Introduc)on

TheoverallpurposeofStateofOrganicSeedisto increasesuccessandminimize risksforthe organic farming and food sector byadvancing the viability and integrity oforganicseedsystems.

State of Organic Seed (SOS) is an ongoingendeavor to monitor the status of organicseed systems in the United States. Theproject aimstodevelop diverse stakeholderinvolvement to implement policy, research,educa?on, andmarket‐drivenac?vi?es thatresult inthe improvedquality, integrity,anduseoforganicseedforthebenefitoforganicfarming and food systems. Stakeholdersinclude organic farmers, the organic foodsector and seed industry, accreditedcer?fying agencies, regulatory agencies,researchers, educators, and public interestadvocates.

Given the diversity of crops, scale, andregions in organic farming in the UnitedStates, there isan inherent complexity thatmust be accounted for in order to addressorganicseedissues inanintegratedmanner.We have striven for input and perspec?vesthat reflect this complexity, includingbreeding,produc?on,regula?ons,policy,andinforma?on on and percep?on of organicseed.

While the volume of material containedwithin this reportmay beoverwhelming forsome,otherswill point out important issuesthat we have failed to address in sufficientdetail. We encourage your input and

construc?ve sugges?ons for further refiningthis report as weupdateit the future. Seedwork is slow work, and many hands andmindswillleadtoimprovement.

Purpose: The overall purpose of State ofOrganic Seed is to increase success andminimize risks for the organic farming andfood sector by advancing the viability andintegrity oforganicseedsystems. Inorder toreach this goalwe developed SOSwith thefollowing objec?ves: 1) improve organicfarmers andagriculturalprofessionals’ (e.g.,cer?fiers , seed industry, extension,researchers) understanding of concerns,obstacles and realis?c poten?als in organicseed systems; 2) enhance public‐privatepartnerships andfarmercollabora?oninthedevelopmentoforganicseedsystems thatfitagronomic, market, regulatory, and socialneeds; 3) improveorganic farmers’ abili?estomeettheNa?onal OrganicProgram(NOP)requirement that they use cer?fied organicseed; 4) develop regulatory approaches toprotect organic seed from gene?callyengineered (GE) trait contamina?on; 5)improvemanagement of seed resources toreduce concentra?on of ownership ands?mulate compe??ve and innova?ve seedsystems.

Organic systems require the use oforganically produced seed varie?es thatserve farmers’ and processors’ needs, andthatmeettheregulatoryrequirementsoftheNOP.Wehavenotyetreachedsucha levelofusageinorganicproduc?onsystemsduetoalackofavailability inquan?ty ofappropriateorganically bred varie?es and organicallyproducedseed.

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 1

Lackofappropriategene?csandcommercialavailability are the result of mul?pleeconomic, social, and poli?cal factors,including:

• Severe cutbacks inpublic plantbreedingprograms;

• Lack of responsiveness from the seedindustrytowardorganic;

• Concentra?onintheseedindustry,

• Investmentcostsnecessary tobuildseedcapacity along the en?re produc?onchain;and

• Con?nued disagreement and infigh?ngwithin theorganic community regardingimplementa?on of the NOP rule as itpertainstoorganicseed.

If these factors are not addressed, organicfarmers will be at increasing risk of beingunderserved in appropriate plant gene?cs,thushinderingtheirsuccess.

Concurrent with the need to develop andbuild organic seed systems is the need toprotect the integrity of these systems. Incrops for which there are GE counterparts(i.e., alfalfa, canola, corn, coYon, soybeans,and sugar beets), organic seed increasinglycontainsdetectable levels of GE material, atechnology that is explicitlyexcludedinNOPregula?ons and rejected by the organicindustry and consumers alike. The lack offederalprotec?on for organic markets fromtransgeniccontamina?onposes aseriousrisk

to the credibility, viability, and success oforganic farmers and the NOP. The samesec?on of the seed industry that iscontamina?ngthe natural resource ofseedisalso ac?vely consolida?ng seed resourcesthroughcorporate acquisi?ons andmergers,the restric?ve use of u?lity patents, andcampaigns of fear and in?mida?on toslowcompe?tors and even public researchersfrom innova?on and investment in seedsystems.1 As we invest in organic seed, wemust also address challenges that threatenprogress toward developing decentralized,farmer‐oriented,andorganicseedsystems.

The lack of federal protection for organic markets from transgenic contamination poses a serious risk to the credibility, viability, and

success of organic farmers and the NOP.

Process: We can meet our overall goal ofadvancing organic seedsystemsthroughthecollec?on of informa?on and opinions ofdiverse stakeholders, ongoing dialogueamong organic professionals, and theimplementa?on of organic seed workinggroups.Inordertoincludebroadanddiverseinput from stakeholders to develop this

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 2

1 As explained in section four, the seed industry is one of the most concentrated in agriculture. Concentrated ownership of plant genetic resources, largely facilitated by exclusive rights afforded under utility patents, has limited private and public plant breeders’ access to genetics. Onerous genetic licensing agreements dictate if and how genetics will be used and create a culture of fear, as some breeders worry about legal actions against them if they unknowingly or incorrectly use patented material.

report and ac?on plan we: 1) created aplanning teamthat includedfarmers,NGOs,cer?fiers, and food industry and seedindustry representa?ves; 2) conducted ana?onal organic farmer survey on seed; 3)conducted a ques?onnaire with the foodindustry, seed industry, NGOs andresearchers to glean their assessment of“challenges and solu?ons” in organic seedsystems; 4) reviewedandanalyzedpastandongoing public funding of organic seededuca?onandresearch, including interviewsand ques?onnaires with researchers; 5)reviewed and analyzed past and ongoingefforts to prevent transgenic contamina?onandprotectorganicintegrity;and6)hostedafull‐day seed symposium with diversepar?cipants to review the farmer survey,discuss challenges and opportuni?es, andpriori?ze next steps ina planofac?on.Thiswork is described more fully within thisreport.

Urgency in Organic Seed: The lack oforganically bred and produced seed is abarriertothe growthandongoingsuccessoforganic farming.Seed is thecri?cal first linkinorganicproduc?on.Itprovides thegene?ctools for farmers to confront many of theday‐to‐day challenges in the field. Organicseed that is appropriate to regionalagronomic challenges, market needs,regula?ons, andsocial andecologicalvaluesof organic agriculture is fundamental to thesuccess of organic farmers and the organicfoodsystemtheysupply.

Unfortunately, organic seedsystemsarenotmee?ng the current needs of organicagriculture,and,withoutincreasedaYen?on,will con?nue to fall behind for reasons

already described. Organic farming requiresadequate biodiversity and vitality of thegene?c resourceofseed,whichnecessitatesincreasedini?a?veandinvestmentatpublicandprivatelevels.

The issues are complex, with somewhatdaun?ngobstaclesandchallenges.Theinputwe received from organic stakeholdersengaged in this project reflected theseriousness of the issues, with summarystatements suchas “theproblemsareall?edtogether; it’s overwhelming” and“the seedindustry is broken.”Thesestakeholdersfullyunderstandthatwe cannot address thelackofbreeding fororganic systemswithoutalsoaddressingconcentra?onintheseedindustryand restr ic?ve intel lectual propertyprotec?ons; the absence of legal andfinancial protec?on for organic seedcompanies fromcontamina?onbyGEcrops;and a lack of clarity in theNOP regardingseedissues.

We also found that when these samestakeholders cametogether todiscuss theseissuestherewas posi?vemomentumtowardanac?onplanthatwouldmoveorganicseedforward. Researchers talking to otherresearchers re inforced support forcollabora?ve solu?ons, as did cer?fierstalking to seed companies, and seedcompanies talkingtofarmers,andall ofthesevoicesspeakingto thelargerorganicbrandsand retailers asking for their involvement.While these feedback loops seem obvious,there has been liYle opportunity orfacilita?onofsuchdialogues.

This projecthasclarifiedtheurgentneedforsuch feedback loops in order to increase

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 3

collabora?on among diverse organicstakeholders. As such, ongoing workinggroups will be necessary to carry out theac?onsoutlinedin this report,as willfollow‐upmee?ngs, regional listeningsessions withstakeholders, and updates to this report.Each stakeholder groupmustmaintain theircommitment to improve, protect, andpromote organic seed systems with theknowledge that we will all share in thebenefits.

BenefitsofOrganicSeed Systems: Reasonsto support improving the quality, integrity,anduseoforganicseedareclear:

• Seed varie?es evaluated and/or bredunder organic condi?onsandfor organicmarkets will provide organicfarmers withthe op?mum gene?cs fo r the i rproduc?onsystems.2

• Organically bred seedwill provide foodprocessors, companiesandretailers withimproved traits that organic consumersvalue, including nutri?on, flavor, color,andotherqualitytraits.

• TheNOPcallsfororganicseedusage.

• The lack of organically produced seedallows forconven?onal seedtobeusedifcertain requirements are met, yetconven?onal seedproduc?onuses highlytoxicchemicals andtheiruse is thereforeinconflictwiththeprinciplesof organicagriculture.

• Organic seed produc?on results inbenefits such as increased organicacreage and diversified income streamsfororganicfarmers.

• Thesuccess of anorganic seed industryfurtherstrengthenstheorganicindustry.

Thereis poten?al formuchgreaterbenefits.Thechallenges ofresourcedeple?on,climatechange, and popula?on growth requireongoing improvements in agriculture,including innova?on in plant breeding todeliver beneficial traits that address theseissues. Organic farming and organic seedsystems are par?cularly suited to addressthesechallenges in ascien?fically integrated,socially ethical, and environmentallyresponsible manner. While the agriculturalbiotechnology sector invests in propagandacampaigns to promote traits such asherbicide tolerance as “sustainable,” we intheorganic community haveanopportunityto go beyond rhetoric and marke?ng toprovide future genera?ons with improvedfood, health, and environmental security.Organic research and breeding are in theirinfancy.Withfurtherinvestments wewill seeexponen?al improvements that recognizelocal ecological systems and address foodconsumer needs, suchasregionally adaptedseedvarie?esthataresuitable toarange ofgrowing seasons, resist important cropdiseases, and have enhanced flavor andnutri?on.

Ac)ons Guided byPrinciples: It is essen?althat policies, educa?on, research ini?a?ves,market‐basedsolu?onsandotherac?onsto

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 4

2 For example, varieties must have appropriate resistances for an organic production system, which may be unique compared to a conventional system.

move organic seed systems forward begroundedin the samevalues andprinciplesthat have guided the organic movement.With this goal in mind, we have capturedseveral recurrent principles that emergedfromourassessments.

Whiletherecommenda?onsar?culatedinthisreportareintendedtoincreasetheviabilityandintegrityoftheorganicsector,webelievetheyarealsousefulinrevitalizingbeYerpolicyandmanagementofthenaturalresourceofseedinU.S.agricultureasawhole.Thelackofaccesstoawidevarietyofseedop?onsisaproblemformostfarmersinthena?on.OurpublicofficialshaveprovidedpooroversightofthisinvaluableresourcewhenconsideringthefutureneedsofAmericanfarmingandfood.Wehavearesponsibilitytochangethis.

Theprinciplesguidingourac?onsinclude:

1. Seed,asalimitednaturalresource,mustbe managed in amanner that enhancesitslong‐termviabilityandintegrity.

2. The maintenance and improvement ofgene)c and biological diversity areessen)al for the success of sustainablefood systems and greater global foodsupply.

3. Theequitableexchangeofplantgene)csenhances innova)on and curtails thenega)ve impacts of concentratedownership and consolidated power indecisionmaking.

4. Sharing informa)on enhances researchand leads to beMer adapta)on of bestprac)ces.

5. Trueagriculturalinnova)on servesmorethanone goal and increasesbenefitsforall living systems, including soil, plants,animals,andhumans.

6. Publicins)tu)onsandpublicemployeesservepublicneeds.

7. Farmers have inherent rights asagricultural stewards, including theability to save, own, and sell seeds,andare key leaders in developing bestprac)ces, applicable research, andagricultural regula)ons and policy thataffectthemandthefutureofseed.

8. Applica)on of the precau)onaryprinciple, the social responsibility toprotect food systems from harm whenscien)fic inves)ga)on has foundpoten)alrisk, isnecessarytocreate foodsecurityintothefuture.

Role of Farmers in Priori)zing andDeveloping Seed Solu)ons: We believe adiversity of decision makers are needed toguide us into an even more sustainable,successful, and vibrant organic seed future.Farmers are the keystone in crea?ng afounda?onofworkablestrategiesandtac?cs.There is a long and unfortunate history inagriculturalpolicyoftrea?ngfarmers unfairly(from their lack of bargaining power in thepricesthey receive tolawsthatrestrict seedsaving) in order to benefit consumers,retailers, food companies, processors,financiers, and suppliers of agriculturalinputs. Organicagriculturehasbeenfarmer‐driven and farmer‐oriented since itsincep?on.Farmers are leaders,planners,andinnovators intheorganicmovement.Itis notsurprising that inthe early stages oforganicseedsystemdevelopment therehas beena

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 5

trend toward par?cipatory research andinvestment in which farmers are highlyengaged. Similarly, farmers have had ahistorically important role in guiding thevisionandpolicies oforganicagriculture.Anypolicies or ac?vi?es to further organic seedsystems must take into account the impacton farmers from field to marketplace.Organic seed systems must serve organicfarmers.

State of Organic Seed had a high level offarmer par?cipa?on star?ng with theconcep?on of the project. This project willcon?nue to rely on organic farmers’experience,perspec?ve, abtudes, concerns,and priori?es in organic seed as we moveforwardinimplemen?ngtheac?onplan.

FarmerSurvey

OSA received input from more than100 par?cipants who aYended theFebruary 2010 State of Organic SeedSympos ium. We a l so rece i vedresponses to the Farmer Seed Surveyfrom1,027organicfarmers in45states.Followingthepublica?onofthis report,we will host a series of listeningsessionswith farmersat various farmconferencesasking for their inputandencouraging their involvement in theimplementa?on of an ac?on plan. Ifyourorganiza?onhas annual mee?ngsor conferences and is interested inhos?ng an SOS listening session withorganic producers, please contactOrganic Seed Alliance. To improve onfutureitera?ons ofthis report,we willstrive tohostthesesessions inregionalvenuesasfundingallows.

Ro le o f Pub l i c O rgan i za)ons andUniversi)es:StateofOrganic Seedgatheredinput andhad par?cipa?on fromdozens ofpublic sector educators and researchers.There is a growing interest in organicagriculture intheLandGrantUniversity(LGU)system. New plant breeding and tes?ngini?a?ves such as the Northern OrganicVegetable Improvement Collabora?ve(NOVIC), the U.S. Tes?ng Network, andBreedingforOrganicPlantSystems (BOPS)atNorth Carolina State University exemplifyposi?vemomentuminpar?cipatory, farmer‐driven, organic research. Researchers whopar?cipatedin SOSheardinputandcri?cismsaimed at LGUs and the USDA‐AgriculturalResearch Service, and provided insight intothe administra?ve, funding, and intellectualproperty issues that restrict innova?on andslow scien?fic understanding of organicsystems. They also provided invaluablescien?fic exper?se on the poten?al ofbreeding in organic systems, and helpediden?fy research ques?ons that remainunexplored. These researchers will stayinvolvedthrough implementa?on of ac?onsto aYain SOS goals via par?cipa?on in theOrganicPlantBreedingWorkingGroup.

It is noexaggera?ontosay that intheearlydecadesofthe organicmovementthere wasa strong distrust of our LGU system. Thisdistrustwas inpartduetoapercep?onthatthe LGU system was increasingly servingprivate interests over public interests, andthereforeinnova?onpursuedwithpublictaxdollars was not adequately responding toorganic systems and instead was servingdominantagrichemicalconcerns.

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 6

Muchhas changed in the last decade, andmuch remains the same. As early as 2003,Organic Farming Research Founda?on’s(OFRF) State of the States report showedincreases inorganiclandandtransi?onal landat LGUs.3 For example, the University ofFlorida andWashingtonStateUniversityhaveminor andmajor degree programs focusedon organic agriculture, courses with anorganic focus are offered at dozens ofprograms na?onally,4andover29stateshaveuniversi?es or colleges with student farms.5Researchers at LGUs areapplying for grantsfocused on organic agriculture as organicresearch funding increases, and research inorganicplantbreedingandseedsystemshasreceivedhigher priority duetotheadvocacyworkoforganiza?ons suchas OFRF,Na?onalSustainable Agricultural Coali?on (NSAC),Na?onal Organic Coali?on (NOC), RuralAdvancement Founda?on Interna?onal(RAFI), Michael Fields Ins?tute, andOrganicSeed Alliance. As shown in this report’sPublic Ini?a?ves sec?on,almostninemilliondollars in federal funding have gone to

organic seed system research in ten years,with addi?onal funds coming f romfounda?onssuchasOFRF.

Yet,withall of these gains, there remainsastrong percep?on among stakeholdersinvolved with SOS that LGUs are s?ll notserving the needs of organic farmers andconsumers, and that their primary clientsremain the agrichemical and gene?cs firmsthat areokentheir largest donors. There isalso a strong percep?on that there areresearchers who would direct greaterresearch to sustainable systems but whohavetheir hands?edby administratorswhodemand they work in “profitable” researchareas(i.e.,researchthatcanbepatentedandthat LGUs can earn royal?es from to helpfund programs). That public universi?es arenowselling their work topay for addi?onalpubl ic research is a rela?vely newdevelopmentinthe historyofLGUs,6andonethat i s o f deep concern for manystakeholderswhopar?cipatedinSOS.

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 7

3 Organic Farming Research Foundation. 2003. State of the States, 2nd Edition: Organic Systems Research at Land Grant Institutions, 2001 – 2003, Retrieved at http://ofrf.org/publications/sos.html.4  USDA. 2009. “Educational and Training Opportunities in Sustainable Agriculture,” Retrieved at http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/edtr/EDTRCollegesA.shtml.5 Rodale Institute. 2010. “A Directory of Student Farms,” Retrieved at http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0104/studentfarms/directory.shtml. 6 Jones, Stephen S. 2003. “A System Out Of Balance - The Privatization Of The Land Grant University Breeding Programs,” Seeds and Breeds for 21st Century Agriculture, Retrieved at http://www.rafiusa.org/pubs/Seeds%20and%20Breeds.pdf.

SOS par?cipants feel strongly that publicresearch programs should be reinvigorated.They also call for reform of fundingmechanisms to decrease dependency onfunds from the private sector. Seeds andBreeds for 21st Century Agriculture, acoali?on of organiza?ons and publicbreeders, have already developed strongargumentsthatlay outthe needforanauditof theBayh‐DoleAct toassess its impactonpublic research.7 Passed in 1980, the lawallows universi?es topatent publicly fundedresearch and products, including allowingresearchers togainpersonal royal?es beyondtheirpublicsalaries.Sincethepassageoftheact through 2006, industry supportedresearchgrew8%na?onally peryear.8 Stateschoolsalsobegantoallowfor their facultyandadministrators –paidpublicemployees –to accept stock and serve as officers forcompanies for which they also conductresearchattheschool.9

In plant breeding, these trends haveaccelerated the priva?za?on within ourpublicins?tu?onsofimportantplantgene?csthatwouldotherwise bepubliclyavailable toother public and private breeders. Publicsectorbreedingis okenfocusedontheneedsof Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont ratherthan public needs, such as reducing theenvironmental impact of agriculture. Otherc o n s e q u en c e s r e s u l ? n g f r om t h e

priva?za?on of public research includerestric?ons on the free exchange of basicresearch,less publicanalysis ofnewvarie?es,and diminished innova?on, including areduc?onofpublicvarietyreleases.

As the priva?za?on of our public researchoccurs,weexperiencefivenega?veimpacts:

1.Thelossofthe independentpublic servicevo ice: Univers i ty researchers weretradi?onally par?es with no personalfinancial gain in their work beyond theirsalaries, and as such could be trusted toevaluateassump?onswithoutbias.Allowingpublic researchers to receive personalroyal?es, private stock gains, andserveonboards of corpora?ons funding publicresearchisaconflictofinterest.

2.Diminishedbenefits:Privateinvestmentinpublic programs calls into ques?on whobenefits from this research. Shareholderearnings are okenthetarget outcomeovertrue public good. As a result, opportuni?esfor sc ien?fic discover ies and theirapplica?ons arelost. Poten?albenefits thatmaynothaveimmediate commercial appealareneglected.

3. Loss of direc@ve: The direc?on of ourpublic ins?tu?onsis atrisk.Privateinterestscreate research priori?es where what iscons idered the corporate good i sautoma?cally considered the public good.This is not what Congress intended in thepassage of the Morrill Land‐Grant College

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 8

7 Leval, Kim. 2003. “Ownership and Legal and Public Policy Frameworks for Reinvigorating a Federal Public Plant and Animal Breeding System,” Seeds and Breeds for 21st Century Agriculture, Retrieved at http://www.rafiusa.org/pubs/Seeds%20and%20Breeds.pdf.8 Rice, Mabel L. and Sally Hayden, Eds. 2006. The Privatization of Public Universities: Implications for the Research Mission, Advanced Studies Center, University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, Retrieved at www2.ku.edu/~masc/publications/2006whitepaper.pdf.9 Priest, Douglas and Edward St. John. 2006. Privatization and Public Universities, Indiana University Press.

