[iDC] seed patents, Indian farmer suicides, and the future of Iraq

[Ryan Griffis]

Andreas Schiffler wrote:

> The Indian farmer problem seems to be as much an economic/monetary  
> issue
> as it is a patent/corporate-lock-in one. As much as GM seeds highlite
> the problems arising form imposing capital-intensive production  
> methods
> on non-capital-based agricultural economies, it is probably not the  
> only
> form to create ruin. Canadian wheat farmers in Saskatchewan, although
> operating at 100x the capital level, face essentially the same problem
> through their expensive machinery and storage facilities even if they
> don't grow GM crops. So in the end it is access to long term  
> capital at
> reasonable rates that makes the difference. In the west, governments
> keep bailing out depressed farming economies through subsidies and
> emergency aid. But in the developing world there is not comparable
> support structure in many cases. So how about a microcredit scheme
> specially targeted to farming and supported by people like you and me.
> Microcredit schemes are worth a Nobel Price
> (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/press.html).
> P2P lending system are now in place and seem to be working
> (http://www.mapleleaftwo.com/p2p-lending-emerges/). And as an added
> benefit, this may even give us (who are investing money) leverage on
> what crops the farmer (who are borrowing) could plant - i.e. my credit
> may have strings attached. Would I do it? Maybe, especially if I am  
> not
> alone investing.

The problem with identifying this issue as BOTH economic/monetary AND  
patent/copyright, is that these cannot be separated to begin with. i  
could not even call them 2 sides of the same coin - they are in fact  
on the same side. To point out the federal subsidizing of farm  
economies in the West misses the point - the subsidizing that is  
going on is in the interests of corporate monoculture (and i mean  
that in more ways than the type and variety of farmed plants). The  
subsidies in the West are directly, not even partly, linked to the  
seed situation in India. To be clear, the US is not subsidizing food  
production in the interests of its citizens nutrition, this is all  
too clear, it is subsidizing the production of "value added"  
ingredients like corn syrup. i can make more detailed arguments if  
needed, but i imagine most of us in the US have only to look at our  
grocery store shelves to find initial evidence of this. And globally,  
just look at the forms of food aid being promoted by the USAID to  
Africa, etc.
And in terms of "microcredit schemes"... schemes is a good qualifier.  
Of course, my take on this is highly US-centric, but it's hard for me  
to take this form of financing at face value given the problems of  
sub-prime lending practices that have been occurring here and are now  
generating tremendous amounts of home foreclosures. Of course  
"microcredit" and sub-prime lending are not synonymous, but it makes  
me uncomfortable to support individualistic ways of "subsidizing"  
farmers when the very structure of food production and economic  
exchange (structured through TNCs, NGOs and nation-states) is in  
opposition to what is in those farmers' interests - and i would argue  
most of our interests. The problem isn't that farmers (in the US or  
India) don't have access to money... the problem is that they're  
being required to participate in a system that ultimately aims at  
their destruction. The money and resources that should be going to  
them is instead going towards the creation of a regime more conducive  
to the interests of capital. Why is the US going full steam ahead in  
the subsidizing of corn-based biofuel, following the crash of the  
Hydrogren dream? Does it mean anything that corn is one of the most  
corporately controlled crops in the country - from Monsanto to ADM -  
and has tons of "value added" potential from feed to bio-plastics to  
corn syrup? And all of this despite the research that corn biofuels  
are extremely inefficient and costly to produce.

>
> Another big problem seems to be the lack of alternative seeds. GM  
> crops
> can be very productive, so they do act as an irresistible lure - never
> mind the marketing. But do low-risk alternatives exist in the
> marketplace. One idea may be to borrow from Open Source Software: more
> public domain crops which are competitive with yields and features of
> current GM crops need to be developed and made available by  
> governments
> around the world. Support systems like http://www.bioforge.net are a
> start, but do not transpire any real choice to farmers on the  
> ground yet
> it seems. So politically this could be facilitated through laws  
> aimed at
> opening up the competitive arena. Just like Microsoft was made by  
> the EU
> to open software protocols (and pay a hefty fine, which they did just
> now), biotech companies could receive the same treatment and be forced
> to share some of their genetic IT to allow parallel developments to
> actually happen. Let's hope the EU continues their current  
> leadership in
> this area ...

i think we have to be honest - legislation is the only way such  
matters can be resolved, and that is going to be an uphill battle at  
best. There is plenty of research pointing out the flaws in the  
belief that GMOs offer more reliable and productive yields in  
anything but the most short term outlook. Again, the interests behind  
the realization of GMOs (i'm careful not to say the "science" as i  
think there are scientific interests not simply collapsable into  
corporate agendas), is not based on helping farmers or eaters. "Open  
source" seed models are/were the norm before the "genetic revolution"  
in patent law. Our patent laws in the US were pretty explicit even  
about the line between biology and patentable production until the  
Chakrabarty case in the 80s overturned that paradigm (through appeal  
even). The system that exists now, where, for all practical purposes,  
genetic sequences can be patented, came about through the replacement  
of one legal/juridical regime (in terms of this matter) for another.  
And it's been accepted in the US largely because not many people even  
know what happened.
It's not a matter of forcing Monsanto to "share" their products -  
their products are not designed to help anyone in the first place.  
It's like sharing Dioxin... which they were more than happy to do in  
the 70s. The very nature of the path of inquiry has to be reshaped.  
Public domain agriculture already exists - it was the dominant kind  
of agriculture until relatively recently.
i'll get off of my soapbox now, as i know there are other  
perspectives on the matter.
best,
ryan