Seed Savers Exchange controversy

[wsmoak]

Seed Savers Exchange is asking for memberships and while I've ordered seeds from them in the past, I'm vaguely aware of some controversy that caused the founder to leave.

Here's an article... http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2012/03/22/controversy-with-the-doomsday-vault/

Any comments? I'm trying to understand the resistance to the Vault agreement that says the seeds must be freely available. Wouldn't they be anyway? If Monsanto or someone wanted to splice genes into some heirloom tomato, couldn't they just buy the seeds from SSE and do what they wanted?

I'm thinking this disagreement might be similar to the one of the licenses we use for open source software. Some people insist that their software must always be free, that if you modify it, you must make those modifications available for free as well. Others use what are usually called 'business friendly' licenses, in that you are welcome to take the code and use it in your commercial products.

I'm somewhat suspicious of a new leadership team that has replaced a founder that led an organization for 35 years, especially when I can't find a professional public response to the controversy.

Another view: http://gardenrant.com/2010/11/lotsa-name-calling.html

Interesting, that one links to http://www.seedsavers.org/fowler_statement.htm on the SSE site, though I couldn't find a link _on_ the SSE site to it.

-Wendy

 

[NwMtGardener]

I remember when this controversy occurred, and I remember thinking "ummm, I guess I don't know enough about it to figure out what the issue is here???" So, I don't think you're the only one slightly baffled by it. I did not read any of your links, but I was thinking that it was not a totally new leadership team...that it was people that were very involved in the upper echelons of running the organization before that ended up taking over?

 

[so lucky]

Maybe the provision that "anybody" can request specific seeds from the bank is the brainchild of Monsanto, who will have a source for clean seeds to screw with, once they have polluted all the rest with glyphosate.

 

[Chickie'sMomaInNH]

unless they are testing for purity and proving it before they accept or give out a sample, i don't think i would trust the seeds coming out of the vault anymore to be what they are supposed to be.

 

[digitS']

Wendy, this also involved a marriage breakup as well as a firing.

The founders, husband and wife, had separated & I guess divorced. Things went tragically wrong with management. Even today, she is still running things at SSE. He was obviously seriously upset.

I had an odd dream this morning.

The setting was a large workshop. We were all volunteers for some good cause and things were just beginning to click! People were finding tasks, machines were running and here I was amidst the bustle and moving from one place to another . . ! So, I'm singing "Walk on By" just like Dionne Warwick . . .

And, if you've ever heard a deaf person sing! Well, don't bother trying to imagine. In fact, unless they are dreams that they've acted on over 35 years of their lives and things have gone tragically wrong, only then is there a reason to try to understand. But, when I relate my terribly interesting dream of the morning . . .

Steve


Others . . .

. . . Others

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe some lawyer can read this and see what the agreement actually says. I'm not a lawyer.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/planttreaty/agreements/smta/SMTAe.pdf

I've tried to read the attachments Wendy gave and several of the links in those attachments, though I'll admit I did not pay much attention to the name calling stuff.

I've seen this Vault described as a place to store seeds so when the world as we know it ends, the few survivors can go to it and get some seeds to start over. That's not really how I see this Vault. It seems to be set up to share genetic knowledge today across the world without restriction. It is to encourage research. The only fee that is charged is to cover costs. I don't know how much those costs are.

This means that the big plant research companies can get some seeds to work with and cannot be denied. It also means that a farmer anywhere in the world can get some seeds to work with. Universities, small companies, anyone can get some seeds. This is a place to share genetic knowledge across the world, not withhold it.

It is voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to send in seeds.

I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand this, this only applies to the seeds that are sent in. Nobody can demand you turn over seeds not voluntarily sent to the vault. I'm not sure about certain genetic knowledge. I think it encourages sharing genetic knowledge but does not require it. If you think about this, why would anyone with the smarts to set up and run their own company agree to give their entire stock of seeds away at cost? Putting all your seeds at risk fails the common sense test.

I got lost in trying to determine what property rights people have over the seeds and the plants that are developed from them. I did see where they encourage seeds that were developed from this research be deposited and available, but I don't think that is mandatory. I think the same thing applies to genetic knowledge gained. They are encouraged to share but it is not required. I think.

I did not see any restrictions on GMO or anything like that. There procedures are supposed to be set up to avoid cross-contamination, otherwise this stuff is worthless, but this is not set up to restrict. It is set up to share all knowledge across the world. The way I read it, it is not just seeds. It is set up to share genetic knwoledge.

How any of this actually applies to SSE I have no idea. Steve seems to have a better handle on in-company gossip than I ever want to.

Edits in bold

Forgot to add; the Vault is an attempt to save some of the vast variety of seeds that are being lost worldwide. Some people on this forum have indicated they thought this might be a good thing.

 

[OldGuy43]

Okay, I admit that I don't understand any of this. It's the first time I've heard of the SSE or the Doomsday Vault. I will however point out one of my favorite thoughts as it seems kinda relevant:

When evaluating data one should always consider the source and remember, no one wants to make illegal that which he wants to do.

It's in my signature on BYC.

 

[hoodat]

Monsanto already has huge seed vaults of its own but seeds from their vaults are not available to the general public.
The problems come when Monsanto or one of its subsidiaries tries to patent a variety that has been freely available for generations. If they get a patent on it they can then refuse to let anyone grow it, thus narrowing the diversity toward the aim of them being the only source for seed anywhere in the world.
At one time they even tried to patent the neem tree even though it grows wild and has been in use for hundreds of years in Asia. India finally fought them off on that one. Few know it but India has been the champion of seed diversity after some catastrophic experiences with GMOs.

 

[digitS']

There we bring the role of government into the picture.

Don't think for a moment that it was the sub-continent of India that rose up and stopped Monsanto. It probably wasn't even the millions living on India's small farms that could make much of a difference - they had other, more immediate things to worry about. It was government, powerful enough to make a difference in the world of the corporate food industry.

Before 1970, the only US patents were for asexually reproduced plants. In other words, you could patent a clone, like a clone of an apple tree. Legislation went thru in 1970 that allowed for protection of varieties.

After a ruling in 2001 by the Supreme Court, as best as I understand it -- ordinary patents could be given for plant varieties, sexually produced - not just clones. Now, this didn't change everything but I'm not sure where we are going. The Supreme Court said that Congress could enact legislation but there was already protection, limited perhaps but legal protection including treaties.

We have a US representative who talks a whole lot about property rights. Most people think that "property rights" is all about them protecting their personal property from the government. Ha! When a newly-elected legislator shows up in DC with a chief of staff directly from employment with a Microsoft-funded trade association and whose spouse works for the Intellectual Property Owners Association . . . we can guess whose property rights are paramount.

Steve

 

[so lucky]

Isn't it India, also, who stopped importing cotton from the rest of the world to stabilize the prices of their own cotton/manufacturing industry? Or did that happen? I was wondering why the US couldn't do that with petroleum. Oops--this is really off topic.(sorry)