Act (7 U.S.C. § 301) or in any subsequentrevisionsofthis andotherlaws pertainingtoagriculture.Congress has cededdirec?onofpublicresearchtoprivateinterests.

4. Duplica@on of efforts: If a university’sagricultural research goals mirror those ofprivateindustries, then there is duplica?onand the loss of innova?ve ideas that areneededtokeepU.S. agriculturevibrant andsuccessful. There is also co‐opta?on ofpublic resources for private gain. Thisi n c l u d e s b r e ed i n g , r e s e a r c h a n ddevelopment, and staff ?me that is allsupportedbytaxdollars,withanoutcomeofpatented,privatelyownedseeds.

5. Diminished value of social sciences:Humani?es and social sciences– areas noteasilycommodi?zed–will lose theirvoice inthepublicsectordebateregardingthesocialimpacts of research and technologies.Research and technological developmentsalways have ethical and public policycons idera?ons , and pr ivate sectorinvestmentcaninfluence discussionoftheseissues. As Robert Berdahl, Chancellor ofUniversity of California, Berkeley, asked,“Whowill guideus through themoral andpolicy thicket of this new age if thehumanists and social scien?sts areweakened by the overwhelming drive ofmarket forces in a university‐industrialcomplex?”10

Theassump?onthatwhatis goodforprivateglobal corpora?ons is good for everyone isques?onable at best. The public universitymissionis toservesociety,ofwhichindustryis but one part. We need agriculturalresearch from public programs that willimprove the overall well‐being of rural andurban communi?es, assure an equitable

sharingofknowledge,reflectfarmers’needs,balance the publ ic‐private breedingrela?onship,reduceimpacts ofresourceuse,and maintain and enhance the classicalbreeding educa?onand competency of ourfuturepublicplantbreeders.

Role of the Seed Industry: Theperspec?vethat the seed industry is “broken” isunderstandablegiventheissuesfarmers face.Theseedindustry is highlyconcentratedandsubsequently offers decreased varietalop?ons.Organic farmers andconsumersare,as a generality, very familiar withthe ills ofthemodernseedindustryas presentedinthemedia such as Monsanto purchasing andpaten?ng seed resources at the cost ofcompe??on and innova?on, inves?gatorssneaking into rural communi?es to seekevidence of farmers suspected of savingseed, and the uncontainable nature ofproducts derived from gene?c engineeringthat outsource liability and risk to farmersandconsumers.

There is reasonfor concern in the industry,but the seedsector is muchmore than thebad behavior of a handful of dominantcompanies. There are companies andindividualsworkingtoimprovethequality ofseedwithhonest inten?onsofimprovingouragr i cu l tura l systems. We have theopportunity tocreate anorganicseedsectorthat is less burdenedby problems affec?ngthe dominant, concentrated, conven?onal‐biotechnology sector. Seedcompanies needtobeengagedaspartners inthe processofbreeding and delivering new varie?es fororganicsystems.

Trust needs to be built on all sides. Cri?cshavesaidthatorganic seedis onlya way forseed companies to make more money bycharging a premium for a cer?fied organic

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 9

10 Berdhal, Robert. 2000. “The Privatization of Public Universities,” Speech given at Effer University, Germany, May 23, Retrieved at http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/privatization.htm.

product. There havebeenconcerns that theseedtradeis nego?a?ngbackdoor deals toimpose anabrupt deadline that would endany andall allowances to use conven?onaluntreatedseed.Alterna?vely,thereare seedcompanies whodonottrustsomefarmerstofollow theNOP rule, and fear that organicinspectorsatworstwill looktheotherwayontheuse ofconven?onal seed,andokenhavevarying guidelines on seed from cer?fier toc e r ? fi e r. A n d t h e s e e d s e c t o r i sunderstandably highly cri?cal oftheNOP fornot responding to the Na?onal OrganicStandards Board(NOSB)guidancedocumentson organic seed (see Historical Contextsec?onofthisreport).

However, the overwhelming response wereceived from seed industry representa?veswho aYended the symposium, returnedinputformstous, agreedtointerviews,andotherwiseengaged in this process,wasoneof willingness to keep working to improveseed quality, to work with regulators andcer?fiers, and to be more open andtransparent in sharing informa?on such asskills in produc?on techniques. Theirengagementandperspec?veis cri?cal tothesuccessoforganicfoodandfarming.

The assumption that what is good for

private global corporations is good for everyone

is questionable at best.

Role of Organic Food Companies: In theearly development of organic food systemsthere were no “big players” with deeppockets to invest in organic research. Asorganic has matured, a number of largerconven?onal food companies have enteredthe organic arena through acquisi?ons ofwell knownbrands. Early organic innovatorssuchas Organic Valley hadsalesover half abillionin 2008,anddistributorUnitedNaturalFoods, Inc. (UNFI) and retailerWholeFoodshave sales in the billions.11 Annual sales oforganic food andbeverages increased fromjust over $1 billion in 1990 to almost $25billionin2009.12Manyofthe companies thathave grown with the rise in demand fororganic are reinves?ng in organic systemsthrough dona?ons to OFRF for researchgrants and/or have their own corporatefounda?on that provides grants to organicfarmers and researchers to further ourunderstanding and improvement of organicsystems.

Unlike the conven?onal sector, organicagriculture does not have state or federalorganic check‐off programs to assist infunding public research. Such programs intheconven?onalmodelokenfundbreedingat the university level. For example, statewheat commission check‐off programs fundwheat breeding at many state agriculturalins?tu?ons.There was strongresistancefromorganic farmers to pay into the na?onalcheck‐off programs and Congress gaveorganic producersanexemp?onfromdoingso. Organic check‐off programs have beendiscussed over the years in the context ofdeveloping organic systems, and werebroughtupagainduringthe SOSSymposium.

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 10

11 Howard, Phil. 2007. “Organic Distribution and Retail Structure,” Michigan State University, Retrieved at https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicdistributors.html.12 Organic Trade Association. 2010. “Industry Statistics and Projected Growth,” Retrieved at http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html.

Thereares?ll concernsthat theseprogramsare a mixedblessing, andthereneeds tobeaddi?onal stakeholder discussion anddelibera?on to determine if such fundingmodels couldbedevelopedtofit thevaluesandneedsoforganicsystems.

During theSOS Symposium the importanceoforganicretailers,distributorsandbrands inmoving organic seed systems forward wasoken noted. Clearly, research funding isneeded from the private sector. If notcommodity check‐off programs then newinnova?ve partnerships. At the SOSSymposium one large produce distribu?onfirmcalledfortheir industrytoputa “pennybox tax” onproduce, thefunds fromthetaxto be managed by a nonprofit‐universityboard that would allocate funds for varietytrial and crop improvement networks forfruits andvegetables.Recommenda?ons alsoincluded local retail stores funding farmer‐breeder clubs and variety trials. Universitybreeders encouraged processors to help inthe commercializa?on process when newvar ie?es are developed. And manystakeholders from varying sectors imploredthe organic food sector tobemore unifiedand vocal in addressing issues of GMOcontamina?on in organic systems, includinggreater lobbying for federal protec?on. Theorganictradesectorwasiden?fiedas havinga more direct informa?on pipeline withconsumers, and can therefore raise publicawareness around the urgency in buildingorganicseedsystems.

Large organic food brands have the power to encourage investment in seed systems simply by pushing down the supply chain for the use and development of organic seed.

Foodcompaniescanalsoinfluencetheusageo f o r g a n i c s e e d . S e e d i n d u s t r yrepresenta?ves pointedout that large scaleprocessorstendtorequireproducers togrowa singlevariety,orat?mes a small handful ofvarie?es. Oken these op?ons are onlyconven?onal varie?es, because there wereno organic op?ons available when theprocessors went into business. This is anopportunity. If, for example, an organictomatosaucebrandrequeststhatalloftheirproducersuse hybrid tomatoVariety X, andthenwenttotheconven?onal seedcompanythat produces X andrequestedthat a largevolumeofthatseedbe producedorganically,the company would likely listen. Seedindustry professionals we spoke tocouldnotgive an example of this occurring. Largeorganic food brands have the power toencourageinvestmentinseedsystemssimplybypushingdownthe supplychainfortheuseanddevelopmentoforganicseed.

OverallFindings&Priori)es:ThePublicSeedIni?a?ves sec?on of this report and thefarmer surveys show that organic seedsystems are developing. Farmers reportincreased aYempts to source organic seedandmorepressure from cer?fiers todo so.Research in organic breeding has increasedslightly over a fourteen‐year period.Nonetheless, the complexity of challengesandneedscanseemimmense.Stakeholdersprovidedus withalaundry listofneeds,wellbeyondthescopeofanyone organiza?onorsectortoaccomplish.We cannotsitbackandsay this is solely a seed industry issue. Norcan we say that the seed sector willeventuallycatchupbecausethechallengeofnotenoughseedisanopportunity for themtoproducemore.This abtude,whichignorestheregulatoryandmarketcondi?ons inseed,will resultinorganicseedsystems con?nuingto fall behind, even as more and moreacreageiscer?fiedorganic.Weheardclearlyfromstakeholdersthatthelargest riskis not

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 11

whether organic seed is used from aregulatoryperspec?ve,butthatfarmershaveaccess to appropriate and diverse organicseedchoices thatfittheirneeds.Yetthiswillnot happen if organic seed usage is notencouraged at the NOP level. The answersare complex and interwoven, and fewpriori?escanmoveforwardindependently.

We heard clearly from stakeholders that the largest risk is not whether organic

seed is used from a regulatory perspective, but that farmers have access to appropriate and diverse organic seed

choices that fit their needs.

While this process captured an array ofpriori?esthatvariedwithcrops,regions,andperspec?vesofdifferentprofessional sectors,therewereoverarching priori?es that wereiden?fied by working groups at the SOSSymposium with addi?onal input fromindustryandfarmers.

Priori?esincludetheneedto:

1.Develop organic seed systems that areresponsive to the diverse needs oforganic producers through increasedpublic‐privatecollabora)on.

2.Refine understanding of organic plantbreedingprinciplesandprac)ces.

3.Reinvigorate public plant breeding withan emphasis on the development ofcul)vars that fit the social, agronomic,environmental, and market needs oforganics.

4.Protectthenaturalresourceofseedfromthreats of concentrated ownership ofplantgene)cs.

5.Protect the natural resource of seedorganic seed systems from threats ofc on tam ina)on f rom gene)ca l l yengineeredtraits.

6. Improve sharing of informa)on in theareasof organicseed availability, lackofavailability for specific varie)es and/ortraits,andfieldtrialdata.

7.Create opportuni)es for organic farmersto work with professional breedersthrough trialing networks and on‐farmplantbreedingtospeedthedevelopmentofregionallyadaptedorganiccul)vars.

Sec?on1:Introduc?on 12

HistoricalContextforNeedofStateofOrganicSeed

HistoryofSeedinOrganicMovement:Inanyhistoryofseedwehavetofirstrecognize the12,000 years of farmer and plant breederinnova?onthatexistedbeforethe advent of21st century agriculture. We have beenbequeathedanincrediblelivingresourcethatis beyondeconomic valua?on. We have nomodern foodcrops, only modern varia?onsoncropsfromthecenturies before.Fromthediversity of grains, to the broad array ofbrassicas,wehave beenthebeneficiariesofmorethanwecanevergive back.Thatsaid,itis our responsibility to leave this seedinheritancebeYerthanwhenwereceivedit.Theauthors want to recognize thediversityof cultures, individuals, breeders clubs, andearly scien?sts who observed, recorded,studied,andselected.They have lekuswithmuchtoappreciate,protect,andimprove.

Organicseedhas developedslowly,atapacebehindmanyotherinnova?ons intheorganicmovement.ModernU.S.organic farmingcanbe traced back to the early work of theRodale Ins?tute in the 1940s. Organicfarminggainedproponents andprac??onersthroughoutthenext twodecades,but itwasnot un?l the early 1970s that formalorganiza?onsdeveloped, includingCaliforniaCer?fied Organic Farmers, Maine OrganicFarmers and Gardeners Associa?on, TilthAssocia?on,andmanyotherregional groups.

Intheearlyyearsthese organiza?ons focusedaYen?on on farmer educa?on, cer?fica?onstandards,andresearch(e.g.,fieldtrials),buthave lek no public record of specificp rograms focused on seed systemdevelopment.

From the diversity of grains, to the broad array of

brassicas, we have been the beneficiaries of more than we

can ever give back.

In fact there is liYle formal historicaldocumenta?on of the development of USorganic seed systems prior to the 1990s.Certainly organic farmers from the 1940sthrough the 1970s were engaged in seedsaving andbasic breeding, but we have norecord of commercia l organic seeddevelopment in this period. Weknow thattheearlybacktothelandmovement,whichvalueda“doityourself”approach,supportedthe seedsavingmovement. Backingup thisidea, Rob Johnston, founder of Johnny’sSelected Seeds, said that his mo?va?on instar?ng thecompany and publishinga seedsaving guide was to promote the “handcrakedaspectofseedwork.”13

ThefirstJohnny’s SelectedSeedscatalogwaspublished in 1974. Johnny’s became amainstay for organic gardeners andfarmers,andwas very likely the first seed companywith its owncer?fiedorganic researchfarm

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 13

13 Johnston, Rob. Personal interview, July 2010.

(1979). In 1975, two organiza?ons withmissions of conserving and distribu?ngheirloomseedlaunched:AbundantLifeSeedFounda?on published its first seed catalog,and Seed Savers Exchange (originally “TrueSeedExchange”)publishedits firstyearbookannual newsleYer (which became theyearbook). These organiza?ons, along withcompanies such as Peace Seeds (1975),Fedco (1978), and Territorial (1979) weresuppliers tomany organic farms,andindeedworked with organic farmers to producesomeoftheirseed.14

While no studies from this period indicatefarmerpreferencesorbehavior inpurchasingseed, it is likely that organic farmers in the1970s and 1980s used heirloom varie?esmuch more than their conven?onalcounterparts. This preferencewaslikely ?edto a phi losophical response to theconven?onal agriculturalindustry, as organicfarmers were opposed to the nega?veenvironmental, economic, and social jus?ceimpac t s o f i ndust r i a l conven?ona lagriculture, while valuing diversity,15 localsystems,andthe sovereigntythatcomeswitha “do it yourself” approach to life. Alongwith concerns about gene?c diversity, earlyorganicadvocates werealsoconcernedabout

thetasteandnutri?onal valueof theircropsand expressed concerns that conven?onalbreeding systems favored the developmentofcropswithheavychemicalinputs.16

Thefocus intheorganicmovementonopen‐pollinated (OP) and heirloom varie?es isapparent in that many of the first seedcompanies serving the organic vegetablemarket primarily sold heirloom seed. SeedsofChange(1989)is consideredbymanytobethe first seed company that only offered100% cer?fied organic seed, and it wasnearly twenty years before the companyoffered hybr id var ie?es. A scan ofcommercial organic vegetable seed catalogsin 2010 con?nues to show more OP andheirloomvarie?esthanhybridvarie?es.17 Inconven?onal seed catalogs, the majority ofop?ons are hybrids, with few if any OPsavailable (for crops in which hybrids areavailable.)18Interestin usinghybridvegetablevarie?es has increased among organicfarmers, yet themarket offers very liYle inhybridop?ons. Thecorn seedmarket is anexcep?ontotheOP‐Hybridra?o,withmajororganic corn seed dealers offering primarilyhybridseed.Thesedealers areevenbreedingnew parent lines specifically for organicsystems.19There is talkofU.S.vegetable seed

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 14

14 Personal experience of author, Matthew Dillon, and interviews with founders and employees of these companies. 15 Certainly the epidemic of Southern Corn Leaf Blight that began in 1970, severely reducing corn yield for several years in the U.S., was an awakening for many farmers regarding the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in seed stocks. The epidemic was also a factor in the launch of many of the aforementioned seed projects in the early part of the decade. 16 New Alchemy Institute. Personal interview, 2009.17 The 2010 commercial catalogs examined include organic dealers High Mowing Organic Seeds and Seeds of Change, conventional dealers Rupp and Harris Moran, and Johnny’s Selected Seeds (a mixed market catalog).18 There are exceptions, such as lettuce and green beans, which do not lend themselves to hybrid production.19 Organic hybrid seed production has primarily come from foreign seed companies that serve U.S. markets as a wholesaler, such as Bejo, Genesis, and Enza Zaden.

companies developing organic parent linesand experimen?ng with hybrid produc?on,but the small U.S. market at present comesprimarilyfromEuropeanfirms.

The majority of organic breeding projectsfunded through USDA programs are alsofocused on OP development (see PublicIni?a?vessec?on).Thismay inpart speaktoa “doit yourself”valuethat remains amongorganic farmers, as well as a desire todecentralize seed systems and increasefarmer involvement. However, organicfarming is diverse, and requires variedapproaches toseed.Notall farmers want toorcouldsave seed,andnotall favorOPs.Theseedsavingmovementhas pointedout thattheshik towardhybridvarie?es resultedinareduc?on incrop and gene?c diversity, andwas a by‐product of the monocultureapproach toagriculture. We donot contestthis, or that the seed industry droppedOPvarie?es in favor of hybrids to havecustomers who had to return for the nextgenera?onofseed.However,hybridiza?oninandof itselfis onlya tool,oneusedokenincrea?ng OP popula?ons. Many organicfarmers relyonandarestrongproponentsofhybridvarie?es. Iforganic seedsystemsareto move forward and provide high qualityorganic seed to meet the needs of diverseorganic farmers, then we will need diversevarietal offerings, including both OP andhybridseed.

While the apprecia?on of seed saving andheirloomvarie?esbyearlyorganicvegetablefarmers may havebeena factor inthe slowdevelopment of cer?fied organic hybridvarietals, the factors that con?nue to slowdevelopment today inorganic hybrids likely

has moretodowithinvestment andaccesstogermplasm.Thedevelopmentofbreedinglines for organic systems requires ?meandsignificant resources, and seed industryprofessionals whogaveinput for thisreporthave stated that they have been slow tomakesuchinvestment dueto concernsthatthey will notbeabletorecoupcosts. Thesefinancial risks are real not only for hybriddevelopment but for improvements orbreeding of new OP varie?es, which alsorequirelargeamounts of?meandresourcestodeliverafinishedproduct.Onefactorthathas slowedinvestmentinorganicbreedingisuncertainty regarding theimplementa?onoftheNa?onal OrganicProgram(NOP)ruleas itpertains to seed. In par?cular, there isconcernthatallowingorganic farmers touseconven?onal untreated seed has been, andwill con?nue to be, a loophole withoutsufficientaudi?ng, oversight, andmetrics todetermineif or whenallowances shouldbedenied,orthe allowanceitselfremovedfromtherule.

Thelackofinvestmentfromthe privateseedsector in organic seed is directly related tothis regulatory quagmire around seed. It isnot the only reason for inadequateinvestment, butonethatmustbe addressedfor the seed sector to gain confidence indelivering varie?es appropriate for organicagriculture.The seedsectorfears thecostofunsoldorganic seedduetofarmers claiminga lack of equivalent variety and reques?ngallowances for conven?onal untreatedseed.Inthis scenario,seedcompanies standtolosehuge investments in breeding, produc?on,andmarke?ngexpenses.

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 15

In a 1994 interview, NOSB founding Chair Michael Sligh said, “We recognize currently

there is not enough untreated organic seed of

every variety necessary to say this is required tomorrow. At the same time, we don't

want to discourage companies from making this

type of progress."

Farmers also fear they will be forced topurchaseorganic seedthat is notequivalentor does not meet quality standards. TheNOSB aYempted to give guidance inaddressing these concerns and others, butini?ally it gained no trac?on at theadministra?ve levelof theNOP. Fortunatelytherearesigns that the newNOPleadershipwill provide more clarity. S?ll, the lack ofclarityhas damagedorganicseedsystemsaswell as organic stakeholders’ confidence inthe public process. These are difficult butimportantissues,andatstake is notsimplyaregulatoryruleorthe developmentofanicheseedindustry.

Regulatory History of Organic Seed inNa)onalOrganicProgram: Prior totheNOPin2002,farmerswhopurchasedorganicseeddidsobasedonphilosophical or agronomic

reasons, astherewasno federal regulatoryrequirement to doso. A brief reviewof thedevelopment of organic standards showsthat, fromthestart of the federalprogram,there was recogni?on that seed systemsneeded investment and ac?on if organicproducers were ever going to use 100%organicseed.

The first federal codifica?on of organicoccurred in the 1990 Farm Bill with thepassage of the Organic FoodProduc?onAct(OFPA), whichgave the federal governmentauthoriza?on to create na?onal organicstandards and ini?ate a Na?onal OrganicStandards Board. From the outset of thediscussions onna?onal standards, there wasrecogni?on of the importance of requiringtheuseoforganicseed,but alsothelackofavailability –poin?ngtoa needfor allowingconven?onal seed to be used. OFPArecognizedtheimportance oforganicseedinsta?ng,“Fora farmtobecer?fiedunderthis?tle, producers onsuchfarmshallnotapplymaterials to,orengage inprac?ces on,seedsor seedlings that are contrary to, orinconsistent with the applicable organiccer?fica?onprogram.”20

In a 1994 interview, NOSB founding ChairMichael Sligh said, “We recognize currentlythere is not enough untreated organicseedofeveryvarietynecessary tosay thisisrequired tomorrow. At the same ?me, wedon't want to discourage companies frommakingthistypeofprogress."21

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 16

20 Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6508) 21 Greene, Robert. 1994. “Federal Panel Winnowing Rules for 'Organic' Crops,” Associated Press, June 12, http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-12/news/mn-3200_1_organic-farming.

