Introduction
This paper analyses the EU’s Plant Reproductive Material Regulation. This may seem to be a topic that does not concern regular EU citizens. On the contrary, it is highly significant for every one of us. This regulation massively influences which plant reproductive materials, either at supermarkets and markets or at other seed suppliers of your choice, can be bought. In order to understand what this regulation is about, we need to define what plant reproductive material even is. Plant reproductive material, short PRM, “is material of any kind of plants (from seeds up to fully grown trees) used for the production of other plants” (European Commission [2013]:1). With the overhaul of the current legislation, the European Union aims to facilitate an easier access for companies to the seed and PRM market of other EU countries and a regulation process that secures the seeds’ and plants’ health. This aim might seem noble, but would this overhaul support all kinds of enterprises or just pave the way for big companies like Monsanto to rule the market? This question is not easy to answer. As can be seen, there are many angles from which this regulation can be looked at. Therefore different perspectives on this topic will be analysed and the positive and negative outcomes of this regulation will be extracted. On this account, the focus will be on the work of the Austrian heirloom association ARCHE NOAH (Noah’s Ark) and the international agricultural company Monsanto.
1 History and Overhaul – Plant Reproductive Material Law
The cooperation of countries within the European Union regarding plant reproductive material has been an important issue ever since the founding days of the Union. The first legal foundation was set in the l...
... middle of paper ...
... Observatory (2013) “Closing in on our seeds”, in: http://corporateeurope.org/news/closing-our-seeds [10.01.2013].
ETC Group (2013) “Putting the Cartel before the Horse ...and Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, etc. Who Will Control Agricultural Inputs, 2013?”, in: http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/CartelBeforeHorse11Sep2013.pdf [08.01.2014].
European Commission [2013] “Q&A on the Commission’s proposal for a new Plant reproductive material law”, in: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/docs/faq_regulation_proposal_en.pdf [18.11.2013].
Monsanto (s.a.) “Monsanto at a Glance”, in: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/default.aspx [08.01.2014].
Nielsen, Nikolaj (2013) “Seed industry to benefit from new EU regulation, NGO says”, in: euobserver.com, 06.05.2013, http://euobserver.com/environment/120045 [10.01.2014].
The United States Mission to the European Union. 1999. "EU Committee Accepts Two Labeling Proposals For Biotech Food." http://www.useu.be
Monsanto Vegetable Seeds is the world’s largest seed producer. The organization founded in 1901 with a chemical product Saccharin that has evolved over the past hundred plus years (Monsanto Vegetable Seeds, n.d.). The organization, always innovative has found itself in various businesses such as plastics, turf, pharmaceuticals, food, and most recently 100% dedicated to agriculture. A cast organization such as Monsanto has many facets; however, this paper will focus on the vegetable seed division (MVS) within Monsanto. In 2005 the firm primarily focused on corn, cotton and soybean seeds and entered into an entirely new domain of vegetable seed. While its previous product lines were primarily produced, distributed and sold in a relatively small radius, vegetable seeds embarked the firm on a complete new way to manage a supply chain whereas the products may be produced in Asia, cleaned in the U.S. and sold in Europe (M. Secrest, personal communication, June 20, 2011).
Agriculture imposes negative externalities upon society in this case through the use of pesticides and biodiversity loss. This bill will reduce those specific externalities by imposing a regulation that will alter their traditional way of farming. The imposed bill will force farmers and other neonicotinoid users to comply with a pesticide free way of farming or growing other
Van Eenennaam, Alison L. "GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations." Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 4 (2013): 37. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.
Kruft, David. “Impacts Of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on Farmers”. The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center. The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University, Nov. 2001. Web. 29 Apr. 2014
A debate is ragging over the advancements being made in genetic engineering. Scientist discovered that genes are the map of every aspect of a living organism, this has furthermore led to the prospect of altering this coding. By modifying one’s genes parents will one day be able to pick the color of their unborn child’s eyes and farmers will have the ability to develop plants that will produce bigger and healthier harvest. With the growing anticipation that some feel towards genetically modified crops others question it effects on the surrounding environments. Often pesticides are more heavily relied on for genetically modified crops and some cases have found pollination decreased in areas dominated by GM plants. Since there are so many aspects of genetic modification that have yet to be explored, much more research is required before distributing GM seeds internationally, but from the information already available the sides have begun to divide.
