Saving Seeds
Why save seed? Why not buy it every year, depend on what is available on the shelf?
For many years (1975 to about 1995) I did exactly that. My garden was never that big, and did not seem that vital to me. It wasn't until about 1997, when I was buying corn and pea seed by the pound, and starting to buy grain seed for planting, that I got involved in really looking at variety. I began to be discontented that I couldn't get the type of seed I wanted. At that time in my life, I didn't know the difference between spring grains and fall grains, hard wheat and soft wheat. And I had never heard of open-pollinated varieties, heritage grains, land-race varieties, or heirloom seeds. I knew about hybrid seed, but I had never heard of genetically modified organisms.
I've come a good distance toward understanding in the last 15 years (with much further to go). Working on this web site has helped to open my eyes to the deep level of controversy surrounding the topics of seed- saving, seed propagation, patenting plant varieties, and multinational corporations. That is not where i had planned to go with the website, but it is part of the learning process. The environment for the development of survival skills and disaster planning includes physical materials and skills. The learning curve must also include a root-cause analysis of present-day economic and social problems.
To what extent do present-day global agricultural, political, and economic policies contribute to world hunger and economic collapse? That is the core of the debate. It is unacceptable if the 'Green Revolution' (beginning in the 1960s), rolling forward to the present day re-mix of genetically altering and patenting organisms, has actually led to impoverishment, suicide, famine, and war in developing countries. It is vital to determine the truth of such allegations, and not only that. If there are such negative consequences to these policies, it is vital to determine the intent of the producers of the seeds and the chemicals involved, as well as the intent of the policy makers; governmental and otherwise. If harm was done and is continuing to be done, what was the motivation? Was it unintentional? Was it for financial gain? Was it for the purpose of world domination? The truth needs to be told.
In the late 90s, internet news groups came on the scene. For several years, I participated in one such group- Soc.Religion.Quaker. I had long since gone a different way, when I re-encountered the group in 2004. To my surprise, one of the correspondents had saved something I had written. (He was wiser than I, and I am grateful to have it back in my hands.) It is applicable here.
"...We will have won a battle so significant that we cannot
begin to realize it; when the human species finally and
entirely ceases and desists from lies and deceit. Painful
though the truth can be, it sheds such a great light,
that all of human interaction will be illuminated and made
straight, and only pockets of ignorance will remain dark
and shadowed.
No spin, no disinformation or misinformation, no strategic
misrepresentation ... what type of new corporate and
governmental strategies would be required to deal with
reality-based communication and perception? What ever would
happen to Hollywood - and the cosmetics industry??"
-Louise Wakefield
The material I present here is the work of individuals and groups passionate about their causes. I barely scratch the surface of what is available. For every presentation on one side of the debates, there is an opposing view. I suggest that you read, and talk, and try growing for yourself. Try eating the food. That is where 'the rubber meets the road'.
The principles of plant breeding and improvement are ancient and valid. No one wants crop failure; everyone wants good food. The goal is to ensure that our system of cultivation and food production is sufficiently diverse, and sufficiently flexible; to meet the challenges of a changing world. I believe this goal is best met by educating, empowering, and facilitating people to become involved in actual food production on a local level. We are not sheep standing in a pen, waiting to be fed. We can't afford that. It is not safe. It is too easy for sheep standing in a pen to be led, instead, to slaughter.
For many years (1975 to about 1995) I did exactly that. My garden was never that big, and did not seem that vital to me. It wasn't until about 1997, when I was buying corn and pea seed by the pound, and starting to buy grain seed for planting, that I got involved in really looking at variety. I began to be discontented that I couldn't get the type of seed I wanted. At that time in my life, I didn't know the difference between spring grains and fall grains, hard wheat and soft wheat. And I had never heard of open-pollinated varieties, heritage grains, land-race varieties, or heirloom seeds. I knew about hybrid seed, but I had never heard of genetically modified organisms.
I've come a good distance toward understanding in the last 15 years (with much further to go). Working on this web site has helped to open my eyes to the deep level of controversy surrounding the topics of seed- saving, seed propagation, patenting plant varieties, and multinational corporations. That is not where i had planned to go with the website, but it is part of the learning process. The environment for the development of survival skills and disaster planning includes physical materials and skills. The learning curve must also include a root-cause analysis of present-day economic and social problems.
To what extent do present-day global agricultural, political, and economic policies contribute to world hunger and economic collapse? That is the core of the debate. It is unacceptable if the 'Green Revolution' (beginning in the 1960s), rolling forward to the present day re-mix of genetically altering and patenting organisms, has actually led to impoverishment, suicide, famine, and war in developing countries. It is vital to determine the truth of such allegations, and not only that. If there are such negative consequences to these policies, it is vital to determine the intent of the producers of the seeds and the chemicals involved, as well as the intent of the policy makers; governmental and otherwise. If harm was done and is continuing to be done, what was the motivation? Was it unintentional? Was it for financial gain? Was it for the purpose of world domination? The truth needs to be told.
In the late 90s, internet news groups came on the scene. For several years, I participated in one such group- Soc.Religion.Quaker. I had long since gone a different way, when I re-encountered the group in 2004. To my surprise, one of the correspondents had saved something I had written. (He was wiser than I, and I am grateful to have it back in my hands.) It is applicable here.