When the NOP rule was published inDecember of 2000 it included the seedsec?onasitexists today,requiringthe usageof organic seedexcept that “Nonorganicallyproduced,untreatedseedsandplan@ngstockmay be used to produce an organic cropwhen an equivalent organically producedvarietyisnotcommerciallyavailable.”22

Inthepublicresponsetothepublishedrule,thefederal registernotedthatthe“seedandplan?ng stock prac?ce standard in theproposedrulegeneratedaverydiversearrayof responses that, while largely favorable,highlighteda poten?allydisrup?veimpactonorganicproducers.”23

The NOP responded that while somecomments iden?fied the seed and plan?ngstockrequirementas unreasonable,theyhadchosennottochangethestandard,sta?ng:“The objec@ves of spurring produc@on oforganically grown seed and promo@ngresearch in natural seed treatments arecompa@ble with the OFPA's purpose offacilita@ngcommerceinorganicallyproducedand processed food. We designed theprac@ce standard to pursue theseobjec@veswhile preven@ng the disrup@on that anironclad requirement for organicallyproduced seed and plan@ng stockmay havecaused.”

TheNOPrulebecameeffec?veinOctoberof2002.Therewas animmediate backlashfromfarmers on certain aspects of the rule,including the price of organic seed. Somefarmers protestedthattheirseedbills wouldtriple,andthat the cer?fyingfeewas notasexpensiveas theextra costoforganicseed.24Within the first few years of the seedrequirement, farmers also began to voiceconcernsabout thequality oforganic seed,with complaints in the media and atconference discussions about germina?onratesandvarietaloff‐types.25

Complaints from the seed industry alsoemergedalmost immediately. TheAmericanSeed Trade Associa?on’s Organic SeedCommiYee noted these issues fourteenmonths aker the rule became law. Thefollowing are direct quotes of theirconcerns:26

• Organic growers are reluctant to useorganicallyproduced seedbecauseofthehighercostoverconven@onalseed.

• While some cer@fiers are imposing theorganicseedrequirementontheir clientswhen there are equivalent varie@esavailable, other cer@fiers hesitate to doso.Someofthesecer@fiershavesaidtheywould not force growers to use organicseed if the price difference was over a

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 17

22 National Organic Program (7 CFR 205.204 (a) (1)).23 Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 246 (December 21, 2000). 24 “Farmers Cool to Organic Regulations,” The Daily Gazette, October 26, 2002 (Saratoga, NY).25 This conclusion comes from reviewing numerous online discussions and articles, including from agricultural resources like Rodale Institute and ATTRA, as well as from feedback received at OSA-hosted seed sessions at EcoFarm, Tilth Producers Conference, Organic Seed Growers Conference, and other organic farming conferences. 26 Minutes from ASTA Organic Seed Committee meeting (January 25, 2004).

certain amount—even though the NOPhasconfirmedina lePerthatprice isnota factor in determining whether anorganicseedis“commerciallyavailable.”

• Most organic cer@fiers are not wellinformedonthevarie@esoforganic seedthatarecurrentlycommerciallyavailable.Many cer@fiers are calling for a centraldatabase to tell themwhat varie@es areavailableinorganicform.

• Whena grower claimsto a cer@fier thathe needs a par@cular variety for whichthereisnoequivalentorganicseed,mostorganiccer@fiersarenotwellequippedtoevaluatethegrower’sposi@on.Thusthereis a danger of haphazard decisions bycer@fiers, andno third party oversight ofthesedecisions.

American Seed Trade Associa?on (ASTA)members also issued a statement to theNOSB on the equivalency issue with adeadlineforthe usageoforganicseed:“ASTAbelieves equivalenceshouldbemeasuredby‘species’ when the transi?on period is overand organic producers will be required toselect themost suitablevariety [within thesame species] for their produc?on loca?onand ?me. ASTA’s proposed transi?onaldeadlinefor variety andspecies cer?fica?onandequivalenceisOctober2004.”

NOSB did not recommend this deadline totheNOP, andif they would have it is likelythat many organic farmers would haveprotested given the wide rangeof diversitywithin a species, versus the more localizedadapta?on of varietals. But the NOSB washearing fromenough stakeholdersfor themto create a joint commiYee to address thevaryingconcerns overhowtheseedrulewas

being interpreted, implemented, andenforced.

NOSBRecommenda)on on theCommercialAvailability of Organic Seed: In August of2005the NOSBpresentedtheNOPwiththeir“Recommenda?on on the CommercialAvailability ofOrganic Seed.” This statementreceived so much public feedback that in2006 the Crops CommiYee of the NOSBbegananewroundofdiscussions andpubliccomment periods to further develop aguidance statement on organic seed. Thefinal document – “Further GuidanceonCommercial AvailabilityofOrganicSeed”–wasapprovedinNovemberof2008withtheintent of having an “increased level ofcompliance with Title 7 Part 205 Na?onalOrganic Program (§205.204)” (the seedsec?onofthe rule).Theintroduc?onstates:“This Joint CommiPee acknowledges thatonly a smallpropor@onoftheseedcurrentlyused by organic farmers is cer@fiedorganically grown seed. Also that, manycer@fying agents do not believe they havebeengiven viableguidelines for their role inv e r i fi ca@on p rocedu re s conce rn i ngorganically grown seed availability. TheCommiPeenowoffersadjustedguidancethatwe hope will bring clarity to the issue andaccelerate the u@liza@on of organic seed inallsectorsoforganiccropproduc@on.”

The document goes on to give specificguidance to the NOP, Accredited Cer?fyingAssocia?on(ACA)andtocer?fiedgrowers fortheirspecific“role inincreasingorganicseedusage.”

Thedevelopmentoftheguidancestatementsreceived mostly favorable comments from

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 18

the seed industry, mixed comments fromaccredited cer?fying agencies (with someveryopposedandothers suppor?ve),andnocommentsdirectlyfromfarmers.

Par?cularly polarizing was the followingrecommenda?ontothe NOP:“EmphasizetoACA’sthatorganicseedusagebyclientsmustbe moni tored and improvement inpercentageusage isexpected andmust alsobemonitored.Documenta@onofthelevelsoforganic seed usage and evidence ofimprovementinthepercentagevs.totalseedusage by the ACA’s clientele should beaudited as part of the NOP accredita@onreviews.”

Also controversialwas this recommenda?ontoACAs:“Maintainandsubmituponrequestt o t h e Na@ona l O r gan i c P r og r amdocumenta@on of the organic seed usagestatus(currentpercentlevelsascomparedtohistorical levelsofusageby acreage)ofeachcer@fiedoperator.”

Comments madeby the Na?onal Associa?onof State Organic Programs (NASOP) wereemblema?c of those ACAs who respondednega?vely to the guidelines. Miles McEvoy,NASOPPresidentatthe?me(nowdirectorofNOP) wrote in his comment leYer, “Thesugges@on that organic growers andcer@fiersmaintainrecordson thepercentageof organic seed usage by acreage isunworkable. The addi@onal recordkeepingrequirementswillnotincreasetheavailabilityoforganicseeds.”

TheleYerpoints outa burdeninbothrecordkeeping and increased cost in cer?fica?on.Going into further detail in abreakdownof

theguidancedocumentby sec?ons,McEvoywrites:“Thereareproblemswithdeterminingcompliance with the commercial availabilityof organic seed requirement by thepercentage of organic seed used. Thestandards requiretheuseoforganic seeds ifthey are commercially available. Thepercentage of organic seed usage coulddecreasefromoneyear to thenext becausethe producer is plan@ng different seedvarie@es that are not available organically.On the other hand if organic seeds areavailable then the producer should be using100% organic seeds. A producer may beincreasing the percentage of organic seedused but s@ll be in viola@on of the organicseed requirement if they donot useorganicseeds that are commercially available.Another complica@ng factor is that manydiversifieddirectmarke@ngopera@onsdonotcalculatetheacreageplantedtotheirvariouscrops. Calcula@ng the percentage oforganicseed used could be a recordkeepingnightmare and not lead to any greateradop@on of organic seed usage. Organicseeds can only be used if they arecommerciallyavailable.”

These NOSB recommenda?ons – withhundreds ofvolunteer hoursinresearchandwri?ng, review,revisions, andfurtherreviewand input from stakeholders over a three‐year period–wereapprovedandpresentedto theNOP inNovember of 2008. Andyet,two years later, there has been no formalresponsefromtheNOP.

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 19

The goal from the perspective of SOS is not to move as quickly as

possible to 100% usage of organic seed, but to move as quickly as possible to 100% usage of high

quality organic seed that is optimal for organic farming

systems.

Current Situa)on with Na)onal OrganicProgram: Many of the cer?fiers we spokewith during the course of this projectexpressed a posi?ve opinion that the NOP,under new leadership as of 2009, is takingac?ons to strengthen the integrity of theorganic label, including encouraging greaterenforcementof theuse oforganicseedandthat they expect addi?onal input on seedfrom the NOP in2011. SeveralACAs reportthat they are strengthening their ownpo l i c i e s and p rocedures regard ingcommercialavailabilityofseed.

OregonTilth is one example of a cer?fyingorganiza?onthathas changedits approachtothe seed issue. If a new farming opera?onapplies for cer?fica?on and has notperformed a commercial availability search(contac?ngorsearchingthrougha minimumof three seed company lists/catalogs),OregonTilth’s previousprac?cewastogivet he p roduce r “a rem inde r o f t he

requirements for using organic seed anddemonstra?ng commercial availability.”Beginning in 2010, Tilth started to issue ano?fica?on of noncompliance, asking theoperator to demonstratethat theseedwasnotavailableinorganic form.Iftheoperatorfails to demonstrate this, Tilth now deniescer?fica?onofthatspecificcrop.

Kristy Korb, Cer?fica?onDirector ofOregonTilth, states, “If it happened the nextinspec?onthere wouldmost likelybedenialof [cer?fica?on for that par?cular] crop orsuspension[ofcer?fica?on]ifitwas all cropsor a pervasive problem. Inarenewingclientsitua?on if it moves to suspension therewouldhavetobe ongoingissues fromyeartoyear,as otherwisewewouldsimplydenythatspecificcrop.”27

NOPstaff recently saidthey wereina “newageofenforcement.”28The USDAAgriculturalMarke?ng Service reports of “adverseac?ons” taken on organic producers andhand lers prov ide examples o f th i scommitment. InAugustof 2010,suspensionof organic cer?fica?on was issued toproducersinGeorgia andOregonfor “failuretouseorganicseedsordemonstrateabsenceof commercial availability.” In July, a NewYork producer was issued a suspension forusing “seeds treated with a prohibitedsubstance.”29

Whilesomemaybeencouragedbysigns thatACAsare?ghteningprocedures, wecau?on

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 20

27 Korb, Kristy (Oregon Tilth). Email correspondence, September 16, 2010.28 Perkowski, Mateusz. 2010. “USDA leans on organic producers,” Capital Press, September 23, Retrieved at http://www.capitalpress.info/content/mp-organic-crackdown-092410.29 We reviewed NOP’s “Adverse Actions” list in September 2010. This list is updated monthly, and only reflects notices provided by accredited certifying agents that specify non-compliance resulting in suspension or revocation.

that regulatory enforcementwill only beasgood and fair as the informa?on that allstakeholders have regarding commercialavailability of seed. The goal from theperspec)veofSOSisnottomoveasquicklyaspossible to 100%usageoforganic seed,but tomove asquicklyaspossibleto 100%usage of high quality organic seed that isop)mal for organic farming systems.Cer?fiers, farmers, seed companies,researchers andtheNOPitselfall needmoreinforma?on. The development of a pubicdatabasethatallows all par?estosearchforseedavailability,trackallowancesof

conven?onal seed(includingvarietynameorcharacteris?cs, volume of seed, and croptype), verify cer?fiers, and provide seedsuppliers with informa?on to promote andmarket theirvarie?eswasoneofthehighestpriority ac?ons requested by mul?plestakeholders involved in this project (see“Priority Ac?ons, Informa?on‐Percep?on” insec?on seven). Developing this publicdatabase is also in l ine with NOSBrecommenda?ons. Goodregula?on requiresgoodinforma?on,andwedonothavethatatpresent.

Sec?on2:HistoricalContextfortheStateofOrganicSeed 21

RisksofTransgenicContamina)on

Itis importantforus toassesstheriskfactorsthat threaten the natural resource ofagriculturalseedaswealsoworktoexpand,develop,andenhanceorganicseedsystems.Thefollowingsec?onsoncontamina?onandconcentra?onunderlinethatwhilewemakeinvestments, engage in educa?on andconduct research in organic seed, we mustalso take a more unified and focusedapproach to addressing these uncheckedthreats.Tofail todosowouldbetobuildonsand. Without astrongfounda?onof seedpolicies andregulatorymanagement,organicseedsystemswill lackstabilityandbeatriskof degrada?on. If seed is contaminated,contaminatedcropsfollow.

Contamina)on Risks from Gene)callyEngineered Crops: Because gene?cengineering isan“excludedmethod” undertheNa?onal Organic Program (NOP), and a

method to which organic consumers werevocallyopposedwhenthe organicrules wereindevelopment, gene?cally engineered(GE)crops –alsoreferredtoin this documentasgene?cally modified organisms (GMOs) –pose one of the biggest threats to organicintegrity.Contamina?onoforganicseedsandcrops by GE material is well documented.30Although biotechnology corpora?onspromote “co‐existence” as a reality, theevidence is that transgenic traits cannot becontained.31 Therefore, there is no co‐existence without aloss of organic integrity.Biological factors (e.g., cross‐pollina?on),human error (e.g., mismanagement ofgene?c resources), and weak regulatoryframeworks all contribute to theunwantedspread of GE pollen and seed into organicagricultural systems. Seed is a par?cularlycri?cal entry point for GMO contamina?ongiventhat cropproduc?onthat beginswithcontaminatedseedwill inevitably result inafi n a l o r g a n i c p r o d u c t w i t h GMOcontamina?on. To maintain the integrity oforganic foodandfeed,wehavetomaintaintheintegrityoftheseed.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 22

30 GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International. 2005. GM contamination report, A review of cases of contamination, illegal planting, and negative side effects of genetically modified organisms, Retrieved at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/.31 Marvier, M. & Van Acker, R.C. 2005. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(2): 99–106, Retrieved at http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1540-9295&volume=003&issue=02&page=0093.

For crops with GE counterparts, such ascanola,cornandsoybeans,GEmaterial turnsupinfields where GEseedswerenotplanted(i.e., cropswithGE counterparts, specificallycanola, corn and soybeans). This reality iscompromising the credibility and economicviability of non‐GE markets, includingorganic . For example, organic cornconsistently tests posi?ve for transgenicmaterial.32FedcoSeedshas zerotoleranceforGEmaterial inthe seeditsells androu?nelytestsseedat risk ofGMO contamina?on. In2008 and again in 2009, Fedco droppedvarie?es of sweet corn due to GMOcontamina?on.33 Organic rice companieswere impacted by contamina?on when anunapprovedGEvarietyescapedopen‐airfieldtrialsandturnedup intheU.S. rice supply,h a l f o f wh i ch i s expo r ted .34 Andcontamina?onincanola is soextensivethatorganic farmers inCanadasuedAven?s andMonsanto arguingGE canola has destroyedtheirmarket.35

Organicproducers use bothorganicseedandconven?onal non‐treatedseedas allowedby

the NOP rule. Gene?c tes?ng shows thatseeds of conven?onal varie?es of canola,corn, and soybeans are pervasivelycontaminated with DNA sequences derivedfromtransgenicvarie?es.36 Organicseedhasalso been contaminated. Seed companiesproducing organic seed report that theystruggle to find uncontaminated founda?onseed, and that even when they start withclean seed they cannot maintain puritythroughproduc?oninaveritable“seaofGEp o l l e n .”37 Wh i l e o r ga n i c f a rme r soverwhelming ly want organ ic seedcompanies totestforGEmaterial andreportfindings,38 seedcompanies are hesitanttodoso, or if they do test, they are hesitant toreporttheresultsforfearthatcustomers willnotpurchase their seed.39Conven?onal seedcompanies sellingtoorganic farmers likewisedo not report contamina?on. This is largelybecause the re i s no re cou rse fo rcompensa?ngtheir loss.The GEtechnology/patentowner iscurrently not held liableforeconomicdamage.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 23

32 Thottam, Jyoti. 2007. “When organic really isn’t organic,” TIME, March 14, Retrieved at http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1599110,00.html; Organic & Non-GMO Report. 2010. “Organic farmers report increasing contamination with corn,” April, Retrieved at http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/apr10/organicfarmers_gmocontamination.php.33 Fedco Seeds. 2010. Online catalog at http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/Changes.htm.34 The Organic & Non-GMO Report. 2006. “Organic rice companies impacted by GM rice contamination,” November, Retrieved at http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/nov06/gm_rice_contamination.php.35 Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. 2002.Organic farmers sue Monsanto and Aventis, January 10, Retrieved at http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/news.html#pr-rel-8nov04.36 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Gone to seed: Transgenic contaminants in the traditional seed supply, Retrieved at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/gone-to-seed.html. 37 State of Organic Seed Symposium. Participant input form and corn working group discussion notes. February 11, 2010. 38 Organic Producer Survey, Question 22: 74% of organic producers agreed or strongly agreed to the statement: “Seed companies should conduct testing and report rates of GE (GMO) contamination in organic seed.” 39 Westgate, Megan (Non-GMO Project). Personal communication, May 28, 2010.

Incaseswherenon‐GEcropseedis alsosoldas a GE variety, organic farmers mayunknowingly plant seeds that contain GEmaterial – evenwhen the seed is cer?fiedorganic.This ensuresacontaminatedharvestbeforethecropis evensown.This representsnotonly poten?al economic loss tofarmerswhohavecontracts s?pula?ngnon‐GEorlowlevels ofGEmaterial incrops,italsoputs theintegrity of the “USDAOrganic” label at riskoflosingconsumerconfidence.Furthermore,these farmers derive no benefit from GEtraits. Our experience from presen?ng atdozensofpublicpresenta?ons onthis issueisthat consumers, retailers, distributors, andeven processors are shocked, and thenoutraged,tolearnthatorganicfarmers couldbeusing seedthat containsGE traits,whenGE is explicitly listed as an “excludedmethod”intheNOPrule.These stakeholdersbelievethat“excluded”meansexcluded.

Na)onal Organic Program and Gene)cEngineering:When the USDA published itsproposedrule for theNOP in1997,theruleallowed for the use of many controversialinputs, including GMOs. Members of theorganic industry and consumers wereoutragedby the proposedrule. Todate, theUSDAhas neverreceivedmorecomments ona proposedrulemakingthanitdidonits firstproposed NOP rule.40 The agency received

morethan275,000comments in opposi?onto the rule, most of which abhorred theinclusionofGEorganisms ontheNa?onalListofAc?veSynthe?cSubstancesAllowed.

Seed is a particularly critical entry point for GMO

contamination given that crop production that begins with

contaminated seed will inevitably result in a final

organic product with GMO contamination. To maintain the integrity of organic food

and feed, we have to maintain the integrity of the seed.

When asked in an interview about thepublic’s response to the proposed rule,formerSecretaryofAgricultureDanGlickmanreplied: “Therewasanabsolutefirestorm.”41Speaking of the more than 275,000comments, Glickmansaid: “It wasthemostthis department has ever received on anyrule and maybe one of the most thegovernmenthas receivedin modernhistory.”This large consumer outcry showed howimportant soundorganic principles were to

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 24

40 Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 49 (March 13, 2000); Cummings, Claire. 1997-1998. “Undermining organic: How the proposed USDA organic standards will hurt farmers, consumers, and the environment,” Pesticides and You, Vol. 17 No. 4, Retrieved at www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/.../Undermining%20Organic.pdf.41 Lambrecht, B. 1999. “A biotech warrior stresses subtlety,” Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau, June 6, Retrieved at http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~steggall/24Apr99-22Jul99.html.

the pub l i c , and that among othercontroversial prac?ces, gene?c engineeringheld no place in the organic movement’scollec?ve vision of what cons?tuted anorganicproduc?onsystem.

The crux of many of the controversiessurrounding theproposedrulewas that theUSDA had ignored many of the NOSB’sr e c omme n d a ? o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h erecommenda?ontoexcludethe “bigthree,”as they came to be known: GMOs, sewagesludge,andirradia?on.42Infact,many ofthecomments “angrily calledon the agency toobeytheNOSB.”43TheUSDAiss?ll cri?cizedtoday for not responding to NOSBrecommenda?ons.44

Why was the USDA permissive of gene?cengineering under the organic standards tobeginwith?Inaninternal memoacquiredbyMotherJonesmagazine,the USDAhighlightsits concernaboutexcludingGEmaterial fromorganics: “The Animal and Plant HealthInspec?on Service and the ForeignAgricultural Service are concerned that ourtradingpartners will pointtoaUSDAorganicstandardthat excludesGMO as evidence ofthe Department’s concern about the safetyofbioengineeredcommodi?es.”45

S?ll, the USDA could not ignore the hugepublic response it received against theproposed rule. In the end, the final rulebeYer reflected consumer and organicindustry preferences.46 The final rule waspublished onDecember 21, 2000. The NOPbecame effec?ve on February 21, 2001, buttheprogramitselfwasnotfully implementedun?lOctober21,2002.