The issue written in this article is regarding the banning and lack of approval for blight-resistant potatoes in the european union. Late potato blight, a potato disease caused by the the eukaryotic microorganism phytophthora infestans, is a significant cause for loss of crop and yield by potato farmers. Looking back to the past, the blight was responsible for the catastrophic Irish Great Famine of the 1840s causing eradication of their main food source, potatoes. As a result of the blight, potatoes become rotten and unsafe for human consumption. Late potato blight today is still a serious issue because it has caused the loss of $5.9 billion dollars of potatoes worldwide annually.By engineering blight resistance into potatoes, scientists have hoped to increase the yield and productivity of potato crops affected by this devastating disease. However, the attempts of the scientists are met with strong resistance by anti-GMO activists and lobbying groups, who are intent on food as naturally pure as possible. In consequence of not using genetically modified potatoes, the farmers are forced to use costly pesticides in an attempt to control the blight. With the human population rapidly increasing, it is essential that all measures be taken to increase food/crop yield in order to prevent starvation and hunger caused by the overpopulation. The battle between agricultural researchers like Simplot and the anti-GMO lobbying group GeneWatch is a controversial one that must be addressed by this generation and future generations.
brought forth the large-scale injustices which occurred as a result of Monsanto patenting the soybean seed. Currently, Monsanto owns over 90% of the global soybean industry and therefore has a personal responsibility to remove any perceived threats to their multi-billion-dollar monopoly. If it’s soybean; it’s theirs! Monsanto is essentially the Big brother of the industry; carefully watching and listening to every soybean farmer to ensure nothing gets in the way of them and their fat wads of cash. The patents that Monsanto own, legally give them the “right” to sue farmers who refuse to purchase their seeds seasonally, or use a private seed bank. Essentially, Big Brother has moved on from watching people through Telescreens, and has now opted for a far more pleasurable method of manipulation: bank statements and receipts. Their aim is to “peacefully”, through manipulation and threats, force all soybean farmers to cease the practice of saving and replanting the seeds of successful crops- a once millennia old practice. But hey, it’s the twenty-first century, who hasn’t been forced to do something unsavoury by a totalitarian company corrupted by capitalism? Furthermore, you can be assured that the modified seeds have a terminating gene which renders their daughter seeds sterile and hence completely useless. Thus forcing the farmers to re-purchase seeds every season, so that Monsanto can continue growing their monopoly. I don’t know about you, but I think that this
Current public concern is the result of a wide-ranging, well-financed propaganda campaign of negatives – negatives intended to strike fear in the hearts of countless consumers "over there" and now, over here. Government agricultural agencies of var...
You may not know it, but in the United States GM foods are quite prevalent. Approximately 65% of foods in the U.S. contain some variation of genetically altered ingredients (Ulrich 9). And of that portion, 89% of soybeans and 61% of corn is transgenic (Powell 529). This technology came to prominence in the 1990’s and since then has been a subject of much controversy. Proponents preach the undeniable health and growing benefits of this new development. Critics rail against biotech companies for the ambiguous safety status and ethical grounds of altering natural plant growth. The center stage for this conflict is Europe. While generally similar to the U.S., this region of the world is much more outwardly suspicious and hostile towards crop alterations.
Throughout The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan, the author argues that the coevolution of plants and humans is seen within the relationship of humans manipulating plants to fulfill their desires. Pollan touches on four main examples where coevolution can be easily seen throughout history and the present. The apple satisfies sweetness, the tulip beauty, marijuana intoxication, and the potato control. As we are benefitting from evolving the plants for our own interest, the plants themselves are benefitting as well. The environmental message of the book surpasses that of coevolution and dives into the technology of genetic engineering
The second “giant” that needs to be laid to rest is the fear of agricultural technology and GM crops. Europe has banned the im...
Tomala, l. (2013, May 4). Experts not in agreement on whether enough research was done on GMOs in agriculture. Science and Scholarship in Poland. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/en/news/news,394773,experts-not-in-agreement-on-whether-enough-research-was-done-on-gmos-in-agriculture.html
The most wonderful activity a human being can experience is new flavors and foods. For example, the first time a person tastes a delicious juicy piece of prime rib or a delightful hamburger with cheese and ham, his world is never the same. However, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the production of food has been supplemented by science. This has triggered an angry dispute between the people who support the advances of biotechnology and people who love nature. In order to understand the controversy, we have to know the meaning of genetically modified foods. With new technological advances, scientists can modify seeds from a conventional seed to a high tech seed with shorter maturation times and resistance to dryness, cold and heat. This is possible with the implementation of new genes into the DNA of the conventional seed. Once these "transgenes" are transferred, they can create plants with better characteristics (Harris 164-165). The farmers love it not only because it guarantees a good production, but the cost is also reduced. On the other hand, organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of Earth have campaigned against GMO (“Riesgos”) because they think that they are negatively affecting the earth (Gerdes 26). Both the advocates and the opponents of genetically modified foods have excellent arguments.
As CBD gives the member state the rights to regulate the “access to genetic resources within their jurisdictional scope”, developing countries where concerned whether this would include plant genetic resource of food and agriculture before CBD entry (15-21). This was made clear with an international instrument dealing with The Plant Genetic Resource for Food and Agriculture (IPGRFA) which came into force in 2004. The objectives are similar to that of CBD - “the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resource of food and agricultural resources and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits on use”. The system of sharing benefits is by multilateral agreements and this treaty also has provision on farmer’s rights. It is left to the national law to decide (Biodiversity-related Conventions, n.d).