and communications shops of the individual Centres for the latest news on the development of the CRPs, and just recently ICRAF, IRRI, and IFPRI have indeed obliged. But each in their interestingly different ways, and still not a huge amount of evidence of system thinking, at least on the communications side. Anyway, interesting to see a whole (sub)theme in IFPRI’s policy CRP devoted to research on “policies and strategies that facilitate (or hinder) access to enhanced crops and animals, as well as the exchange of germplasm.” With a special reference to neglected and underutilized crops, no less. Alas with nary a mention of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, though. Presumably that will be dealt with elsewhere in the CRPs? No, wait

Nibbles: Intensification, Turnips, Colourful breeding, Development, CGIAR Research Programs, C4 ALV, IRRI,