Regarding gene?c engineering, perhaps themost important aspect to remember aboutthe NOP is that it provides produc?onstandards only, and does not serve as acer?fica?on of the end product. BecauseNOP regula?ons are process‐basedand notproduct‐based,they focusonhowaproductis grown, harvested and prepared, ratherthancharacteris?csoftheendproduct.

Thefinal rule does not allow for the use ofproductsderivedfromgene?cengineeringincer?fiedorganicsystems. Sec?on205.105 oftheNOP rulespecifically prohibits GE cropsfrom cer?fied organic produc?on systems:“To be sold or labeled as ‘100 percentorganic’ . . . the product must be producedand handled without the use of excludedmethods. ‘Excluded methods’ are ‘methodsused to gene@cally modify organisms or

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 25

42 “NCSA urges Gore to insure ‘strong, credible’ organic rule.” 1998. ATTRAnews Digest, September, Retrieved at http://attra.ncat.org/newsletter/news0998.html#orgrule.43 Sligh, Michael. 2002. “Organics at the crossroads: The past and the future of the organic movement, “ Fatal harvest: The tragedy of industrial agriculture, San Francisco, CA: Island Press.44 Center for Food Safety. 2004. “Threats to the National Organic Standards,” Retrieved at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Threats-to-the-National-Organic-Standards.pdf; Scott, C. 2006. “Organic http://centerforfoodsafety.org/ProtectingNOS.cfm milk goes corporate,” Mother Jones, April 26, Retrieved at http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/04/organic_milk.html.45 Schmelzer, Paul. 1998. “Label loophole: When organic isn’t—organic foods labeling,” The Progressive, Retrieved at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n5_v62/ai_20527633.46 Guthman, Julie. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California, Berkeley and London: University of California Press.

influence their growth and development bymeans that are not possible under naturalcondi@ons or processes and are notconsidered compa@ble with organicproduc@on.’ Such methods include ‘cellf u s i o n , m i c r o e n c a p s u l a @ o n a n dmacroencapsula@on, and recombinant DNAtechnology (including gene dele@on, genedoubling, introducing a foreign gene, andchanging the posi@ons of genes whenachievedbyrecombinantDNAtechnology).”

Onthesurface itmayseemthatthe NOPruleclearly addresses agricultural biotechnologybynotallowingtheuseofGEseedsandfeedincer?fiedopera?ons.However,as explainedabove,GEmaterial canenterafarmer’s fieldandproducts throughmeanscompletely outof the farmer’s control, complica?ng theissueof“excludedmethods”as theypertaintothe NOPrule.Gene?cengineeringis listedas an “excluded method,” but GE materialthat has driked from neighboring fields istreated as a prohibited substance, not anexcludedmethod.

The rule defines “drik” as “the physicalmovementofprohibitedsubstances fromtheintended target site onto an organicopera?onor por?onthereof.” A “prohibitedsubstance” is a substance “which in anyaspect of organic produc?on or handling isprohibited or not provided for” in theregula?ons. Thus, “prohibited substances”include “excluded methods,” including GEmaterial.

There is no set level of tolerance for GEmaterial contamina?oninorganicproducts inthe NOP rule. Several countries have settolerance levels for GE material in non‐GEconven?onal crops and food. These varywidely, from the European Union (0.9percent) to Japan (5 percent).47 A GE cropvariety must be approvedfor import into acountrybeforeany level ofcontamina?onbythat GE crop variety willbeacceptable. Forexample, if aGE corn variety not approvedfor import by the European Union isdiscoveredina largeshipmentofcornthatisapproved for import, the whole shipmentwouldlikelyberejectedbecausethereis zerotoleranceforunapprovedGEcropvarie?es.

TheNOPorganicrules do,however,establisha tolerance level for pes?cide residue.“Residuetes?ng”is definedas “anofficialorvalidated analy?cal procedure that detects,iden?fies, and measures the presence ofchemical substances, their metabolites, ordegrada?on products in or on raw orprocessed agricultural products.” “Tolerancelevel” is “the maximum legal level of apes?cidechemicalresidueinorona raworprocessed agricultural commodity orprocessedfood.”Whenorganicproducts testfor more than five percent residue of theEnvironmental Protec?on Agency’s (EPA)tolerancelevel fora specificcontaminant,theagriculturalproduct cannot besold, labeledorrepresentedasorganic.

Because the NOP does not establish atolerance level for GE material in organicproducts,therule governingtheexclusionof

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 26

47 Ronald, P. and Fouche, B. 2006. “Genetic engineering and organic production systems,” Retrieved at www.indica.ucdavis.edu/publication/reference/r0602.pdf.

products exceeding tolerance levels frombeing labeled as organic do not apply toGMO contamina?on, as it only applies tocontaminants for which there is anestablishedEPAorFDAtolerancelevel.IntheFederal Register announcing the final rule,theUSDA explains why atolerance wasnotestablished in response to comments forsebng a “threshold” for GE material inorganicproducts:

Wedonot believe there is sufficientconsensus upon which to establishsuchastandardat this?me.Muchofthebasic, baseline informa?on aboutthe preva lence o f gene?ca l l ye n g i n e e r e d p r o d u c t s i n t h econven?onal agricultural marketplacethatwouldbe necessary tosetsuchathreshold—e.g., the effects of pollendrik where it may be a factor, theextent of mixing at various pointsthroughout the marke?ng chain, theadven??ous presence of gene?callyengineered seed in nonengineeredseedlots—is s?ll largelyunknown.Ourunderstanding of how the use ofb iotechnology in conven?onalagricultural produc?on might affectorganic crop produc?on is even lesswelldeveloped.48

This response points to a lack of data andtoo l s rega rd ing the p re sence andmeasurement of GMOs in organic andconven?onal fields andproducts.Whilethismay have beentruein2000, it isclearly notthe case in 2010. Contamina?on in theorganicseedsupplycreates a brokensystemwhere organic seed companies are sellingorganic seed that has GE traits to organic

farmers, likely knowing that the seedcontainsexcludedmethods.Sinceit is neverovertly stated that the seed contains GEtraits, theplan?ng of suchseedisallowed.Organic farmers are thereforeusingGEseed–usinganexcludedmethod–whether theyintendtoornot.Ques?ons remainas tohowokenGEseedis beingplanted,howmuchofany seed lot hasGE material, and to whatdegreetheseedsectorknowsitis sellingGEseed to organic producers. What’s clear isthat the integrity of the organic label is atstake.

Seed is bothanagricultural product and aninput–aspecial case inall ofagriculture.TheUSDA’s inac?on on the seed contamina?onissue is a large gap in the NOP, especiallywhen farmers’ crops are contaminated byfactors completely out of their control.Protec?ng the integrity of organic seedcannot,however,fall onlyontheshoulders ofthe organic community and theUSDA. Thepatent holders and manufacturers of seedtechnologiesmustbe heldliablefornega?veimpacts to the organic community – be itharm to an organic seed company’sreputa?onordirecteconomicdamage.

Regulatory Framework: In addi?on to theissues at the NOP level regarding excludedmethods, the federal government has aseriously inadequate regulatory frameworkforGE crops.The lackofa strong regulatorysystem to protect farmers’ rights, domes?candexportmarkets,andthe maintenance ofthenatural resource ofseedis atthe rootofGMO contamina?on of organic crops. Nonew law has been created to address the

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 27

48 Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 246 (December 21, 2000).

mul?ple risks of agricultural biotechnology.The U.S. government instead relies on apatchwork of laws (most of which predatethe technology) and three governmentagencies’ subjec?ve interpreta?ons of theirroleunder these laws to regulateGE crops.Government reports cite serious regulatoryshor}alls, especially during the field trialstage, concluding that theUSDA’s oversightofexperimentalfieldtrials is “inadequate.”49Infact,thejudicialsystemhas hadtostepinto correct regulatory and legisla?vedeficiencies.Twofederal judges have pointedoutthattheUSDAfailedtofollowfederal lawby not conduc?ng a full EnvironmentalImpact Statement for GE alfalfa and sugarbeets, specifically ci?ng the impacts onfarmers’ ability to chooseGE‐free seedandconsumers’ ability to choose GE‐free food.Oncea GEcrop is approved for commercialsale and plan?ng (“deregulated”) it is notsubject to post‐market surveillance orrepor?ng, and does not have to be

segregated from conven?onal crops andproducts.

Confron)ngContamina)on:Organicfarmersdepend on organic and other non‐GE seedvarie?es to meet organic standards andconsumer demand. Seed contamina?onplaces an unfair burden onorganic farmersbyhinderingtheirabilitytofindGE‐free seed.Theorganiccommunity is respondingtothechallengescontamina?onposes ina numberof ways, including best prac?ces in seedproduc?on; tes?ng and labeling; andli?ga?onandlegisla?on.

In 2010, the Na?onal Organic Coali?onout l ined “Pr inc ip les to Dr ive GMOContamina?on Preven?on Strategies” (seeBox1).Onlywhendecisionmakerstake theseprinciples seriously will we make progresstoward protec?ng the integrity of organicseedandfeedsources.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 28

49 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. 2005. Audit report: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service controls over issuance of genetically engineered organism release permits, Retrieved at www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-08-TE.pdf.Government Accountability Office. 2008. Genetically Engineered Crops: Agencies Are Proposing Changes to Improve Oversight, but Could Take Additional Steps to Enhance Coordination and Monitoring, Retrieved at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-60.

BestPrac>cesThereis atleastonecornseedcompany working on best produc?onprac?cestandardsfornon‐GEseedcrops thatwouldbemanagedsimilar toother forms ofseedcer?fica?on.50Suchstandards wouldbean aYempt to mi?gate the rate ofcontamina?on in corn seed produc?on.Whilethismayreducecontamina?onrates,it

will not give 100% protec?on, and addsaddi?onal cost and burden to organic seedproducers – a cost that will be carried byorganicfarmerspayinghigherpricesforseed.

Tes>ng Even though the NOP does notrequire tes?ng for GE material, somefarmers, seed companies, food companies,

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 29

50 Charles Brown (Brownseed Genetics). Personal communication, January 24, 2010.

Box1:PrinciplestoDriveGMOContamina)onPreven)onStrategies

ConsumerchoiceConsumershavetherighttochoosenon‐GMOfood.

ConsumerrighttoknowConsumershavetherighttoknowwhereandhowtheirfoodwasgrown.

FarmersEntrepreneurialChoiceFarmersmusthavetherightandopportunitytogrowfood,feed,fiber,livestock,andfishthatserveimportantandlucra?vedomes?candforeignmarkets.

Fairness Personalandcorporateresponsibilitymustbeupheld.Ifyouownitandareprofi?ngfromityouareresponsibleforthecostsassociatedwithcontamina?onpreven?onandanyresultantdamagefromcontamina?on.

LiabilityTes?ngforcontamina?on,establishingbuffers,reimbursementforlostsales,lossoforganicproductpremiums,

clean‐upandremovalarethecostsofdoingbusinessthatmustbebornebytheGMOpatentholder.

Precau)onThepre‐marketburdenofproofofsafetyisonthepatentholder. Thisincludescomprehensiveevalua?onof

health,socio‐economic,andenvironmentalimpactsofGMcropsandtechnologies.

SustainabilityAgriculturaltechnologiesandsystemsmustbeassessedforsustainabilityandthosethatfacilitatefurtherdeclinesinfamilyfarmingorerodethehumanandenvironmentalfounda?onsofAmericanagriculturemustnotbeallowed.

Health,EnvironmentalandEconomicEvalua)onTechnologiesthatposeenvironmental,economic,andhealthrisksshould

beevaluatedbeforecommercializa?onandtoughchoicesmustbemadeaboutwhethertheiroverallsocietalbenefitsoutweightheircosts.

ParityTheremustbealong‐termcommitmenttosuppor?ngthevitalityofdiverseagriculturalenterprises,includingparity

ofpublicinvestment,infrastructure,marke?ng,technicalassistance,research,andfunding.

TransparencyOngoingdocumenta?on,trackingandlabelingsystemsmustbeestablishedtomonitorthemovementof

GMOsintheenvironment,seedbanks,on‐GMOseedstocks,andfood.

Diversity Societyandagriculturewillgreatlybenefitfromtherapidreinvigora?onofpubliccul?varsandbreedstorestoregene?cdiversityonfarms,ensuregreaterfarmerseeds/breedschoices,andtoenhancena?onalfoodsecurity.

and consumer/environmental groups areinves?ga?ngthe extent ofGEcontamina?onthroughtes?ng.51 Tes?ngremains limited,asPCR tests for each seed lot would befinancially prohibi?ve. In addi?on, whencontamina?on is found there is no easyrecourse for collec?ng compensa?on forcontamina?ondamages,the ongoingcosts oftes?ng, contamina?onbuffers,andpoten?alclean‐up.

Labeling Legisla?ve efforts to requirelabeling,includingtheGene?callyEngineeredFood Right to Know Act (H.R. 6635), havebeenunsuccessful.52S?ll,polls showthatthemajority of consumers want GE foodslabeled.53 Absent labeling requirements forGE food ingredients, consumerscon?nue toview the organic label as a legi?matealterna?ve given the USDA’s rule excludingthe use of gene?c engineering. New labelshave been introduced, but none thatguaranteeinputsorproducts thatarefreeofGEmaterial.54

Li>ga>onBecausetheUSDA is notfollowingenvironmental laws, and regula?ons arefailing to protect organic and other non‐GEmarkets, farmers and non‐governmentalorganiza?ons have been forced to use thecourts to slow or stop contamina?on bychallengingtheapproval ofspecificGEcrops,andwithsomesuccess:

• GE alfalfa A precedent‐sebng courtdecision in 2007 found that the USDAfailedtoaddress concernsthatGEalfalfawill contaminate conven?onal andorganic alfalfa. The court issued apermanent injunc?on, barring furtherplan?ngofGEalfalfa pendingtheresultsof an EIS. A court had never beforevacatedaUSDAdecisiontoapprovea GEcrop. Although the Supreme Courtreversedpart ofthelower court’s rulinginJune of2010,itlek inplacethebanonplan?ngGEalfalfa pendingcomple?onoftheEISandfutureregulatorydecisions.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 30

51 Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Gone to seed: Transgenic contaminants in the traditional seed supply, Retrieved at http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/gone-to-seed.html; Organic & Non-GMO Report. 2010. “Organic farmers report increasing contamination with corn,” April, Retrieved at http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/apr10/organicfarmers_gmocontamination.php.52 Congressman Dennis Kucinich, “Issues: Agriculture,” Retrieved at http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1459.53 Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H.L., Cuite, C.L. and Lang, J.T. 2003. “Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of american knowledge and opinion,” Retrieved at www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2003.pdf. (finding that 94% of respondents favor labeling of foods containing GE ingredients); Langer, G. 2001. “Behind the label: Many skeptical of bio-engineered food,” ABCNews, June 19, Retrieved at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/poll010619.html (finding that 93% of respondents favor labeling of foods containing GE ingredients).54 The Non-GMO Project. 2010. “Understanding Our Seal,” Retrieved at http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/understanding-our-seal/. The Non-GMO Project label does not guarantee that products are free of GMO presence, but rather that companies have followed testing protocols as outlined in the projects guidelines.

• GE sugar beets Following the landmarkalfalfa case, a similar lawsuit was filedchallenging the USDA’s approval of GEsugar beets. Plain?ffs, including OrganicSeed Alliance, argued for a thoroughassessmentofenvironmental,health,andassoc iated economic impacts ofderegula?ngGE sugar beets,as requiredby federal law. Once again, the courtorderedanEISfor theGEvariety.At the?me of this report’s comple?on, theUSDAwasseekingpar?alderegula?onofGE sugar beets while the EIS is beingcompleted (i.e., allowing GE sugar beetproduc?onunderpermits).

• GEpharmaceu?cal cropsA federalcourtf o u nd t h a t t h e U SDA v i o l a t e denvironmental laws in permibng fourcompanies to plant pharmaceu?cal GEcrops in Hawaii absent preliminaryenvironmentalreviews.55

Li?ga?on involving GE crops is ?me‐consuming and expensive. However, in theface of weak regulatory frameworks, thecourts appeartobefarmers’onlyrecourseinprotec?ng themselves from irreparableeconomic andenvironmental harmresul?ngfromthewidespreadplan?ngofGEcrops.

Public Comment Opponents of GE cropslargely rely onpublic comment periods andlegal pe??ons tovoice concernandinfluenceGEcropregulatory decisions.56As previouslymen?oned, when the USDA first released adrak of the proposed organic rules that

allowedgene?c engineeringas a method inorganicproduc?on, over275,000 consumersresponded;submibngthehighestnumberofcomments theagency has ever received.Allbutthreeof thesecomments wereopposedtoGEusage.GEwas excluded,buttherehavebeennoprotec?ons fororganic farmersandcompanies when GE material is introducedintotheirproduc?onsystems.

StateLegisla>onLocal ini?a?ves focusedonprotec?ngorganic farmers andtheirmarketsfrom undue risks associated with GE cropshavepopped up across theU.S. with somesuccess.These local andstate ini?a?vesseekto address the shortcomings of federalregula?ons governing GE crops in order toavoidcontamina?on. These ini?a?vesrangefromoutright bans onplan?ng GE crops toestablishing sampling protocols in cases ofallegedseedpatentinfringement.

Five coun?es in California have passedini?a?ves that place l imita?ons onagriculturalbiotechnology,mostofwhichbangrowing GE crops. Dozens of New Englandtownshavealsopassedresolu?onsregardingGEcrops, almost a quarter ofwhichcall formoratoriumsonplan?ngGEseeds.57

In2006, the Vermont legislature passed themostcomprehensivefarmerprotec?onbill inhistory. The bill was the first to includelanguage that held manufacturers ofpatentedseedliableforeconomicdamagein

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 31

55 Center for Food Safety v. Johanns, 451 F.Supp.2d 1165 (D. Haw. Sept. 1, 2006).56 For example, in March 2003, five farm organizations and two state senators filed a citizen petition asking USDA to require an Environmental Impact Statement concerning the deregulation of GE wheat. See http://worc.org/userfiles/WheatUSDApet.pdf.57 “Background: Industry aims to strip local control of food supply.” 2006. Environmental Commons, Retrieved at http://environmentalcommons.org/seedlawbackgrounder.html.

casesofcontamina?on.Despite passingbothhouses, andevenaker thousands ofphonecalls tothe Governor’soffice, he s?ll vetoedthebill.

The organic community fought hard for standards that

reflect strong organic principles during the

beginning phases of the NOP, and excluding GE products

was an important component of this value system.

Other states have had success, but theirsuccesses have been limited to lesscomprehensive legisla?on. California passeda bill in 2008 that offers farmers someprotec?ons from mistakenly being targetedby b io techno logy fi rms fo r patentinfringement.Thelawlevels theplayingfieldby establishing a mandatory crop samplingprotocol to prevent patent owners fromsampling crops without the permission offarmers.58Thelawalsoprotects farmersfromliability resul?ng from unwibngly acquiring

patentedtraits throughsuchprocesses as GEpollen drik. Mainepassed a similar bill thesameyear.59Otherstates have passedrelatedlegisla?on(NorthDakota,SouthDakota,andIndiana) while others have tried but beenunsuccessful (Illinois,Montana,NewMexico,andWashington).

Otherexamplesofstatelegisla?oninclude:

• Minnesota’s2007legislature passeda billthat required an Environmental ImpactStatement for the release of GE wildrice.60

• The Arkansas State Plant Board bannedfor the 2007/2008 growing season twoGEricevarie?es thatwere involvedinGEricecontamina?onevents andmandatedtes?ngofallseedstocks.61

• The Ca l i fo rn ia R i ce Commiss ionestablishedamoratoriumonGErice fieldtrialsun?lsafeguardsareinplace.

And two regulatory/legisla?ve ac?ons,though not GE‐specific in language,prohibitedand/orrestrictedtheplan?ngofacrop based on the r i sk of gene?ccontamina?on to seed producers. The crop

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 32

58 Genetic Engineering Policy Alliance. 2008. “California’s first law protecting farmers from the threats of genetic engineering signed by Governor,” Retrieved at http://www.gepolicyalliance.org/action_alert_support_ab541.htm.59 “New laws passed for GE crops.” 2008. Maine Today, April 10, Retrieved at http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/025169.html.60 Minnesota Legislative Session 85 (2007-2008). H.F. 1663, Retrieved at http://www.leg.state.mn.us/.61 Environmental Commons. 2007. “Food Democracy Legislation Tracker,” Retrieved at http://environmentalcommons.org/tracker2007.html.

that was restricted, canola, happens toalsoprimarilybeaGEcrop.

