EU seed soveriegnty insanity

[sam_uk]

Thanks Sam. All my efforts are going into trying to do positive stuff at the moment, .

No worries. You could always help a friend of mine set up: www.illegalheritageseed.eu if this goes through. Payment in bitcoins only!

A encrypted trading platform, based offshore, users can sell or buy, kind of like a ebay for 'dodgy' seeds.

He is seriously considering it if this goes through..

[featherstick]

A couple of quotes from the actual proposal.

In order to adapt to the needs of producers and the requirements of flexibility, the Regulation continues not to apply to plant reproductive material intended for testing and scientific purposes and intended for breeding purposes. In addition, it should not apply to material intended to or maintained in gene banks, and networks of conservation of genetic resources or organisations associated with gene banks as well as material exchanged in kinds between two persons.

Plant reproductive material should only be produced and placed on the market as prebasic, basic, certified or standard material, in order to ensure transparency and informed choices with its users. Specific requirements should be adopted per genera and species for each of those categories. The requirements on identity, purity, health and other quality requirements, labelling, lots, packaging including small packages,
post-certification control tests, comparative tests and trial and mixtures will continue to be applied.

Concerning old varieties, such as conservation varieties (landraces, populations) or amateur varieties, less stringent requirements will be laid down. The varieties will continue to be registered, however, on the basis of an 'officially recognised description' which shall be recognised – but not produced – by the competent authorities. For that description no DUS testing is obligatory. It shall describe the specific characteristics of the plants and parts of plants which are representative for
the variety concerned and make the variety identifiable, including the region of origin. This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use. The current quantitative restrictions are abolished. The users are informed about the material by a label indicating that this variety is identified by an officially recognised description and the region of origin.

So far as I can tell there is nothing that would stop anyone selling heirloom seed varieties at all. The thrust seems to be that if you label it as wheat then it must conform to whatever is expected when someone buys wheat across the whole EU.

Not true, I'm afraid. This passage:

"This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use."

imposes an administrative burden which will need to be borne by the producer, and is so vage that e.g. DEFRA could use it to close down any seed producers. What counts as "official"? Can RealSeeds afford to commission a scientific or academic body to produce a description for all their heritage varieties?

[Little John]

A couple of quotes from the actual proposal.

In order to adapt to the needs of producers and the requirements of flexibility, the Regulation continues not to apply to plant reproductive material intended for testing and scientific purposes and intended for breeding purposes. In addition, it should not apply to material intended to or maintained in gene banks, and networks of conservation of genetic resources or organisations associated with gene banks as well as material exchanged in kinds between two persons.

Plant reproductive material should only be produced and placed on the market as prebasic, basic, certified or standard material, in order to ensure transparency and informed choices with its users. Specific requirements should be adopted per genera and species for each of those categories. The requirements on identity, purity, health and other quality requirements, labelling, lots, packaging including small packages,
post-certification control tests, comparative tests and trial and mixtures will continue to be applied.

Concerning old varieties, such as conservation varieties (landraces, populations) or amateur varieties, less stringent requirements will be laid down. The varieties will continue to be registered, however, on the basis of an 'officially recognised description' which shall be recognised – but not produced – by the competent authorities. For that description no DUS testing is obligatory. It shall describe the specific characteristics of the plants and parts of plants which are representative for
the variety concerned and make the variety identifiable, including the region of origin. This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use. The current quantitative restrictions are abolished. The users are informed about the material by a label indicating that this variety is identified by an officially recognised description and the region of origin.

So far as I can tell there is nothing that would stop anyone selling heirloom seed varieties at all. The thrust seems to be that if you label it as wheat then it must conform to whatever is expected when someone buys wheat across the whole EU.

Not true, I'm afraid. This passage:

"This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use."

imposes an administrative burden which will need to be borne by the producer, and is so vage that e.g. DEFRA could use it to close down any seed producers. What counts as "official"? Can RealSeeds afford to commission a scientific or academic body to produce a description for all their heritage varieties?

The final commercialisation and commodification is under way. The building blocks of life itself are becoming subject to patent.

Only special people with access to special resources will be allowed to trade in something like "wheat" etc. The coming restrictions on the trading and further development of heirloom seeds by small producers is a part of that process and it is evil.

