Seeds of destruction?

Organic farming seed regulation, well meant though it is, could do more harm than good. It could easily cause a decline in the future market because of its uncompromising refusal to allow non-organic seed to be used after 2003. Bry Lynas enters the minefield and explains the problems.

What's the problem? - Up till now, organic growers like ourselves have been mightily encouraged to buy organic seeds by organisations like the Soil Association. It has been part carrot, part stick. We growers should want to encourage more production of more varieties of organically-grown seed, after all, shouldn't we? Well yes, of course. And if we particularly needed a variety with special qualities (like flavour, disease resistance and so on) which didn't exist on the organic seed lists, we've had to go through a series of increasingly cumbersome bureaucratic hoops - asking for a derogation (permission) from the Soil Association for each non-organic variety we needed.

Part of the idea behind this was to force organic growers to find suitable organic seeds by trawling through numbers of seed catalogues, and buy them instead of non-organic ones. As demand for organic seed increased this would, it was hoped, stimulate more seed-producers to grow more organic seed and more varieties of it. At the same time, greater supplies would bring the high price of such seed down so that it more closely matched the non-organic equivalent. Result: organic growers would eagerly search out organic seed and buy it because they knew it to be reasonably priced, good quality and supportive of organic principles.

So the state of play is this:

• 2003 is the last year in which derogations are allowed. After that, all seed has to be organically grown.
• There is to be zero tolerance of genetically modified seed or pollen contamination.
• Organic seed continues to be expensive, often double or triple the non-organic alternative. The number of varieties available has increased but it still very small compared to the vast choice available to non-organic growers. In our small experience, organic seed is not always very good.

And these are the problems

Variety is the spice of life - It's very frustrating seeing catalogues bursting with new varieties which just aren't available organically. Take tomatoes. Many new varieties have been developed by breeders which are resistant to a range of nasty diseases like TMV (tobacco mosaic virus), fusarium wilts, blight and also to bugs like aphids (which spread diseases). We organic growers ideally should have these latest superior resistant plants even more than non-organic growers because we - unlike them - cannot use (for example) fungicidal sprays. If disease like potato blight takes hold, we can lose the whole crop.

The ultimate result of this will inevitably be that non-organic growers will have the double advantage of being able to use any seed that best suits their circumstances and, if all the 'built-in' resistance to pests and diseases fails, they can still turn to chemicals to kill whatever is afflicting their plants. Organic growers can't do either of these things which can mean lower quality veg at a higher price. What hope have we then when current enthusiasm for organic at almost any price wanes and some new fad appears?

Heritage seeds - Another anomaly is that we can't use seed grown organically - but informally, without the grower being registered organic - such as that produced for the Henry Doubleday Research Association (HDRA) for their Heritage Seed Library. A small army of dedicated HDRA members 'grow out' these old or unusual seed varieties year by year. They would otherwise be lost, along with their particular dollop of genetic biodiversity. They cannot be sold because they don't appear on the national seed list. Many used to be on the list but have, for various reasons, been dropped. So these dedicated members grow and swap each year to keep the heirloom seeds viable. There are similar seed swap organisations in other countries. I mention them only because certified organic growers cannot join in and grow old or unusual varities and help to preserve this biodiversity for posterity because the seeds are not certified to be organic. This seems to me to be a step backwards, unintentionally mirroring the massive loss of biodiversity which the big mulitnational seed companies are overseeing in their rush to claim and ensure their 'intellectual property rights' (IPRs) through modern biotechnology.

The Genie is out of his bottle - Which brings me to that other 'hate' acronym: GMO (genetically modified organism). Several years ago, large numbers of people became incensed about the prospect of GM crops entering our food chain by stealth, as the corporations hoped to achieve. The gaff was blown and both corporations and government (always quietly pro-GM) had to retreat in the face of massive public opposition to the introduction of genetic technologies in the production of our food. Opposition remains in much of Europe but interest is waning and pressure from the US is mounting, with threats of action through the World Trade Organisation and a trade war if Europe doesn't allow GM crops to be imported and grown here. "Make no mistake about it," as President Bush is fond of saying, this technology will arrive here whether we like it or not. With 80% of soybeans in the US now GM, China gung-ho for their own GM technologies and even 'awkward' states like India, opting in to GM cotton, what hope have we? In five or ten years, we shall all be eating GM food. And to be fair, nobody has died from it so far. That's not really the issue though. Its other effects - environmental and IPRs (ownership of life) - are much more scary and insidious.

Organic challenge - But this means that the organic standards are going to be challenged fundamentally. It's not that organic growers want to grow GM crops but that they will inevitably and inadvertently be doing so sooner or later. 'Contamination' is going to become the big problem. When GM seeds are widespread, accidental (or deliberate) spills not to mention pollen drift are going to mean that more and more organic producers - particularly the big ones in the agri-business 'prairies' of Lincolnshire and East Anglia - will have some of their own crops contaminated. Which will mean that they can't sell their produce as 'certified organic' even though they're following all the rules and regulations. Will the existing standards which will not accept any level of GM contamination drive genuine organic producers out of business? Will the standards eventually accept the 'real world' and permit certain minimal levels of contamination? I don't know but this is likely to become a big issue for the organic community, through no fault of their own, in not very many years time. It's already a problem in Canada where in the prairie provinces, organic oil seed rape (canola) cannot be grown because of the ubiquitous GM pollen contamination.

Costing the earth - Organic seeds are expensive and likely to remain so for two reasons:

1. demand is never going to remotely approach that for non-organic seed with its production scales, economies and 'hidden' costs to the environment which aren't paid for by the industry which incurs them.
2. GM is going to require highly specialised production of certain susceptible types of pure seed which will have to be under cover to avoid contamination, given the organic standards as they exist at present.

Solutions mean more questions - I can offer no solutions to the problems I've outlined, save that we should maybe be asking fundamental questions about organic standards (whose scope will be EU-wide). What do people really want from organic growers? Will using some non-organic seed help or hinder organic growers? Are organic consumers really bothered about this? And what about GM contamination?

Finally - and here's a thought! - what if genetic biotechnology offers the prospect of completely disease-resistant veg with enhanced levels of vitamins and minerals? Would we be tempted?

Bry Lynas, Llangybi Organics, January 2003