• Oregon’s Department of Agriculturerestricted plan?ngs of canola to protectvegetable seed produc?on from gene?ccontamina?on.62

• Washington’sGovernor signedlegisla?onto create “brassica seed produc?ondistricts” to protect the vegetable seedindustryfromcontamina?onofcanola.63

Conclusions: The organic community haslong been concernedabout the integrity ofits products, and GMO contamina?on hasbeenanongoingriskpoint in the integrity oforganicproduc?onsystems.Althoughgene?cengineering is an “excluded method,” itspresenceinorganic products showsit is nottotally excluded. It is ?me for the organiccommunity to confront a problem thatwasonly par?ally dealt with at the ?me theorganic standards were wriYen. Seed is anessen?alplacetotakeastand.

TheNOPwasbuiltontransparency, andnotaddressingthecontamina?onissuenowwilllead to future problems that may proveirreversible, including a loss of consumers’confidence intheorganic label. Theorganiccommunity fought hard for standards that

reflect strong organic principles during thebeginning phasesof theNOP, andexcludingGEproducts wasanimportantcomponentofthisvaluesystem.

As a federal ban on gene?cally engineeredcrops is unlikely, policies must be adoptedthat address issues associated with theunwantedcontamina?onoforganicproductsbyGEmaterial.

The USDA’s oversight of GE crops mustimprove, star?ngwithfield trials. To begin,recommenda?ons given by the InspectorGeneral of Agriculture (2004)64 andGovernment Accountability Office (2008)65should be adopted. Both organic andconven?onal cropsriskcontamina?onby GEcrops not approved for commercial use.Strengthening field trial oversight couldincludemoreinvolvementofstate agriculturedepartments. For deregulated crops, amonitoringprogramshouldbeimplementedas a way toiden?fyrisks notiden?fiedinriskassessments during field trials. Mostsignificantly, the USDA should requiregrowersofGEcrops toestablishbufferareasandothercontainmentmeasurestomi?gatepollen flow from GE crops to neighboringfields.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 33

62 Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2005. Canola Growing Regulations, Retrieved at http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/canola_summary.shtml.63 Washington State Legislature. 2007. Brassica seed production, 15 RCW 15.51, Retrieved at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=15.51&full=true.64 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. 2005. Audit report: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service controls over issuance of genetically engineered organism release permits, December, Retrieved at http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/blr.2006.25.186.65 Government Accountability Office. 2008. Genetically Engineered Crops: Agencies are proposing changes to improve oversight, but could take additional steps to enhance coordination and monitoring, November 5, Retrieved at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-60.

Addi?onally, a federal Farmer Protec?onActwould protect farmers against GMOcontamina?oninfiveways,ensuringthat (1)in cases where GE companies claim patentinfringement from farmers saving seed, thevenueandchoiceof law is thestatewherethefarmer resides; (2)anindependentthirdparty par?cipates in patent infringementinves?ga?ons;(3)farmersarenotheldliableforpatent infringementwhensmall amountsofGEcontentisdiscoveredontheirproperty

and the presence provides no economicbenefit; (4) themanufacturer ofGE crops isheld strictly liable for economic damagecausedbycontamina?on,and(5)a “pay‐out”compensa?onmechanism is funded by thepatentowner.

PleaseseePriorityGoals insec?on7 ofthisreport for addi?onal ac?ons and policyr e c ommenda?on s r e ga rd i n g GMOcontamina?onoforganicseedsystems.

Sec?on3:RisksofTransgenicContamina?on 34

RisksofConcentra)oninSeedSector

Concentra)on in the Seed Industry:Implica)ons for Organic Agriculture Seed isnotonly aninputfor cropproduc?on,it is anatural resourcethatdemands managementin a manner that is ethical, sustainable,profitable, and effec?ve in deliveringagronomic adapta?ons for the diverseagricultural systems andmarkets within theU.S. Plant gene?c resources were oncemanaged and maintained as a publiccommonswithintellectual property rights inthe form of Plant Variety Protec?on Actcer?ficates that were adequate tocompensate private innovators, whileallowingbothfarmersandotherresearcherstosave seed,sellseedandfurtheradapta?onandthedevelopment of new characteris?cswithin the crop. Diversity and compe??onthrived through most of the twen?ethcentury with public and private breedingprograms delivering improvedgene?cs to abroadarrayoffarmingsystems.This changeddrama?callywhentheSupremeCourtupheldthe use of u?lity patents on l ivingorganisms.66 Large corpora?ons that hadliYletonoprevious investments inseedandgene?c traits rushedintothemarkettotake

advantage of this powerful intellectualproperty tool. This trend led to the highlyconcentrated seed industry that we facetoday.

Concentra?on in the seed industry has anega?ve impact on organic farming. It hasresulted in decreased public and privateresearch and development of varie?es andbreedingpopula?ons forminormarkets,suchas organic. As the industry consolidates,farmers have seen varie?es sold in smallervolumes, oken those that serve organicfarmingsystems.In2000, theworld’s largestvegetable seed company, Seminis (prior tobeingboughtbyMonsanto),acquiredseveralsmaller interna?onal seed companies. Themergers resultedina decisionby Seministodropover 2,000varie?es fromproduc?onina singleseason,a trendthatcon?nues.67Theresult has been fewer op?ons for organicfarmers, and for the researchers and seedcompaniestryingtoservethem.

Seed Industry Concentra)on: The seedindustry stands out as one of the mostconcentratedinagriculture.Oncecomprisedof mostly small, family‐owned companies,theindustry isnowdominatedby a handfulof transna?onal biotechnology/chemicalfirms. The top three firms, for example,accountformorethan75%ofU.S.cornseedsales.68Onefirm’spatentedgene?ctraits arein nearly all corn, soybean, and coYon

Sec?on4:RisksofConcentra?onintheSeedSector 35

66 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980).67 Rural Advancement Foundation International. 2000. Earmarked for Extinction? Retrieved at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/318.68 Hubbard, Kristina. 2009. Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry, National Family Farm Coalition, Retrieved at www.farmertofarmercampaign.org.

acreageplantedinthe U.S.69 Vegetable seedis followinga similarconsolida?ontrajectoryandis dominatedbya single player–Seminis(Monsanto)–thatdwarfsanycompe?tor.70

Rapid and extensive consolida?on is aconsequenceofthefollowingfactors:

• Weakan?trust lawenforcementallowedlargefirms toacquireandmerge withasignificantnumberofcompe?tors;

• SupremeCourt decisionspavedthewayfor firmstopatent plant parts, includingseeds, traits, and described plantcharacteris?cs (and Congress has notacted to clarify the intent of the PlantVarietyProtec?onAct);

• Federal legisla?on (1980 Bayh‐Dole Act)encouraged the priva?za?on andpaten?ngofpublicresearch;and

• Funding for public plant breeding andcul?var development has drama?callyreduced.

These factors have led not only to fewerchoices in the seed marketplace, but alsoconcentrated control over important plantgene?cs needed fo r re sea rch anddevelopmentforall agricultural systems.Thisl eve l o f concent ra?on has seve reconsequencesfortheorganiccommunity.

Impacts to Organic: Organic farmers areunderserved ingene?csspecifically adapted

to their cropping systems, regions, andmarketniches,andexperienceabasiclackofavailability of organic seed, with an evengreater gap in varie?es specifically bredundercer?fiedorganiccondi?ons.As privateconcentra?on and intellectual propertycontrol ofplant gene?csexpand, thepublicsector weakens, innova?on stagnates, andminormarkets suchas organicdonotreceiveneeded investments in seed systemdevelopment.

Other consequences of seed industryconcentra?on on organic agriculture areclear:

• Dominant firms do not serve organicinterests: This is because the organiccommun i ty embraces eco log i ca lalterna?ves to biotechnology and hasdeemedgene?c engineeringanexcludedmethodintheNa?onal OrganicProgram(NOP). The organic and biotechnologysectors are generally in conflictwitheachother’s goals, objec?ves, prac?ces, andvalues.71

• Loss of regional independent seedcompanies: Companies thatfor decadesserved the regional needs of farmersbybreeding varie?eswith agronomic traitsadaptedtovery specific environments –including some that were serving orpreparing toservetheorganic market –have been lost with seed industryconsolida?on. What regional companiesexist oken struggle to get access to

Sec?on4:RisksofConcentra?onintheSeedSector 36

69 Monsanto Company. 2010. Supplemental Toolkit for Investors, http://www.monsanto.com/investors/. 70 Tomich, J. 2009. “Seeds grow Monsanto’s business,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20.71 Altieri, Miguel A. 2005. The Myth of Coexistence: Why Transgenic Crops Are Not Compatible With Agroecologically Based Systems of Production, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005, 361-371, Retrieved at www.odg.cat/documents/formacio/7juny_Rosa_Binimelis.pdf.

op?mumparent lines, orwhenthey canaccess themtheyareexpensivewithcost‐prohibi?ve and restric?ve licensingagreements. Firms such as Monsantohave a clear strategy of purchasingindependent seed companies, many ofwhom once served the organic marketwith untreated conven?onal seed andcer?fiedorganicseed.72 Ingeneral, thesesmaller regional independent companieshave greater flexibility in serving localmarkets and minor markets such asorganic. The loss of regional companieshas l imited the number of seedcompanies inves?ng inconven?onal andorganic, limi?ng not only availability butalso the con?nued research anddevelopment that all markets need toevolveandthrive.

• Publicbreedingprogramsareincreasinglypriva@zed: Private funding of industryresearch surged aker 1980 as publicfunding declined.73 This coincided withpassage of the Bayh‐Dole Act, whichallows the paten?ng of publicly fundedresearch. Land grant universi?es andotherpublicbreedingprogramsnowfindthemselves financially dependent on aconcentrated industry sector to fundinfrastructure, graduate students, andbreedingprograms.Asaresult, researchgoalsnarrowtomeet theneedsoflargeri ndust r i e s , such a s ag r i cu l tu ra lbiotechnology, rather than the diverseneeds of farmers. The influence thesecompan ies have on Land GrantUniversi?es (LGU) impacts not onlyinnova?on, but distorts objec?veresearchandeduca?on,andweakensthe

missionof public ins?tu?ons. While theprivateandpublic sector shouldandcanbe mutually suppor?ve, agriculturalresearch is currently imbalanced and?pped toward benefi?ng a fewcorpora?ons and their shareholders.Ideally thepublic research sector wouldadd compe??on to the market bycon?nuingtoreleasesignificant volumesof finished public cul?vars, with anincrease in innova?ve germplasm foremerging agricultural markets such asorganic.

• Patents lock up important gene@cs:Patents hinder innova?on by removingvaluableplant gene?c material fromthepool ofpublicresources breedersrelyon.Breeders are restricted or prohibitedfrom using patented varie?es, traits, ort oo l s u n l e s s one rou s l i c en s i n gagreements are signed and expensiveroyal?es paid.Theresultis apublicsectorthat lacks anability toprovide for –andan understanding of the underlyingvalues andneedsof–theorganicmarket.Forexample,infieldcorna u?lity patentwas filed and granted to HoegemeyerHybrids(nowownedby DuPont‐Pioneer)foratraittheycallPuraMaize.74This traithas been bred and recorded in publicresearch for decades, yet the flawedpatent system has provided a singlecompany theproprietary rights. This is atrait that theorganic seedmarket is veryinterested in using, as it creates acharacteris?cincorncrops toacceptonlypollen from gene?cally similar plants.Suchatraitcansignificantlyreducecross‐pollina?onoforganiccorncrops fromGE

Sec?on4:RisksofConcentra?onintheSeedSector 37

72 For example, the company NC+ served the organic market before it was purchased by Monsanto in 2004.73 Heisey, P.W., C.S. Srinivasan, and C. Thirtle. 2001. Public sector breeding in a privatizing world. ERS Agriculture Information Bulletin, 772, August, Retrieved at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB772/.74 U.S. Patent No. 6875905.

corn crops. Yet seed companies reportthatrestric?velicensingfees make itcost‐prohibi?ve for them to lease the traitfromHoegemeyer.

Conclusions:Thetrends describedaboveputtheintegrityoforganicagricultureatriskandhinder the success of this growing sector.Organic farmers already find it difficult toaccess quality cer?fied organic seed.Varie?es they once relied on have beenabandoned as the industry consolidates.Seed companies looking to serve organicmarkets donothaveaccesstogene?c traits?edupby patents, or parent linesthat areproprietary and heldby larger firms. Publicbreeders looking to serve smaller marketssuchasorganicarenotencouragedtoworkontheseprojects,as theydonotreturnhighroyal?es on intellectual property to theiruniversi?es.Concentra?onandthemisuseof

patents also have global impacts, as theyencourage biopiracy ‐‐ where indigenousknowledge of nature is exploited forcommercial gain with no compensa?on totheindigenous people ‐‐ ofpublic resourcesand threaten food security. The system isbroken.

Confron?ng industry concentra?onmust becoup led w i th effor t s to c reate anenvironment in which new innovators,p r i va te and pub l i c b reede rs , a ndentrepreneurs interested in organic seedsystems have an opportunity to thrive.Investments need to be made both at thepublic andprivate(e.g., foodindustry)level.SeePriority Goals in sec?on7 ofthis reportf o r a d d i ? on a l a c ?on s a n d p o l i c yr e c ommend a?on s r e ga r d i n g s e e dconcentra?on.

Sec?on4:RisksofConcentra?onintheSeedSector 38

Public Ini)a)ves Suppor)ngOrganicSeed

Overview: It isimportanttoassess the stateof past and ongoing public ini?a?ves thathave contributed to the success of organicseedsystems toreviewwhatworkhas beendone a s we l l a s g i ve u s a beYerunderstanding of future priori?es. Thefollowing assessment is based on researchinto publicly funded organic seed andbreedingini?a?ves.Itdetails theirdura?ons;funding sources and funding levels; theirsuccessesandchallenges; andtheneeds fornew infrastructure and new ini?a?ves tosupportorganicbreedingandorganicseed.

Methods: To locate public organic seedandbreeding ini?a?ves, we examined lists anddatabases of the following programs andfounda?ons: theUSDAOrganicResearchandEduca?on Ini?a?ve (began as IntegratedOrganicProgram(IOP)andbecameOREI),

the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Researchand Educa?on program (SARE), the federalRiskManagement Agency (RMA), theUSDAValue Added Producer Grants program(VAPG), the Organic Farming ResearchFounda?on (OFRF), and the FarmersAdvoca?ng for Organics fund (FAFO).Addi?onally, wesearchedtheUSDACurrentResearch Informa?on System (CRIS), pastOrganic SeedAlliancegrant proposals, andathesis from Theresa Podoll (2009) on“Par?cipatory plant breeding’s contribu?onsto resilience and the triple boYom line ofsustainability ‐‐ healthy ecosystem, vitaleconomy,andsocialinclusion.”75

Search terms included: “organic breeding,”“organic breed,” “organic seed,” “organicvariety,” “organic,” “seed,” “variety,” and“breed.”

List of Ini)a)ves:Weiden?fied57 projectsdirectly related to organic breeding ororganic seed funded either by publiclyavailablegovernmentorfounda?ongrants.

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 39

75 Podoll, Theresa. 2009. Participatory plant breeding’s contributions to resilience and the triple bottom line of sustainability -- healthy ecosystem, vital economy, and social inclusion, Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 40

ProjectName RecipientOrganiza@on Year(s) Source FundingAmount

Iden?fica?onOfManagementPrac?cesAndCul?varsForOrganicHard‐WinterWheatProduc?on

UtahStateUniversity 1996‐1999

SARE,OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$155,611

MethodstobreedfieldcornthatcompetesbeYerwithweedsonorganicfarms.

MichaelFieldsAgIns?tute

2000 OFRF $12,000

Supporttodevelopopen‐pollinatedcornvarie?esfororganicfarmers

MichaelFieldsAgIns?tute

2000 OFRF $8,800

Small‐graincul?varselec?onfororganicsystems

NorthDakotaStateUniversity

2001 OFRF $7,706

CornVarietyPerformanceTrialsForOhioOrganicFarmers

TheOhioStateUniversity

2001‐2002

OFRF $8,280

WholeSystemSeed:CropBreedingForSustainableAgriculture

ShoulderToShoulderFarm

2001‐2002

OFRF $15,578

PublicSeedIni?a?ve Cornell 2001‐2004

OFRF $23,636

BringingSmall‐GrainVarietyDevelopmentandSelec?onontoOrganicFarms

NorthDakotaStateUniversity

2002‐2004

SARE,OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$106,022

Developmentofwheatvarie?esfororganicfarmers

WashingtonStateUniversity

2002‐2004

OFRF $33,472

Evalua?onofglandular‐haired,potatolea~opperresistantalfalfafororganicfarmingsystems

OhioStateUniversity 2004 OFRF $9,418

OrganicSeedPartnership Cornell 2004‐2008

IOP/OREI,SARE,OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$1,195,883

OrganicBreedingPopula?ons:TomatoLateBlightResistance

OrganicSeedAlliance 2005 OFRF $10,068

Breeding/VarietyTrials

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 41

Farmer‐LedDevelopmentandCommercialReleaseofImprovedHardRedSpringWheatVariety

FarmBreederClub 2005‐2007

SARE $17,995

DevelopingAPublicDomainSeedBankForTheOzarkBioregion

ElixirFarm 2006‐2008

SARE $17,095

DevelopmentOfCornBorer‐ResistantCornForOrganicFarmingSystems.

SeedWeNeed 2006‐2008

OFRF $37,875

Evalua?ngCornVarie?esInPureAndMixedStandsForOrganicCropProduc?onAcrossThreeStatesInTheCornBelt

TheOhioStateUniversity

2006‐2008

SARE $138,252

NortheastOrganicWheat HeritageWheatConservancy

2006‐2009

SARE,OtherFederalFunds,OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$246,445

DevelopingWheatVarie?esForOrganicAgriculturalSystems

WashingtonStateUniversity

2006‐2010

IOP/OREI $690,557

EstablishingBreedingPopula?onsInCorn,Broccoli,AndKale

OrganicSeedAlliance 2007 OFRF $11,834

Integra?ngCul?var,SoilAndEnvironmentToDevelopRegionalValue‐AddedWheatCropsWithEnhancedNutrientValue.

WashingtonStateUniversity

2007 OFRF $11,500

DevelopingSmallGrainsCul?varsAndSystemsOp?mallySuitedForOrganicProduc?on

UniversityOfNebraska 2007‐2011

IOP/OREI $775,937

Evalua?onofday‐neutralstrawberries

WashingtonStateUniversity

2008‐2010

OFRF $38,640

Facilita?ngComplianceWithNa?onalOrganicProgramStandardsThroughOrganicVarietyTrials

OregonStateUniversity 2009 OtherFederalFunds

$24,690

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 42

Par?cipatoryPlantBreedingToImproveSweetCorn.

UniversityOfWisconsin 2009 OFRF $14,795

SuperiorCoverCropVarie?esforOrganicSeedProduc?onintheMari?meNorthwest

Mul?ple 2009 OFRF $14,884

TrialingAndSeedIncreaseOfPromisingNewVegetableVarie?esForOrganicSystems

Cornell 2009 OFRF $14,953

NorthernOrganicVarietyImprovementCollabora?ve(NOVIC)

OSU,OSA,UW,Cornell 2009‐2010

IOP/OREI $522,108

FarmerDrivenBreeding:AddressingTheNeedsOfSoutheasternOrganicFieldCropProducers

NorthCarolinaStateUniversity

2009‐2012

IOP/OREI $1,174,942

PlantBreedingAndAgronomicResearchForOrganicHopProduc?onSystems

WashingtonStateUniversity

2009‐2012

IOP/OREI $410,077

Prac?calPerennials:PartneringWithFarmersToDevelopANewTypeOfWheatCrop

MichiganStateUniversity

2009‐2013

IOP/OREI $1,049,674

YellowDentOrganicHybridSeedCorn

MichaelJasa 2002‐2005

SARE $6,000

SiskiyouSustainableCoopera?ve SiskiyouSustainableCoopera?ve

2003and2005

OtherFederalFunds

$42,085

FamilyFarmersSeedCoopera?ve OrganicSeedAlliance 2008‐2009

OtherFederalFunds

$120,000

SpecialtyOrganicSeedMarke?ngAndCoopera?veDevelopmentProject

OrganicSeedAlliance 2008‐2009

OtherFederalFunds

$33,000

SpecialtySeedProducersCoopera?ve(NOGN)

OrganicSeedAlliance 2009 OtherFederalFunds

$84,000

EnterpriseDevelopment

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 43

SavingOurSeed CarolinaFarmStewardshipAssocia?on

2003‐2006

SARE $204,500

SeedGrowers’Handbook:ProducingVegetableSeedsForSustainableAgriculture

Seedmovement 2003‐2007

SARE $62,925

Trialofbeneficialmicrobialseedtreatmentsinorganicfarmingsystems

Mul?ple 2004 OFRF $5,429

ProducingOrganicVegetableSeed OrganicSeedAlliance 2004‐2007

SARE $154,293

Weather‐RelatedRiskReduc?onGuidelinesForVegetableSeedGrowers

OrganicSeedAlliance 2005 OtherFederalFunds

$9,269

MicrobialSeedTreatments Mul?ple 2005‐2006

OFRF $23,340

HybridSeedProduc?onTechniquesForCucurbitaPepoInOrganicAgriculturalSystems

HighMowingSeedCompany

2007‐2008

OtherFederalFunds

$80,000

Non‐GMOParentLines BrownseedGene?cs 2008 FAFO $45,000

Organiccovercropseedproduc?onasasustainableenterprisefortheSoutheast

Mul?ple 2009 OFRF $2,536

OrganicSeedProduc?onGuides OrganicSeedAlliance 2009 OFRF $13,614

SeedlingDiseasesAndSeedTreatments

Mul?ple 2009 OtherFederalFunds

$40,000

SustainableAndOrganicRoundtable

CenterForRuralAffairs 2006 OtherFederalFunds

$3,000

OrganicSeedProducerDatabase OrganicSeedAlliance 2006‐2007

SARE $15,960

OrganicSeedProduc?on:Materials,Training,AndASeedDatabase

OMRI,OSU,OSA 2006‐2008

SARE $98,755

SeedProduc)onResearchandEduca)on

SystemsDevelopment

76

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 44

76 Project funding was divided in five ways: by year, by funding source, by project type, by crop type, and by region. When calculating funding for multi-year projects, we considered total funding to be evenly distributed into all of the years in the project’s term. Funding sources were divided into 6 categories: IOP/OREI, SARE, OFRF, FAFO, Other Federal Funds, and Other Non-Federal Funds. The projects were split by topic into Breeding / Variety Trials, Seed Production Research and Education, Systems Development/Policy, Enterprise Development, and Multitopic. Projects were also split into five regional categories: West, Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Multiregion. Projects were divided by crop type into Corn, Wheat, Multiple Small Grains, Multiple Field Crops, Potato, Vegetables, Multiple Crops, and Hops. Some projects that involved wheat were included in the Multiple Small Grains category, and some projects that involved corn were included in the Multiple Field Crops.