I know that's an old fashioned and subjective word with no capacity for quantification in this world of weights and measures with a price assigned to everything and no regard to the value of anything.

But, it's evil.

[featherstick]

I've done Ciolos, Hedegard, Georgieva, Piebalgs, Vassiliou.

For each of them I am writing a standard letter and then personalising the second paragraph, trying to make a link to a) why it is relevant to their role, and b) why it is relevant to them personally. Below the letter to Clolos, Romanian Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development:

"Dear Commissioner



I am writing to you to appeal to you to object to the SANCO-sponsored legislation on the licencing and sale of seeds. These proposals would make it impossible to licence or to sell, cultivate or swap thousands of ancient and heritage varieties of seeds, a bank of genetic diversity that has been built up over many generations. Instead they would place seeds and cultivar-development irrevocably in the hands of a few multi-national companies. We would lose the knowledge, experience and diversity of our rich seed heritage in exchange for half-a-dozen bland varieties suited to agro-industrial production, and greater profits for multi-nationals.



As Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, I would imagine that you will be concerned about the erosion of rural and local knowledge, resources and genetic diversity that this regulation would represent. It would take away people's ability to develop their own varieties suited to local conditions, climates, and culinary heritage, and put it in the hands of a few big companies. This would then erode the possibilities for people to work their way out of poverty. As a Romanian I am sure that you know of Romania's rich heritage of local seeds and varieties and the importance they have for Romania'sheritage, culture and identity. In fact last year I grew some very interesting ox-horn peppers that had been sourced from Romania, a possibility that will become illegal under this regulation.



I appeal to you to reject these odious proposals when they are put forward on 6th May. I have enclosed some links for your further reading.



http://www.realseeds.co.uk/AN_Demands.pdf



Yours sincerely"

Obviously I haven't been able to mention "rich heritage of local varieties" for the Nordic commissioners!

I've tried to focus on the ones whose roles are most relevant. Might have to send a mass email to the rest of the commissioners, I'm running out of time.

[emordnilap]

Well done to those who have made the effort to contact commissioners.

No replies as yet (a couple of standard acknowledgements), of course, but at least no bounce-backs, so I must have got the e-mail addresses right!

[featherstick]

Well done to those who have made the effort to contact commissioners.

No replies as yet (a couple of standard acknowledgements), of course, but at least no bounce-backs, so I must have got the e-mail addresses right!

karel.de-gucht@ec.europa.eu Needs a hyphen.

[sam_uk]

Great will update with corrected email.

Website has gone over bandwidth limit.. Will put pennies in the meter later and it will come back

<edit now fixed>

Just been sent this:

http://corporateeurope.org/open-letter- ... d-dg-sanco

Conflict of interest at the heart of it.

Please _share_ this page on Facebook for me:
http://open-seeds.org/bad-seed-law/

I have put horrible buttons all over it to make it easy..

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Not true, I'm afraid. This passage:

"This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use."

imposes an administrative burden which will need to be borne by the producer, and is so vage that e.g. DEFRA could use it to close down any seed producers. What counts as "official"? Can RealSeeds afford to commission a scientific or academic body to produce a description for all their heritage varieties?

Have any of you detractors actually read this proposal?

If RealSeeds can't reliably confirm that what they are selling at a profit is in fact XYZ heritage seed then they shouldn't be selling it. The proposal explicitly states that seed exchanges are not affected - just people making money from selling them to other people.

As to what official means I repeat - "The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use"

The whole document reads as just a standardisation piece.

[featherstick]

Yes I have. Sure there are the concessions you quoted, but they are only tokens.

"Concerning old varieties, such as conservation varieties (landraces, populations) or amateur varieties, less stringent requirements will be laid down. The varieties will continue to be registered, however, on the basis of an 'officially recognised description' which shall be recognised – but not produced – by the competent authorities."

The inspector says “Prove that your description is official.”



"For that description no DUS testing is obligatory. It shall describe the
specific characteristics of the plants and parts of plants which are representative for the variety concerned and make the variety identifiable, including the region of origin. This description can be based on an old official description of the variety, description produced at the time by a scientific, academic body or organisation. The accuracy of its content could be supported by previous official inspections, unofficial
examinations or knowledge gained from practical experience during cultivation, reproduction and use. "

The inspector says: “Show the records. If you can’t, you can’t sell the seed.”