"...We will have won a battle so significant that we cannot
begin to realize it; when the human species finally and
entirely ceases and desists from lies and deceit. Painful
though the truth can be, it sheds such a great light,
that all of human interaction will be illuminated and made
straight, and only pockets of ignorance will remain dark
and shadowed.
No spin, no disinformation or misinformation, no strategic
misrepresentation ... what type of new corporate and
governmental strategies would be required to deal with
reality-based communication and perception? What ever would
happen to Hollywood - and the cosmetics industry??"
-Louise Wakefield
The material I present here is the work of individuals and groups passionate about their causes. I barely scratch the surface of what is available. For every presentation on one side of the debates, there is an opposing view. I suggest that you read, and talk, and try growing for yourself. Try eating the food. That is where 'the rubber meets the road'.
The principles of plant breeding and improvement are ancient and valid. No one wants crop failure; everyone wants good food. The goal is to ensure that our system of cultivation and food production is sufficiently diverse, and sufficiently flexible; to meet the challenges of a changing world. I believe this goal is best met by educating, empowering, and facilitating people to become involved in actual food production on a local level. We are not sheep standing in a pen, waiting to be fed. We can't afford that. It is not safe. It is too easy for sheep standing in a pen to be led, instead, to slaughter.
Patenting Seed, GMOs and 'Terminator' Genes, and Seed Saving
This could be placed under 'Conspiracy Theory'- but goes as well here. (3/7/12, just the links here, discussion will follow. See also the various subject headings under 'activism'.)
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/02/open-seeds-biopiracy-and-patenting-life
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Legal-Memorandum.FINAL_.pdf
http://www.croptrust.org/main/
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology
http://www.ewg.org/news/government-alters-pcbs-deal-bid-appease-state
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes
On a somewhat more hopeful note, here is an article from Cornucopia.org concerning a farmer (Jim Gerritsen) in Aroostook County, Maine, date lined Feb.15, 2012, entitled 'The way food should be'. Among other topics, the article discusses a paradox in the legal maneuvering involved in patenting, labeling, and marketing GMOs. You should read the entire article. I excerpt only the portion on 'The Monsanto Paradox'.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/02/the-way-food-should-be/#more-4868
'...At the core of their legal argument is an issue Gerritsen calls “the Monsanto paradox.” The corporation obtained patents for its GMOs by arguing that they are unique technological inventions. But, at the same time, Monsanto representatives convinced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that their products are substantially equivalent to traditional crops and therefore do not need to be labeled as GMOs. Gerritsen and his lawyers view this as a contradiction.
“Either your invention is unique and deserving of a patent and should get one, in which case the product should be labeled, or if it shouldn’t be labeled it’s not deserving of a patent. It’s got to be one or the other,” Gerritsen said.
'...Also, U.S. patent law clarifies that an invention merits a patent only if it has “social utility.” Since GMOs are believed to have a variety of negative health and environmental impacts, their social utility is in question.'
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/02/open-seeds-biopiracy-and-patenting-life
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Legal-Memorandum.FINAL_.pdf
http://www.croptrust.org/main/
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology
http://www.ewg.org/news/government-alters-pcbs-deal-bid-appease-state
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes
On a somewhat more hopeful note, here is an article from Cornucopia.org concerning a farmer (Jim Gerritsen) in Aroostook County, Maine, date lined Feb.15, 2012, entitled 'The way food should be'. Among other topics, the article discusses a paradox in the legal maneuvering involved in patenting, labeling, and marketing GMOs. You should read the entire article. I excerpt only the portion on 'The Monsanto Paradox'.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/02/the-way-food-should-be/#more-4868
'...At the core of their legal argument is an issue Gerritsen calls “the Monsanto paradox.” The corporation obtained patents for its GMOs by arguing that they are unique technological inventions. But, at the same time, Monsanto representatives convinced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that their products are substantially equivalent to traditional crops and therefore do not need to be labeled as GMOs. Gerritsen and his lawyers view this as a contradiction.
“Either your invention is unique and deserving of a patent and should get one, in which case the product should be labeled, or if it shouldn’t be labeled it’s not deserving of a patent. It’s got to be one or the other,” Gerritsen said.
'...Also, U.S. patent law clarifies that an invention merits a patent only if it has “social utility.” Since GMOs are believed to have a variety of negative health and environmental impacts, their social utility is in question.'
3. Seed banks
4. The Green Revolution and Biodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/80096/icode/
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/80096/icode/
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
|
|
|
5. Globalization
http://www.ifg.org/
From Wikipedia's discussion of globalization; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
Their thesis is that globalization evolved from trade, enlarged and became more complex through the process of industrialization, and then became entrenched through what they term 'institutionalization' (see their article). The institutions which they name in this section;
'...Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.'
From Wikipedia's discussion of globalization; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
Their thesis is that globalization evolved from trade, enlarged and became more complex through the process of industrialization, and then became entrenched through what they term 'institutionalization' (see their article). The institutions which they name in this section;
'...Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.'