HuaKaHua‐RestoreOurSeed;ASymposiumToDevelopAHawaiiPublicSeedIni?a?ve

TheKohalaCenter 2009 IOP/OREI $47,500

TheSeedWeNeed‐WorkingGroup,Symposium,AndAc?onPlanForTheAdvancementOfOrganicSeedSystems

OrganicSeedAlliance 2009‐2010

IOP/OREI,FAFO $56,281

FarmBreederClub NorthDakotaStateUniversity

2002‐2004

OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$33,069

RestoringOurSeed HeritageWheatConservancy

2002‐2006

SARE,OtherFederalFunds,OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$204,000

On‐FarmVarietyTrials:GuidelinesAndFieldTrainingsForOrganicVegetable,HerbAndFlowerProducers

OrganicSeedAlliance 2006‐2007

OtherFederalFunds

$115,059

OrganicSeedGrowersConference OregonStateUniversity 2007‐2008

SARE $3,615

OrganicCer?fiedSeedPotatoProduc?onInTheMidwest

UniversityOfWisconsin 2009 IOP/OREI,OFRF $570,656

SeedMaYers OFRF 2010‐2014

OtherNon‐FederalFunds

$250,000

Mul)‐Topic

Funding: Overall, projects received around$9,100,000insupportfromfederalandstateagencies and public founda?ons. The levelsof funding have increased in recent years,with projects in 2009 receiving by far themostsupport(Table1).Thelargestindividualsourceoffunds has beentheUSDA’s OrganicResearchandEduca?on Ini?a?ve (IOP/OREI,Table2),althoughSAREhasfundedthe

greatest number of project‐years. Most ofthefundinghas gonetobreedingandvarietytrials,withlesssupportforfarmereduca?on,enterprise development and systems work(Table 3). Wheat and vegetables were thetwo crop types that received the mostfunding (Table 4). Regionally, the largestshare of funds has gone to the Midwest(Table5).

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 45

OtherProjectsOtherProjectsOtherProjectsProjectName RecipientOrganiza@on Year(s)BreedingPestResistantandStressTolerantCornforMoreEnvironmentallySoundProduc?onSystems

CornellUniversity 2006‐2009

CornBreedingandSustainability SouthDakotaStateUniversity 2003‐2008Evalua?ngOPCornintheNortheast CornellUniversity 2002ProvidingFarmerstheTechnologyRequiredtoEfficientlyBreedCornVarie?esSpecificallyAdaptedtoAlterna?veCroppingSystems

UniversityofNebraska 2003‐2006

EnhancingFarmersCapacitytoProduceHighQualityOrganicBreadWheatinVermont

OREI 2009‐2013

SeedsandBreedsforthe21stCentury

RAFI 2003‐2009

UnitedStatesTrialingNetwork Prac?calFarmersofIowa 2009

Sevenaddi?onalprojects arelistedbelowthatwere iden?fiedas eitherperipherallyconnectedto organic breeding or organic seed, or that were funded by private sources. Becauseinforma?ononprivatefundingisnot alwayseasily accessible, it is likely that there are moreprojectsthanthoselistedhere.

Analysis of Past Project Successes,Challenges and Needs: To determine thesuccesses, challenges and needs in publicorganicseedandbreeding ini?a?ves, reportabstracts from all available project reportswere reviewed and project primaryinves?gatorswerecontacted.

SuccessesProjectsuccesses were reportedorobserved in networking and stakeholderpar?cipa?on in research, educa?on andenterprise development, organic varietydevelopment,andtheexpansionoffunding.

Alargenumberofprojectshadstrongfarmerinvolvement, with some being farmer led.Many breeding projects and trials alsoincludedinputfromusersthroughoutthe

produc?onstream(e.g.wheattrials involvingfarmers, millers, and bakers). Addi?onally,many project leaders reported that theirprojects ledtostrongerconnec?ons betweenresearchers, farmers, and seed companies,pavingthewayforfurtherwork.

Therewereseveraleduca?onandenterprisedevelopment projects that succeeded inresponding to seedproducers’ needs. Someprojects have made seed produc?oninforma?on more accessible and increasedseedproducers’ knowledgeanduseof bestprac?ces. Others have supplied seedproducers with necessary equipment. Atleast one pro ject c reated bus inessrela@onships between farmers and seedcompanies.

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 46

Breedingandtrialingprojects havebeguntofind or create varie?es for organicagriculture. A number of projects haveiden?fied varie?es that perform well inorganic systems. Many projects haveimproved germplasm for organics, and atleast three projects succeeded in bringingorganically bred material to the market.A number of projects reported that theirefforts have resulted in increased aYen?onto, and funding priori?za?on for, organicbreedingandseedproduc?on.

Challenges Project leaders have reported anumber of challenges facing the organicbreedingandorganicseedcommunity.Thesechal lenges are related to breeding,p a r ? c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h , v a r i e t ycommercial iza?on and organic seedproduc?on.

Manyprojectleadersfelttheylackedaccessto thebest available germplasm, especiallyinterna>onalgermplasm.

At least one project struggled with whatseemedtobe nega?vecorrela?ons betweenimportant breeding traits (suchaspresenceof some nutr ients ) and y ie ld . Theenvironmental variability in some organicresearch sites created challenges whenselec?ng for some traits. Many projectleaders reportedthat they hadtoovercomeskep?cism about the need and ability tobreedfororganics–skep?cismfromfarmers,from other researchers, and from seedcompanies.

Although many projects had success usingfarmer par?cipatory research, a number ofprojects reported challenges with involvingfarmers.Someproject leaders reportedthatfarmers do not always stay engaged in theprojects over ?me. One report suggestedthat farmers may not stay engaged inbreedingprojects whenasuperior variety isnot produced quickly. The coordina?on ofbreedingsites atmul?ple farms–at?mesinmul?ple states – hasalsobeen reportedaschallenging. Addi?onally, it appears (withnotableexcep?ons) thatmany university ornon‐profit personnel, not farmers, ini?atedmost of the organic seed projects. Farmerswerealsoat?mesvolunteers, andnotpaidpartners ina project.Atother?mesfarmerswere no t compensated a t a l eve lcommensurate with what they would haveearned for their typical crop produc?on.Literature suggests that in par?cipatoryresearch, projects ini?ated by formalresearchers as opposedtofarmers aremorel ikely to experience the chal lengesreported.77

Athemerepeatedinreports is thechallengeof commercializing varie?es. Many of theb r e e d i n g p r o j e c t s b e g a n v a r i e t ydevelopment, but few produced finishedvarie?es. This can be at least par?allyexplained by the fact that the increase inorganic breeding funding is rela?vely new,and most grants cover a single year to atmost four years of funding. Yet breedingprojects okentakefive totenyears toreacha finalproduct ready for release. Inprojectswithadvancedbreedingmaterial,the reports

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 47

77 Lammerts van Buren, Edith T. 2002. “Organic Plant Breeding and Propagation: Concepts and strategies,” Louis Bolk Institute, Retrieved at www.leafyvegetables.nl/download/04_017-022_Lammerts.pdf.

cite thechallenge ofbringingthatmaterial tomarket, and this was also discussed at theSOS Symposium. Addi?onally, some projectreports implythatbreeders andseedfarmersmaynotalways havea clearunderstandingofthemarketplace.

A number of challenges were found fororganic seed produc?on. Some projectleaders wereinterestedinincreasingregionalseedproduc?onbut foundthatnotallseedcrops canbesuccessfullygrowninall regions.Some projects had concerns about theunknown extent of gene?cally modifiedorganism (GMO) contamina?on in organicseedandbreedingmaterials.Concerns aboutorganicseedqualitywereraisedbya numberofprojects.Someprojects reportedfeedbackfrom farmers who distrusted organic seedquality. Variety trial projects to assesspoten?al varie?es for organic farmersreported that the varie?es iden?fied assuperior inorganicsystems werenotalwaysavailable as organic seed by the companieswhoownthevarie?es.

Needs Needs reported by project leadersincluded funding systems that wouldbeYersuit organic breeding and seed produc?on;beYer training andmethods for conduc?ngorganic seed and breeding research;infrastructure to improve variety trialing;infrastructure to move organically bredvarie?es to market; and infrastructure toimproveorganicseedyields,profitabilityandquality.

Reports iden?fied a number of ways thatfunding systems could be changed toimproveorganicbreedingandseedresearch.Organic breeding requires beYer access to

long‐term funding and funding thatencourages project con?nuity, and moreinvestment in “pre‐breeding”orgermplasmdevelopment.

ProjectsreportedneedingbeYermethods forconduc?ng organic seed and breedingresearch. As more organic trialing dataaccumulates, the best methods forinterpre?nggenotypeby environmenteffectw i l l n e e d t o b e d e t e rm i n e d a n ddisseminated. Both breeders and seedproducers desire more research on theneeds, demographics, and supply anddemandoftheorganicseedmarket.

To improve on‐farm research, four needswereiden?fied:

1. As on‐farm projects become larger andr e q u i r e g r e a t e r l a n d a n d ?memanagement,thereneeds tobe sufficientcompensa?on for farmers for theirpar?cipa?onintheresearch.

2. More grants need to have rollingapplica?on windows or approval beforespring inorder to avoid the lagbetweenapplica?onsandplan?ng.

3. Grant applica?on processes need to besimplified to encourage farmer‐ledprojects.

4. Farmers need more training in on farmresearchandthebasics ofplantbreedingtodeveloptheirskillsasprojectpartners.

Project leaders repeatedly called forinfrastructure to support variety trialing.Reportsstatetheneedforlarge‐scale,mul>‐regiontes>ng.

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 48

BeYer systems are needed for sourcingmaterials such as market standards,interna?onal germplasm and advancedbreeding lines for trials. A standard systemfor repor?ng and preserving trial datawasalsoreportedasnecessary.

Organic breeding requires better access to long-term funding and funding that

encourages project continuity, and more

investment in “pre-breeding” or germplasm development.

Project reports pointed to a need forinfrastructuretobring new organically bredvarie?estomarket.A“breedingtobag”

pipelineneedstobedeveloped to facilitateseed increases, involve seed companies intes?ng advanced materials, and establishintellectualpropertystandards.

For seed produc?on, the project reportsc o n t a i n e d i n f o r m a ? o n o n m a n yinfrastructure needs. Growers need beYercontact with seed companies to improvetheir enterprises. Infrastructureis neededtoimprovethe followingproduc?onandqualityissues: hybrid vegetable seed produc?on,seed cleaning, seed storage, seed‐bornedisease and GMO tes?ng, and labeling forvalue‐addedtraits.Organicstandardsneedtobe developed for specialized seed andbreeding technologies to address certainissues, suchas allowanceofplanthormonesfor hybrid seedproduc?onor ?ssueculturemedia for isola?on and propaga?on ofclonallyreproducedcrops.

Sec?on5:PublicIni?a?vesSuppor?ngOrganicSeed 49

OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey

Theorganic farmerseedsurvey is oneoftheinputtools usedtocreatethe 2010 StateofOrganic Seed Report and Ac?on Plan. Thepurposeof the survey wastobeYer assesscer?fied organic farmers’ abtudes andpercep?ons regarding organic seed; iden?fyobstacles restric?ng their use of organicseed; and provide the organic communityinforma?on to improve the quality andintegrity –andincrease theuseof–organicseed. While various organiza?ons andcompanies have madeclaims about organicseed usage and issues, and there is anendless body of anecdotal informa?on, wefelt that hearingdirectly fromfarmers (withanonymity) would assist our understandingofhowtomoveorganicseedforward.

The data below is what farmers reported,andwas notverifiedbya thirdpartyauditorcrosscheckedwithfarmers’ Organic SystemsPlans. Assuch, it is important tonote that,for example, westate, “Nineteenpercent ofproducers who grew vegetables reportedusingall organicseedwhile7%percentusednone,” and not that 19% of all organicvegetableacreagein theU.S. is grownwithorganicseed.This is animportantdis?nc?on,as this survey isauseful discussiontool butnot anexactmeasurement. As reviewers ofthis report pointed out, farmers who tookthis survey at the very least show enoughinterest inorganic seedtotake the?me torespond, and somay be more willing than

othersinaYemp?ngtouseorganicseed.

We envision a revised and updated surveyoccurringevery threeyears inorder totrackchanges in abtudes and experiences, andwill beseeking partnerships andfunding toaccomplishthis.

Approach – Crading the Survey Ques)ons:The survey ques?ons were designed to getinforma?on in four areas: (1) farmdemographics; (2) use of organic seed; (3)challenges in using organic seed; and (4)needforandpoten?aloforganicseed.

Increa?ngthesurveywereceivedinputfrompeople represen?ng organic cer?fica?onagencies, theseedandfoodindustries,non‐governmenta l organiza?ons, farmerassocia?ons, and individual farmers. Weconducted a test‐run of the survey with20farmers and incorporated their commentsandfeedbackintothefinalsurvey.

In order to not overwhelm farmers with a?me‐consuming survey, and to keep thesurveymanageable witha limitedbudget,wemade decisions tonotgointofinedetail oncrop specific ques?ons, or to includeques?ons onminor crops grownfrom seedthat donot fit any of themajor categories.Also, we focusedon true seed rather thanvegeta?velypropagatedcropsthatusebulbs,tubers, roots or corms. This maybeanareaof expans ion for future surveys i fstakeholdersexpressinterest.

Dissemina)on: Surveys were disseminatedelectronically via Survey Monkey, an onlinesurvey tool, and when necessary in paperformat through cer?fica?on agencies, stateandregional farmassocia?ons, andthrough

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 50

two coopera?ves. Some organiza?onsconducted the survey over the phone. Togather responses from individuals who donot use computers and/or phones, someorganiza?ons sent representa?ves to farmstoconductthe surveyin‐person.Ofthe1,027responses,712wereinternet‐basedand315were paper responses. For electronicresponses,welimitedthe poten?al ofrepeatresponses by allowing only one surveysubmission per computer (i.e., trackingdis?nct Internet Protocoladdressesandnotallowing survey tobesubmiYed from sameaddress).

In order to reach the highest possiblepercentage of cer?fiedorganic farmers, andto have a broad regional distribu?on, wecontacted all USDA accredited organiccer?fica?on agencies l i sted on theAgricultural Marke?ng Service’s Na?onalOrganicProgram(NOP)websiteinSeptemberof 2009. We gave the agencies assurancesthat we would not publish or share withothers any informa?on specific to theiragencyorfarmers.Someagenciesofferedustheir email and mailing lists, and otherssolicited their producers on our behalf –sending out either electronic links throughtheir list serves or when necessary mailingprinted versions of the survey with self‐addressed and stamped envelopes that weprovided. Several agencies res istedpar?cipa?on, refusing to respond to emailsorphonecalls.Others respondedandsimplypointed us to the lis?ng of the farms theycer?fied as shown on the NOP website(which are oken a year behind in lis?ngs).However,themajorityofthelargestagenciesrespondedandsupportedthesurvey.

In addi?on to outreach through organiccer?fica?onagencies wealsocontactedtwoof the largest producer coopera?ves in theU . S . a nd t h ree non ‐ gove rnmenta lorganiza?ons with farmer memberships. Atotal of 25 agencies, organiza?ons andbusinesses conducted outreach for thesurvey. This method of dissemina?on (viacer?fying agencies and organic associa?onlists) was the primary filter to ensure thatonly cer?fied organic farmers responded,along with a bold font statement on eachsurvey.

We opened the survey process on October18,2009,andclosedthe surveys onMay10,2010. During that ?mewe received dis?nctresponses from 1,027 cer?fied organicfarmers in45states.Accordingtothe USDA‐Na?onal AgriculturalSta?s?cs Service(NASS)2008 Organic Produc?on Survey, there are10,903cer?fiedorganicfarms inthe U.S.Thisincludes farms that likely do not use seed(e.g., farms that produce only fruit orlivestock), and as such the number ofcer?fied organic farms using seed is under10,000. Therefore we feel comfortableclaiming that 10%of cer?fiedorganic farmsintheU.S.respondedtothissurvey.

Summaryand KeyPoints: Thepoten?al forcompara?ve analysis of responses isimmense. Given limited funding, we took amore selec?ve approach – primarilycomparisonsbycroptype.Thisdoes notruleout the possibility for deeper analysis thatwouldcertainly providevaluabledata totheseed industry. This deeper analysis goesbeyond the scopeand purpose of the SOSprojectandtherefore is not included inthissummary. Please see Appendices for the

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 51

complete survey ques?ons and data chartsreferred to in the summary as “Q andFigures.” Please note that averages aremeansunlessotherwiseindicated.

Therearefourdis?nctsec?onsofthesurvey:

1. General farm demographics: loca?on;years cer?fied organic; acreage by croptype;andprimarycrops.

2. Organic seed usage:percentages by croptype andprimary crops; sourcingofseed;guidance from cer?fier; steps taken toincreaseusage.

3. Challenges in usingorganic seed: factorsinhibi?ng using organic seed; qualityissues;contamina?onconcerns.

4. Need for and poten)al of organic seedandbreeding: importanceoforganicseedfororganicintegrity;breedingfororganics(generally and crop specific); interest inbreedingand/orseedproduc?on.

1.GeneralFarmDemographics

Our goal was to have a range of surveyresponsesthataccuratelyreflectthediversityof cer?fied organic farmers in the U.S. –geographically,bycroptype,andscaleorsizeof acreage. We received 1,027 responsesfrom organic farmers in 45 states and twoterritories.Thetop10states wereceivedthemost surveys from include:Wisconsin(223),Ca l i fo rn ia (105 ) , Minnesota (101 ) ,Washington (86), Oregon (54), Indiana(42),Ohio(38),Illinois(34), Iowa(32),andMaine(27). Seven of the top ten states with themost cer?fied organic farms – as listed byUSDA‐Na?onal Agricultural Sta?s?cs Service(NASS) data – are represented in the seed

survey responsetopten.Thethree states inthe top ten of NASS data that are notrepresentedinthetoptenofthesurvey areNewYork,Pennsylvania,andVermont.

“Numberofyears cer?fied”couldbecomeaninteres?ngpointofcomparisoninoveralluseoforganicseed,butwasprimarilysolicitedasa secondfilter toensure that only cer?fiedorganic farmers completed the survey. It isworthno?ng,however, thatover50%ofthefarmers who respondedhavebeencer?fiedforfiveyearsorless.

Wedidnotaskfarmers todefine themselvesas only a “vegetable” or “forage” cropgrower. Rather, they were asked to answeraffirma?vely or nega?vely as to theirengagementinanyamountofproduc?onforvegetable crops, field crops, and foragecrops.Wedidfilterthedatapost‐surveyandthe analysis supported our pre‐surveythinking that farmers would belong inmul?plecropcategories.

When asking farmers for their “top three”crops byacreageweallowedthemtowriteina response rather than aYempt to havedozens of check box responses. Somefarmers respondedgenerally – “greens”and“tomatoes” – whereasotherswere specific,such as “Romaine leYuce,” “collards,” and“paste tomatoes.” We grouped responsesintogeneraliza?onsinthesummarybelow.

Keyfindings

VEGETABLE CROPS: Forty‐three percentofrespondents grewsomevegetablesonas liYle as 0.1 acretoasmuchas 1,000acres,with anaverageof 27 acres. Fikypercenthadthree acres orless,andonly8% had 40 acres or more. Tomatoes,

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 52

squash, and greens (including leYuce,mustards, and salad greens) were,respec?vely, the crops with the highestacreage.

F I E LD CROPS : S i x t y p e rc en t o frespondents grewsomefieldcropsonasliYle as 0.1 acre to as much as 6,342acres,withanaverageof188acres.Fiky‐nine percent produced over 50 acres.Corn, soybeans, and wheat were thecropswiththehighestacreage.