Further, RealSeed would fall foul of this as they are obviously not a gene bank:

"(c) intended solely for, and maintained in, gene banks and networks of conservation of
genetic resources associated with gene banks;
(d) exchanged in kind between persons other than operators."


So once the DEFRA inspector decides that RealSeeds are a business, and not a club which they already have to say they are, they come under the scope of all this:

"Specific responsibilities of operators producing plant reproductive material
1. Operators producing plant reproductive material shall:
(a) be available personally, or designate a particular person, to liaise with the
competent authorities for the purpose of facilitating the official controls;
(b) identify and monitor the critical points of the production process which may
influence the quality of the plant reproductive material;
(c) keep records of the monitoring of those critical points, which shall be available
for examination when requested by the persons carrying out the official
controls;
(d) ensure that, during production, lots of plant reproductive material remain
separately identifiable;
(e) keep updated information of the premises and other locations used for the
production of plant reproductive material;
(f) make sure that persons carrying out official controls have access to the
premises of production, including premises and fields of third contracting
parties, and to the records of the monitoring and all related documents;
(g) take measures, where appropriate, for the maintenance of the plant
reproductive material."

And all the further articles relating to operators. It would only take a couple of actions opened up by one of the agroindustiral players to nobble the seed clubs and heritage businesses with years-long court cases sucking time, energy, money and life out of the business. The little man might win the case but probably won’t survive it.

I repeat, these are deliberately high administrative hurdles that will be hugely costly for small operators and businesses to comply with, meaning they’ll exit the market or go unofficial with all the risks that entails. We have seen all this happen many times already – local cheese and charcuterie varieties lost, Romania’s and Italy’s cottage dairy industries wiped out with hundreds of years of local knowledge and tradition gone with them, small producers with outstanding products prevented from entering the market because they can’t comply with the regulations due to the costs.

This is a well-known phenomenon called “legislative capture” where the businesses that can afford the most lobbyists get to write legislation designed to serve their interests. If they even think about the collateral damage of livelihoods, knowledge, diversity, regional tradition, local resilience, culture, and heritage, it’s to welcome the fact that they’ve opened up more space to sell their mass-produced monoculture.

[JohnB]

There's an Avaaz petition now.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_don ... r_seeds_EU

[Little John]

There's an Avaaz petition now.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_don ... r_seeds_EU

signed

[syberberg]

There's an Avaaz petition now.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_don ... r_seeds_EU

signed

Signed and shared on Facebook.

I understand the desire for uniform regulation across the EU, but this is taking things a step too far as there doesn't appear to be a balance between the requirements of big agri-corps and the rest of us.

[sam_uk]

If RealSeeds can't reliably confirm that what they are selling at a profit is in fact XYZ heritage seed then they shouldn't be selling it.

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the kinds of seeds that people like me are interested in.

I actively _want_ seeds that are not 'Distinct Uniform and Stable' I want a batch of seeds with wide genetic diversity.

The ones from that batch that are suited to dry climates and light soils will fail on my sodden clay ground. Great!

This leaves the ones that are well adapted to my soil/climate and are a great starting point for me to breed my own individual strain by collecting seed year after year.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the kinds of seeds that people like me are interested in.

I actively _want_ seeds that are not 'Distinct Uniform and Stable' I want a batch of seeds with wide genetic diversity.

The ones from that batch that are suited to dry climates and light soils will fail on my sodden clay ground. Great!

This leaves the ones that are well adapted to my soil/climate and are a great starting point for me to breed my own individual strain by collecting seed year after year.

I think you should be allowed to carry on buying and using seeds exactly as you want to but I see nothing in this proposal that would prohibit the selling of natural seeds. The only requirement is that the variety sold is described the same way throughout Europe.

However if you do want a uniform seed then you should be reasonably sure that you can get it and these proposals seem to be aimed at the large producers, making them prove that their product conforms to a known description.

I am not pro-Europe or pro-restrictions and I have little interest in this subject. I just think you are over-reacting.

[featherstick]

You're entitled to your opinion. I've been around food production, conventional and organic, for long enough to know that these regulations can be used to nobble the RealSeeds of this world if DEFRA or Bayer or Monsanto were so minded.