FORAGE CROPS: Forty‐eight percent ofrespondents grewsomeforagecropsonas liYleas 0.12acretoasmuchas 1,746acres,withanaverageof103acres.

2.Organicseedusage

Twentypercentoffarmersreportedthattheyhave been using 100% organic seed for atleastthreeyears.Forthosefarmers whohavenot beenusing all organic seed for at leastthreeyears,71%ofthemindicatedtheyhaveincreased their usage of organic seed overthreeyears.

Sixty‐onepercent of farmers whohave notused 100% organic seed for three years ormoreindicatedthattheircer?fiers requestedthey take “greater steps to source organicseed.” Ofthosefarmerswhose cer?fier hadrecommended that they take “greater stepsto source organic seed,” the most commonaddi?onal stepwas“researchingmorethanthreecatalogs.”

Furthermore, farmers whose cer?fiersrequested they take more steps to sourceorganic seed were more likely to increasetheir use of organic seed. However, evenfarmers whose cer?fiers did not request

addi?onal steps s?ll, on average, increasedtheir use of organic seed. Of the farmerswhose cer?fiers requested they take moresteps tosourceorganic seed, 78%increasedtheirusewhile only22%didnotincreaseuseoverathree‐yearperiod(Figure65).

Therewerealsocleardifferences acrosscroptypes inthepercentageoforganicseedused.Some of these differences are likelyaYributed to diversity of varie?es invegetable cropping systems compared toother crops. Again, farmersonly respondedto thesecrop specific ques?ons if they hadpreviously indicated that they grew thesecrops.

Keyfindings

VEGETABLE CROPS: Nineteen percent offarmers who grow vegetables reportedusing all organic seed while7% percentused none. This represented the lowestusage across crop types. Twenty‐fivepercent of vegetable producers used0‐10%organicseed(hereinreferredtoas“minor usage”) and 26% used 91‐100%organicseed(hereinreferredtoas “majorusage”). This indicates that the surveycaptured data from vegetable farmerswho are successfully sourcing organicseed as wel l as those who areexperiencingchallenges.

FIELD CROPS: Forty‐seven percent ofrespondents who grow field cropsreported using all organic seed (thehighestpercentacross crosstypes)while10% used none. Thirteen percent wereminor users (0‐10%) of organic seed,while49%weremajorusers(91‐100%).

FORAGE CROPS: Forty‐four percent ofrespondents who grow forage cropsreportedusingallorganicseedwhile25%

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 53

used none. Twenty‐nine percent of theproducers wereminor (0‐10%) users oforganicseed,while 47%weremajorusers(91‐100%).

COVER CROPS: Thirty‐six percent ofrespondents who grow cover cropsreportedusingallorganicseedwhile38%used none (the highest percent of zerousage across crop types). Forty‐twopercent were minor users (0‐10%) oforganicseed,while 37%weremajorusers(91‐100%).

Contracts requiring specific varieties that are proprietary

to conventional seed companies with little or no

interest in organic seed production is a major issue,

particularly for farmers producing for companies that do pre-packaged salad mix, frozen or canned vegetables,

and vegetables used in processed food.

3.Challengesinusingorganicseed

We asked a series of ques?ons to assessreasons farmers werenotusingorganicseed,includingqualityissues withorganicseedandpercep?ons of risk regarding contamina?onbygene?callyengineered(GE)traits.

Reasons for not purchasing organic seed(Q10, Figure 22) were surprisingly similarwhenviewedcollec?vely across croptypes.

Varietal availability was the most commonfactorwith58%oftheproducers–across allcrop types – indica?ng that varietalavailability was asignificant factor and 79%indica?ngitwas amoderate orgreaterfactorinnotpurchasingorganicseed.

Lack of varietal availability was noted invegetablesmore thanany other crop type.While ini?ally we thought this was likelyrelatedtothediversity of varietal needsforsmall‐scale, diverse fresh market farmers,filtering by scaleshowedthat it was in factthelargerscalefarmers whostruggledtouseorganicseed.Farmers with40acres ormorein vegetable crops (large for the organicvegetableindustry)onaverageuselessthan30% organic seed. These larger scalevegetable farmersalso responded themostwithzeropercentusage. Eighty‐fourpercentofthelargerfarmers listedlackofvarie?esasasignificantfactorversus58%overall.

Sixty‐four percent of the larger farmers alsoindicated that “buyer demands” (contracts)were a moderate to severe factor for notsourcing organic seed. This was anissueforother farmers only 27% of the ?me.Contracts requiringspecificvarie?es thatareproprietary toconven?onal seedcompanieswith liYle or no interest in organic seedproduc?on is amajor issue, par?cularly forfarmers producingforcompanies thatdopre‐packaged salad mix, frozen or cannedvegetables,andvegetables usedinprocessedfood.

According toNOP rules, thecost of seed isnotavalidreasonfornotpurchasingorganicseedifthevariety is available incommercialquan??es.S?ll,41%offarmersindicatedthat

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 54

“price”wasamoderatetosignificantfactor.

Distrust of organic seed quality was not amajor reason for not purchasing organicseed, with only 21% indica?ng it as amoderate tosignificantfactor(10%indica?ngitwas a moderatefactor,6%indica?ngitwasmore than moderate, and 6% indica?ng itwasasignificantfactor).

Farmers were asked to rate the degree ofproblems they have had with organic seedquality (Q11, Figure24, andFigures 53‐64).Noneofthe problems wereratedas severe,whichmightbeexpectedwhenthe previousques?on showed liYle distrust of quality.However, several problemsarenotable. Thebiggest quality issue was “germina?on/emergence” with 17% of respondentsindica?ngitwasa “moderate”problem,11%indica?ngitwas “morethanmoderate,”and4%indica?ngitwas a “severe”problem.Thiswasmore oken the case withfarmers whogrewsomevegetablecrops.Varietalintegritywas the second most noted problem with10%indica?ngitwas a “moderate”problem,17%indica?ngitwas“morethanmoderate,”and4%indica?ngitwasa “severe”problem.Again, this was indicatedinvegetables morethananyothercroptype.

Distrust of organic seed quality was not a major

reason for not purchasing organic seed, with only 21% indicating it as a moderate to

significant factor (10% indicating it was a moderate factor, 6% indicating it was

more than moderate, and 6% indicating it was a

significant factor).

Farmers wereasked to indicate if they had“more, less or about the same” degree ofquality problems in organic seed versusconven?onal seed. Themajority (73%) had“aboutthesame”ineachand23%hadmoreproblems with organic seed. Farmers whogrow vegetables indicated problems withorganic seedslightly moreoken than othercroptypes.

Regarding GMO contamina?on, 74% ofrespondents agreed or strongly agreed thatseedcompanies“shouldconduct tes?ng forGEcontamina?on inorganic seed” andonly6%disagreedorstronglydisagreed.Inregard

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 55

tothe regulatoryframeworkprotec?ngcropsfrom contamina?on, 41% disagreed orstrongly disagreed that it was adequate,while27%agreed itwasadequateand32%wereneutral.78As topercep?ons ofriskfromGEcrops,41%of respondents indicatedthatthey agreed or strongly agreed that theirfarm was at risk, while 29% disagreed orstronglydisagreed,and31%wereneutral.

74% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that seed

companies “should conduct testing for GE contamination

in organic seed.”

4. Need for and poten)al of organic seedandbreeding:

Thefinalseriesofques?ons wereintendedtoassess opinions, priori?es, and interests inthe further improvement of organic seedsystems. Overall, farmers whoresponded tothesurveywere veryposi?ve aboutthe needfor and poten?al of organic seed andbreeding.

Seventy‐eight percent of farmers agreed orstrongly agreed with the statement that“organicseedis important inmaintainingtheintegrity of organic food produc?on” andonly9%disagreedorstronglydisagreed.

As for breeding, eighty‐three percent ofrespondents agreedor strongly agreedwiththe statement: “varie?es bred for organicsystem management are important to theoverall success of organic agriculture.” Only5%disagreedor strongly disagreed.Farmerswerealsoaskedtopriori?zeorganicbreedingbycroptypeandtraits:

VEGETABLES : tomatoes (d i seaseresistance, flavor, yield); brassicas(uniformity, general improvement,disease resistance), and squash (diseaseresistance,flavor,generalimprovement)

FIELD CROPS: corn (yield, quality,emergence); soybeans (yield, pestresistance, quality); and alfalfa (pestresistance,adapta?on,yield)

Wetrackedspecificcropsandtraits,buthadto group and generalize our findings forrepor?ng purposes. For example, “generaladapta?on” includes traits related toadapta?ontoclimateandsoils. Examplesofspecific farmer responses grouped into“general adapta?on” include: “hardiness,”“winterkill resistance,”and“abletoproducewellwithoutexcessiveNPK.”

Thefinal series ofques?ons gaugedfarmers’interest in growing organic seed andconduc?ng on‐farm breeding or cropimprovement. These ques?ons wereprimarily asked for public sector breedersinterestedinpar?cipatory plantbreeding,aswell asfor seedcompanies.Wehaveheard

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 56

78 There was some confusion on this question. Farmers responded that “they didn’t want any more regulation on their farms” or that “they were forced to do enough already” – indicating that they may have thought we were suggesting organic farmers needed to be regulated more to stop contamination (i.e., they needed to be responsible for creating adequate isolations). In fact, we were asking if the federal and state agencies were doing enough to protect organic farmers.

anecdotally from seedcompanies that theyneed addi?onal loca?ons and experiencedfarmers fororganicseedproduc?on.We alsosee atrendinincreasedon‐farmpartnershipsinorganicresearch‐‐breedinginpar?cular–inEuropeandtheU.S.These ques?ons weremeant toassess interest intheseareas,andresponsesindicatethat farmershavestronginterestinbothseedproduc?onandon‐farmbreedingfororganicsystems.

Seventy-eight percent of farmers agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that “organic seed is important in maintaining the integrity of organic food production.”

Conclusions:Thissurvey aimedtocaptureasnapshot of several moving parts as theyrelate to organic seed systems, specificallyfarmers’ experiences and percep?ons. Ourfindings are instruc?ve as we work towardbuilding an organic seed sector that beYermeetsfarmers’diverseneeds.

For starters, 80% organic farmers whoresponded to this survey are having somedegreeof difficulty sourcing (or resistusing)organicseed,giventhatonly20%reportthatthey are using all organic seed. There arebroad discrepancies between farmers whousea majorityoforganicseedandthosewhouseaminoramountoforganicseed.Whatislimi?ng those farmers who are using lessthan10%organic seed? If it is truly varietalavailability,as the surveywouldindicate,we

need toknow thevarie?es so that we canencourage companies to produce themorganically. Or, in the case of proprietaryvarie?es,weneedtoknowthegroupoftraitsthat could bebred into organic varie?es toprovideequivalency. Informa?on is needed,and we need to develop a system forgleaning this informa?on from farmers andgebng it into the hands of public plantbreeders andseedcompanies.Adatabaseofvarie?es for which farmers were givenallowances touse conven?onal seedwouldprovidesucha tool.Addi?onally,varietytrialswould appear to be an essen?al tool toprovide farmers with a look at alterna?vevarie?es available organically that couldaddressequivalencyissues.

According to this survey, cer?fiers arereques?ngthat farmers takeaddi?onal stepsin sourcing organic seed, and whenencouragedtotakeaddi?onal steps,farmersrespond by using more organic seed. TheNOPshouldprovide cer?fierswitheduca?onand informa?on that will assist them infurther guiding farmers in sourcing organicseed. Cer?fiers should con?nue to requesttrialing and researching more than threesources, as well as encouraging addi?onalsteps be taken to increase use of organicseed.Thisisespecially importantforfarmerswho con?nue to be minor users of organicseed.

Wealsofoundthatdistrustoforganicseedisnot as severe as we expected given thenumber of anecdotal accounts in media,from opinions wriYen or voiced atconferences by farmers, and heard fromcer?fiers.Farmerswitha posi?veoutlookonorganic seedmay havebeenmore likely to

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 57

complete thesurvey. S?ll, farmers whousebothorganic andconven?onal seeddorateorganic seed as having more qualityproblemsthanconven?onal seed. This couldbe?edtoa lackofexperienceinorganicseedproduc?on (by the company or by theircon t ra c t g rowe rs ) . P rob l ems w i t hgermina?on/emergence could be a sign ofneeding addi?onal research into allowableseedtreatments andprotec?ons thatwouldenhance germina?on and emergence.Addi?onally,breedingforincreasedvigorandearly emergence is possibleand presents acompe??ve opportunity for public andprivatebreedingsectors.

Farmers have strong interest in both seed production

and on-farm breeding for organic systems.

Across crop types, farmers want seedcompanies to test organic seed for GMOcontamina?on. Tes?ng has poten?al foraddingmarke?ngvaluetocompanies thatdotest, andyet alsoposesa significant risk toseed companies when seed tests posi?ve.Seed companies that test and findposi?vecontamina?oncouldnotsell seedthathas arela?vely highpercentageofGMOpresencesince gene?c engineering is an “excludedmethod”intheNOP.Cer?fiedorganic

farmers cannot knowingly plant seed withGMOs. Thecompanieswouldsuffer financialloss on contaminated crops, without anyrecourse for receiving damages from cropinsuranceora regulatoryliabilityregime.Itislikely thisrisk is preven?ng seedcompaniesfrom tes?ng and repor?ng contamina?onratesto their customers.Theauthors believethis underlines the need for the organiccommunity to address contamina?on as aneconomic risk tothesuccessofour market.Crea?ng thresholds of “low‐level presence”of GMO contamina?on in the organic seedmarket,ororganicingeneral,withoutliabilityor other safety nets to cover incidences ofhigh contamina?on, will only increase thefinancial burden and risk of organic seedcompanies, and discourage investment andgrowthinthissector.

Lastly,organic farmerswant organically bredvarie?es. This istrueacross croptypes,andthedata todate isvery strongonthis issue.Addi?onal studies on traits important toorganic agriculture would further ourunderstanding of these needs. Fortunately,farmers areinterestedinbeingapartofthisbreeding process. Par?cipatory plantbreedingandon‐farmtrialingnetworks havemuch poten?al if done with competentprofessional organic breeders. Wewill gaingreater efficiency inaddressing the diversityof regional needs within theorganic marketwhenmoreskilledfarmers areworkingwithskilledplantbreeders.

Sec?on6:OrganicFarmerSeedSurvey 58

SOS Symposium: ClarifyingChallenges and Crea)ngPriori)es

Process: The symposium provided anopportunity todiscuss the ini?al findings oftheorganic farmer survey, input forms fromcer?fiers, researchers and industry, and tobreak into crop specific working groups topriori?ze needs and collabora?veac?ons topromote andprotect organic seed systems.Invita?onsweresenttotargetedstakeholdergroups, including organic farmers, organicfood companies, accredited cer?fyingagencies, researchers, seedcompanies, andrepresenta?ves from farm associa?ons andnon‐governmentalorganiza?ons.

Prior to the symposium, par?cipantsresponded to an input formwithques?onsregarding organic seed challenges andsolu?ons. A total of 134 input forms werereturned, but due to several schedulingconflicts,symposiumaYendancetotaled106.

Input form responses were grouped and adocument was sent back to par?cipantslis?nganddescribingchallenges.Par?cipantsalso received preliminary farmer surveyresults. Par?cipants were asked to self‐iden?fy which stakeholder group and croptheywouldrepresent.Thegroupswerethenbroken down by crop type: field corn (36par?cipants), vegetable A & B (45 totalpar?cipants in twogroups) and grains, soy,andforage(25par?cipants).Eachgrouphadtwo facilitators and a note taker, and

reportedbacktoall par?cipants attheendoftheday.

Par?cipants examined preliminary resultsfrom the organic farmer survey, discussedpast andongoing seed ini?a?ves, and thenbroke into working groups by crop type.Working groups spent the morningdiscussing, refining, and priori?zingchallengesinorganicseedsystems (basedontheir pre‐symposium input forms) in thecategories of breeding , produc?on,informa?on & percep?on, and policy andregulatory macro issues. They spent theakernoon brainstorming both exis?ng andnewsolu?onstothesechallenges.

Issues oken overlapped, and thereforegroups looked for integrated solu?ons thatwouldaddressimprovementoforganic seedsystems as a whole. Similarly, cropsoverlapped.Whileweexpectedcrops tohavetheir own specific challenges, there wasmuch more overlap among crops thandis?nc?ve differences in needs. There waseven lessdifferen?a?onin solu?onsthaninchallenges. In general, all groups reachedsimilar conclusions about thepriority needsandac?vi?es inmovingorganicseedsystemsforward.

Challengesand Needs: Inexercises likethis,“not enough money” is oken the firstchallenge iden?fied by individuals. Weencouraged par?cipants to be morear?culate, to specify the challengesthat areurgent,priori?ze exis?ngneeds,andconsiderfundingopportuni?es inthe solu?onpart oftheprocess.Belowis alistofchallenges andneeds organized by breeding, produc?on,informa?onandpercep?on,andpolicy.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 59

BREEDING

• Seed industry alone cannot respond todiverseneedsOrganicseedcompanies areprimarily newer, regional, and smallercompanies that do not have funds forestablished breeding programs. For thelarger conven?onal seed companiesenteringtheorganicmarket,thevolumeofsales is too low to jus?fy investment inbreedingspecificallyfororganicsystems.

• Diminished public breeding programsThere is a lack of innova?on from LandGrant Universi?es (LGU) and concern forfuturecapacity interms ofnextgenera?onofformallytrainedplantbreeders.

• Access to breedinggermplasmRestric?veintellectual property agreements, such ascontractsaffordedthroughu?lity patents,slow innova?on. Current restric?ons andlicensing costs are adding financial andadministra?ve burden,especially forpublicbreeders.

• Lackofpar)cipa)on inbreedingBreedersdon’t have access to enough cer?fiedorganic field sites, greenhouses, winternurseries, and trial grounds, which slowsthebreedingprocess.

• Lack of trialing data Across crop types,there are breeding popula?ons andconven?onally bredvarie?es that may beuseful in organic systems. Yet theseresourcesremainuntested,oriftested,thedata is not readily available. This slowsinnova?on.

• Diverse approaches to breeding Theconven?onal seed industry’s approach tobreeding – oken to meet the needs ofagriculture’s largest opera?ons – is notworkingandwill notworkfororganic.Thediverseneedsoforganicfarmers –diversity

ofcrops,scales ofproduc?on,andregionalneeds – require greater diversity inapproaches tobreeding.These approachesinc lude developing decentra l i zed,par?cipatory approaches between theprivate sector, public researchers, andfarmers.

• New organic breeding approaches Weneed to beYer understandthescience ofbreeding inorganic systems. New organicbreed ing approaches need to bedeveloped and tested. These approacheswould reflect the ways in which organicagriculture differs from conven?onal,i n c l ud ing d iffe rent i npu t s , moreenvironmental heterogeneity, andrestric?onsonbreedingtechnologies.

• GMO‐free breeding resources Access tobreeding and parent lines free of GMOcontamina?on is increasingly difficult incertaincrops.Thereis a needtotestatthisini?al stage of varietal development toensure integrity. S?ll, there are concernsthat even with pure stock to start,con tam ina?on w i l l o c cu r du r i ngdevelopment. Strong policies are neededto protect organic breeding, founda?onseed stock, and the Na?onal PlantGermplasmSystem.

PRODUCTION

• Lack of experienced organic seedproducers There is a need to trainmorefarmers in organic seed produc?on,par?cularlyinhybridvegetablecrops.

• Lack of educa)on and research on seedproduc)on Par?cular research needsinclude seed‐borne diseases and organictreatments andmethods for hybrid seedproduc?on. Expanding research willimprovethequalityoforganicseed.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 60

• Lackofsufficientquan))esoffounda)onseed for trialing In addi?on to cost,founda?on or parent seed is okenconven?onallytreatedseedthatcannotbeplanted on organic acreage. This ispar?cularly an issue for grains, corn andforage.

• Lack of access to conven)onal cul)varsthat work well in organic systems Seedcompan ies that a l ready p roduceproprietary or hybrid non‐treatedconven?onal seed and sell it to organicgrowersrefuseto leasetheirmaterials tocompanies wan?ng to produce i torganically.Organicfarmers wouldlikelyberequiredbycer?fiers tousetheorganicallyproducedvariety, substan?ally diminishingthesales ofconven?onallyuntreatedseed.Yet thesecompanies havenoincen?vetoproduce this seed organically, as farmersare allowed to purchase non‐treatedconven?onal seediftheirspecificvariety isnotavailableorganically.

• High cost ofproducingorganicseed Costsassociated with producing organic seedremainaconstraint intheacceptanceanduse of organic seed. There are okengreateragronomicrisks andat?mes loweryieldsinorganicseedproduc?on. Farmerswho are contracted to produce organicseed must be paid a price that iscompe??ve to other organic crops thatreceive premiums. Organic farmerscomplain (oken to cer?fiers) about seedcosts and at ?mes choose non‐treatedconven?onal seed over similar organicvarie?es tosave money,eventhoughpriceis not a valid reason to avoid buyingorganicvarie?es.Withoutvolumeofsales,seed companies and seed farmers can’tinvest in efficiencies to lower costs, andseedcompanies can’t increase prices theypay to seed farmers. This threatens tofurtherreducethe capacityoforganicseed

produc?on. (Please see “Informa?on andPercep?on”below.)

• Seed contracts place burden on seedfarmers Seed produc?on contracts okenplacerisks inproduc?onon seed farmerswithout premium payment or availableinsurance or assurances from seedcompanies. These risks includemanaginghybridproduc?onwithinbredsdevelopedinconven?onalsystemswithout accesstochemicals normally usedtosupport theseinbreds, weed contamina?on, GMOcontamina?on, and poorly maintainedfounda?onstock.This compoundscontractpricesthat aremarginally profitable, withpressurefromcompanies to lower prices,and results in overall diminished seedproduc?oncapacityinorganicsystems.

• Maintaining standards of high qualityseed Given the pressure to keep pricesdown, it is difficult for seedcompaniestoinvest in quality assurance systems, themost innova?ve equipment, andtheseedgrower educa?on and management thatare required to produce high qualityorganic seed. Cer?fiers reported qualityissues that farmers express tothem withregularity, such as lack of varietal purity,poorgermina?on,lowvigorandsmall seedsize.

• GMO contamina)on Seed produc?on ledt o e v e n g r e a t e r d i s c u s s i o n o ncontamina?on concerns, par?cularly incorn, but also in other crop types, aspar?cipants believedthatthetrendtowardbiotechwill only increase inallcroptypes.Concerns includelackofisola?ons forseedproduc?on from gene?cally engineeredcrops; co‐mingling during harvest andcleaning when contrac?ng for theseservices; unfair cost burden on organicseedcompanies forGMOtes?ng; financialliability toseedfarmers whocannotmeet

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 61

seed company tes?ng thresholds forcontamina?on; impactofposi?ve tests oncustomer confidence; and a lack ofgovernmentprotec?on.

INFORMATIONANDPERCEPTION

• Lack of informa)on Farmers lackinforma?on on conduc?ng variety trialsand accessing variety trial data fromothers. They also lack informa?on onproducing organic seed and improvingopen‐poll inated varie?es for localadapta?on.

• Lackof farmer educa)on Organic farmersneed more educa?on on the value oforganic breeding and the importance ofus ing organic seed, espec ia l ly inrela?onship to the cost of organic seed.Seed should not be regarded as a cheapinput.

• Lack of policy maker educa)on Policymakersandfundersneed tobeeducatedonthe poten?alenvironmental andhealthbenefits ofinves?nginbreedingfororganicsystems.

• Na)onal seed database The organiccommunity needs an organized datasystem that is easy to update. Such adatabasewouldhelpcer?fiers andfarmersassess organic seed availability and trackgapsinequivalencybasedonconven?onalseed allowances given to farmers bycer?fiers.

• Variety trial System An organized trialsystem would help screen exis?ng andavailable conven?onal varie?es, breedingpopula?ons, and material in a Na?onalPlant Germplasm System to assess traitsuseful in organic systems. A trial systemcould communicate useful informa?on to

other researchers, seed companies, andfarmers.

• Defini)on of organic plant breeding Thevalues, approach, methodology andprinciplesof organic breedingneed tobea r?cu l a ted and p romoted to a l lstakeholders.

• Response to GMO contamina)on A clearmessage based on though}ul scien?ficanalysis and organic market values isnecessary for challenging the biotechindustry’s ongoing campaign to allowGMOsinorganic.

PolicyandRegulatoryIssues

Policy and regulatory issues are complex,ins?tu?onal, and interrelated. Symposiumpar?cipants pointed to the complexity anddepth of issues. Comments ranged from“e v e r y t h i n g m u s t b e w o r ke d o nsimultaneously” to “the problems areoverwhelming” to “the seed industry isbroken.”

Par?cipants pointed out that our policiesrelated to organic seed impact farmersinterna?onally. We must create policy thatstrengthens biodiversity, farmer choice, andfarmers’righttosaveseedbothdomes?callyand abroad. And we must pay specialaYen?on to smaller scale farmers whoseneeds areokenthelasttobe served,ifatall.Restric?ve seed registries, such as those inEurope, do not work for the diversity offarmers here in the U.S. or to meetinterna?onalneeds.

Par?cipants noted theneed toaddress theloomingchallengesofconcentra?on inseed

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 62

systems and the prob lem of GMOcontamina?on. (See Concentra?on andContamina?on sec?ons of report for fulldescrip?onofthesechallenges.)

A number of challenges and needs wereiden?fied in the context of the Na?onalOrganicProgram(NOP),includingthe:

• Lackof responsivenessfromNOPtoNOSBGu i de l i n e s on Commerc i a l S eedAvailability.

• Lack of confidencefrom seed sector thatNOP is interested inenforcing the organicseedrule.

• Needfor NOP investment intrackingdataonseed.

• Need for NOP to develop systems thatcreate more consistency among cer?fiersfor procedures to determine commercialavailabilityofvarie?es.

Two primary challenges and needs wereiden?fied regarding intellectual propertyprotec?ons:

• U?lity Patents on plants, parts of plants,and gene?cs are restric?ng innova?on.This was discussed in detail at thesymposium.The mostrepeatedexample ofthis issue was the PuraMaize trait thatmany researchers and organic seedproducerswouldlike access toandbelievecamefromthe public domain.Thetrait isnow protected by a patent. (SeeConcentra?on Sec?on of report for moreinforma?ononPuraMaize.)

• Organic seed would benefit f romalterna?ve benefit‐sharing models. Manybreeders working in the organic seed

sector believe an ideal intellectualproperty,royalty, orbenefit‐sharingmodeldoes notyetexistinplantbreeding.U?lityPatents are unaYrac?ve to many in theorganic community, as patents do notsupport transparency, farmers’ right tosave seed, and increased innova?on inseed. Plant Variety Protec?oncer?ficates,as awarded under the Plant VarietyProtec?onAct of 1970, areworkable, butexpens i ve and the re fo re no t anappropriatemodelfor minor crops. Manypar?cipants men?oned “open‐source”models used in the sokware communityand“Crea?ve Commons”modelsusedforcrea?ve arts and wri?ng. While thesemodels mayormaynottranslate intoidealprotec?ons for seed, there is generalagreement that we need to developalterna?vemodelsalongtheselines.

Priority Goals: The top priority goalsestablished through the State of OrganicSeed Symposium (and surveys and inputforms conducted beforehand) are listedbelow.Theyarenotlistedinorderofpriority.As you’ll read in the next sec?on, workinggroups wil l priori?ze and carry outpreliminaryac?onitems.

BreedingGoals

• Increase federal support for organicbreedingprojects.

o Increaseoverall fundingwithin USDA‐OREIandmaintainpriority for organicseedandbreedrelatedprojects.

o ImprovetheNa?onalIns?tuteof Foodand Agriculture and Agriculture andFoodResearchIni?a?veplantbreedingprograms to priori?ze breeding forpublicly released cul?vars and breedsthat contribute to more resource‐efficient, environmentally‐sound,

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 63

sustainable farming systems. Thisincludes breeding for greater nutrientefficiency; stress, disease, and pestresistance; and improved nutri?onalvalue.

o Improve federally fundedprograms toencourage project con?nuity and thereleaseofpubliclydevelopedcul?vars.

o Expandthe involvementofresearchersat theAgriculturalResearchServicetoengageinorganicresearch.

• Greatersupportandeduca?onfor farmerstoengageinplantbreeding.

o Expand the Conserva?on SecurityProgramtodevelopa seedstewardshipprogramwithpayments for farmerstoreinvigorate the Na?onal PlantGermplasm System collec?on whileassessing collec?on for varie?es andtraits that are suppor?ng organic andother resource‐efficient farmingsystems.

o Develop par?cipatory plant breedingguidelines and support workshops totrain more farmers in on‐farmbreeding. Incorporatementorships and“training the trainers” models toincreaseoutreach.

o Pe??on federally funded programs torequire farmer compensa?on for on‐farm research with Land GrantUn i ve rs i ?e s and o the r pub l i cins?tu?ons.

o Support organized and educatedfarmer breeder clubs to expandcollabora?ononbreedingprojects.Thisis par?cularly useful in grains and soyfor great efficiency in pre‐tes?ng andincreasing small seed quan??es toa dequa te amoun t s fo r l a r ge revalua?ons.

• Greater integra?on of organic breedingandseedresearchintouniversityprogramsandcurricula.

o Pe??on Land Grant Universi?es andother public colleges to commit tocer?fiedorganic researchgrounds andgreenhouses.

o Develop increased capacity at LandGrant Universi?es to train the nextgenera?on of classical plant breederswithstrongfieldandon‐farmresearchcomponents.

o Encourage further support anddevelopment of eOrganic (onlineuniversity extension tool) seed andbreedinginforma?on.

o Integrateeduca?ononorganic systemsand research into curricula forundergraduate students in agriculturalprograms to familiarize them witho r g a n i c a n d i m p r o v e t h e i ru n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r e s e a r c hopportuni?esintheorganicfield.

• Imp rove and refine o rgan i c andpar?cipatorybreedingmethodsandgoals.

o Improve the methodo logy fo ri n t e r p r e ? n g g e n o t y p e b yenvironmental effects in organicsystems with greater environmentalvariability.

o Increaseunderstandingofandfocus onbreeding for local adap?on, climateinstability, mul?ple stress traits, andvalue‐added traits, such as nutri?onandqualityinprocessing.

o Develop principles, prac?ces, andstandards that formalize thedefini?onoforganicbreeding.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 64

• Increase investment in organic breedingfrom private food sector and generalpublic.

o Work with larger organic firms toencourage their sponsorship andsupportoforganicbreedingini?a?ves.

o Work with distributors, retailers, andfarmers markets to fund local varietytrial andcropimprovementefforts thatservetheircustomers.

o Educate organic food companyexecu?ves as to the urgency indeveloping organically bred varie?esthat will improve the quality of theirproducts.

o Raise awareness on the value of an“organically bred” label, but only if itfollows organic breedingmethods andprotocols.

o Encourageorganic seed companies tohaveacheck‐offthat allowsgardenersand farmers to make a dona?on topublicorganicbreedingini?a?ves.

• Developanintegrated,standardized, large‐scale, and mul?‐region variety trialnetwork that includes interna?onalmaterialandadvancedbreedingmaterial.

o Improve communica?onand feedbackna?onallyamongresearchers tocreatetrial partnerships, plan suppor?vetrials,andreduceredundancies.

o Createanaccessiblena?onaldatabaseof trial informa?onand results that isavailable publicly forfarmers,cer?fiers,andtheuniversityandprivatesectors.

o Develop a public record of traits,varietal characteris?cs, and othergene?c informa?on to keep thesegene?c resources accessible, in thepublic domain, and free of restric?vepatents.

SeedProduc>onGoals

• Improveour understandingof theorganicseedmarket, includingfarmerneeds,seedindustry limita?ons,prices,andsupplyanddemand.

o Conduct a seed industry survey. Thesurvey would include those alreadyproducing organic seed, those whohave produced organic seed in thepast, and those who are consideringfuture investment. This survey wouldprovide beYer understanding of theindustry’s obstacles and concerns;technology and infrastructure needs;and volumes of seed being producedby crop type (with as much regionalinforma?onaspossible).

o Encourageseedcompaniestobemoretransparent in sharing produc?onvolumeandsales inordertos?mulatenew players to enter themarket. Themarketis currentlysufferingfroma lackofcompe??on.

o Encourage seed companies to workwiththeNOP andcer?fiers todevelopandfundana?onalseeddatabase.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 65

• Greater infrastructure to support seedgrowers.

o Improve training and educa?onalinforma?onfororganicseedproducers,par?cularly hybrid seed produc?on,i n c l u d i n g mo re c r o p s p e c i fi cpublica?ons.

o Increase the availability of seedharves?ng and cleaning equipmentthatisdedicatedfororganicuseonly.

o Explorea fair tradeapproachandlabelto organic seed contracts tomaintainfair contracts and pricing in seedproduc?on; s?mulate and encouragefarmers toproduceorganic seed; andeducate users of the true cost andvalueoforganicseed.

• Improveorganic variety commercializa?onpipelinesandfeedbackloops.

o Encourage all regional and na?onalorganic farm conferences to hostregular listening sessions that involvethe seed industry, public breeders,organicfoodcompanies,andfarmers.

o Encouragegrantprograms topriori?zefundingforpublicly bredcul?vars withprivate sector partnership to increaseavailabilityoforganicallybredvarie?es.

• Improve gene?c in teg r i t y dur ingproduc?on.

o Encourage seed companies and statefounda?onprogramstotestfounda?onseed and produc?on seed in at‐riskcrops todevelopabaselineforcurrentlevelsofcontamina?on.

o Encouragetheseedindustrytodevelopand adopt “best managementprac?ces,” specifically for reducingcontamina?on from GE crops, whiletracking addi?onal costs of suchprac?ces toeducatelawmakers onthisburden to the organic seed industry.Consider a variety purity cer?fica?onfor corn that includes GMO tes?ng,possibly through the Associa?on ofOfficialSeedCer?fyingAgencies.

o Pe??on the Patent and TrademarkOffice to repeal the patent onPuraMaize, a trait that blocks pollenfromdissimilar popula?ons, effec?velyreducingcontamina?on.

• Improveaccessto founda?onandparent‐line seed,as well as conven?onal varie?esthatworkinorganic.

o Develop the capac i ty of statefounda?onseedprograms tomaintainuntreated stock seed for organicproduc?on.

o Encourageuniversi?es tocreatevarietyrelease Material Transfer Agreementsthatgiverights ofproduc?ontoorganicseed producers if the conven?onalcompanies leasing material have nointerestinorganicseedproduc?on.

• Develop organic standards for specializedseed and breeding technologies, such asplanthormones forhybridseedproduc?onand ?ssue culture media. The seedindustry should work with cer?fiers,regulators and the Organic MaterialsReview Ins?tute to iden?fy acute issuesanddevelopplanstoaddressthem.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 66

Informa>onandPercep>onGoals

• Develop a central and publicly accessibleseed database funded by the NOP withmatchingsupportfromtheseedindustry.

o Include regular updated lis?ngs oforganicseedavailability.

o Include non‐organic seed allowances,and research best way to collect thisinforma?on.

• Push NOP to respond to the NOSB’sGuidelines on Organic Commercial SeedAvailability.

o Encourage more informa?on andtraining for cer?fiers onorganic seed.This includesworking collabora?vely –theNOP, seedindustry, andfarmers‐‐to ensure cer?fiers have enoughinforma?on on organic seed and thattheyarefollowingtheNOPrule.

• Create a variety and breeding trialdatabase.

o Examine Organic Seed Alliance’svegetable model being developed oneOrganic.

o Expand model na?onally for all croptypes and create standards inmethodologiesanddatarepor?ng.

o Engagefarmersinsharingon‐farmtrialdata.

o Organize forumsforbreedersandseedproducers to d iscuss technica lques?ons.

• Createa campaigntopromotethevalueoforganicplantbreedingandseed.

o Look at exis?ng campaigns such as“KnowYourFarmer.”

o Showcase posi?ve stories and socialvalues.

o Drak a white paper on why gene?cengineeringisnotneededinorganic.

o Encourage the seed industry tocommunicate the true costs andbenefitsoforganicseed.

o S u p p o r t t h e C l i f B a r F am i l yFounda?on’s Seed MaYers ini?a?ve,which aims to promote the value ofseed to a sustainable food future.Encourage organic food companies toget behind“seed to shelf” claims andnotsimplyuseitasamarke?ngphrase.

• ExpandtheStateofOrganicSeedproject.

o Workwithregional farmconferences tohost ongoing SOS listening sessions toget feedback from stakeholders andincorporate feedback into next SOSreport.

o Conduct addi?onal surveys to gatherdata on farmers’ breeding needs andthe seed industry’s technical andcapacity challenges, among otherissues.

PolicyandRegulatoryGoals

• Intellectual Property prac?ces must bereviewed, analyzed, and reformed,par?cularlyatthepublicins?tu?onlevel.

o Encourage the federal government toengagein afull reviewanddiscussionof restric?velawsandprac?ces in theseedindustry, including: acost‐benefit

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 67

analysis of the Bayh‐DoleAct; federalworkshops andhearingsonthe impactsof priva?zing public research; and ananalysisoftherole patents playinseedindustryconsolida?on.

o Educate Congress on why the PlantVariety Protec?on Act should be re‐established as the sole protec?on fordevelopers of sexually reproducingplants.

o Research the feasibility of alterna?veintellectualpropertymodelsfororganicb reed ing . Engage economi s t s ,intellectualproperty experts, breedersand others in this research. Examine“open‐source” and/or “crea?vecommons”models.

o Developa legal fundandworkinggrouptoraise thestandards forpatentabilityor research. Challenge patents,par?cularly for traits, varie?es, ortechniques that have long existed inthe public domain (PuraMaize wasrepeatedly men?oned as a toppriority).

o The Departments of Jus?ce andAgriculture should con?nue theirexamina?on of compe??on problemsin the seed industry, includingan?compe??ve conduct and theconsequences of concentra?on. Theirinves?ga?onmust include theimpactsof concentratedmarket power on theorganicindustry.

o Review the “Public Plant and AnimalBreeders Pledge” developedby SeedsandBreeds for21stCenturyAgriculture.Havealumni ofLandGrantUniversi?esand ci?zens in these states pe??onbreeders and administrators to signontoit.

• Createincen?ves for farmers toconserve,a s sess , and deve lop d i vers i t y i ngermplasm, and engage in par?cipatoryplantbreedingini?a?ves.

o Deve lop Conserva?on Secur i tyProgram, or develop newprogram, toprovide training and incen?ves forfarmers to maintain, assess forbeneficial characteris?cs, and increaseseedof founda?onseedorganiza?ons,na?onal germplasm collec?ons, andbreeders ’ seed at Land GrantUniversi?es and the AgriculturalResearchService.

o Require OREI, the Na?onalIns?tuteofFoodandAgriculture,andotherfederalprograms to have minimum land‐resource and/or hourly payments tofarmers engaged in on‐farm researchwithformalbreeders.

o Push theUSDA torebuildpublic plantb r e e d i n g a n d p u b l i c c u l ? v a rdevelopment programs to ensure thattheneeds of farmersand the generalpublic are met and that research isconductedinanopenandhonestway.

• Stakeholders must engage in a moreunifiedandfocusedefforttoaddress GMOcontamina?on.

o Work with conven?onal farm policysector todevelopa Farmer Protec?onActforthe 2012FarmBill thatensures:(1) the venue and choice of law forcontamina?on or patent infringementlawsuits is in the state where thefarmer lives; (2) an independent thirdp a r t y p a r ? c i p a t e s i n p a t e n tinfringementinves?ga?ons;(3)farmersare not held l iable for patentinfringement when small amounts ofGE content is discovered on their

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 68

propertyandthepresenceprovides noeconomic benefit; and (4) themanufacturer of GE crops is heldstrictly liable for economic damagecausedbycontamina?on.

o Research risks and benefits of anindemnityfundforGMOcontamina?onthat patent holders pay into. Thesefunds would be used for tes?ngfounda?on seed and compensa?ngthoseharmedbycontamina?on.

o Overhaul the federal regulatoryframework for GE crops. Strengthengovernment oversight by crea?nggreater public transparency andmanda?ng independent research andtes?ng, including a full environmentalandeconomicimpactassessment.

o PushtheUSDAtorequirefarmers whogrowGEcropstoestablishbufferareasand other containment measures tomi?gatepollenflow fromGE crops toneighboringfields.

• Improve defini?ons, standards, values,methods , and p rac?ces that a reappropriatefororganicbreedingsystems.

o Drakawhitepaperon“Whatisorganicbreeding?” basedon the principles oforganicagriculture.

o Drak a posi?on paper on the use ofpatentsinorganicbreeding.

• Congressandthe USDAshouldstrengthenpublicplantbreeding.

o Create a new program area for boththe Agricultural Research Service andthe Na?onal Ins?tute of Food andAgriculture’s compe??ve grants thatfocus onbreedingfororganicandothersustainableagricultural systems. Theseprojects would result in varie?es thathave improved nutri?onal value foranimals and humans, mul?ple stressresistance,andresilience inthefaceofclimatechange.

o Double funds for OREI and maintainhigh priority grants for organic seedsystems, including produc?on andbreeding, with strong focus onincreasing regional capacity andadapta?on.

o Priori?ze Value‐Added and EnterpriseDevelopment grant programs to fundthedevelopmentoflocal seedsystems,both increasing varietal choices forfarmers and expanding economicopportuni?esfor farmers interestedinseedproduc?on.

o FundNOPtodevelopa na?onalorganicseeddatabaseinordertoclose thegapin organic seed availability, assistbreeders and industry in developingnew materials, and provide farmerswith op?mal gene?cs for organicsystems.

Sec?on7:SOSSymposium:ClarifyingChallengesandCrea?ngPriori?es 69

Mov i n g O r g a n i c S e e dSystemsForward:NextSteps

Itis?meforabroadercoali?onoforganicstakeholderstoaddresstheissuesandpriori?esiden?fiedinthisreportandmoveorganicseedforward.Aswehavelearned,theissuesarecomplexandcannotbeaddressedindependentlybygovernmentregula?onsortheseedindustryac?ngalone.Acohesiveandinclusivegrassrootsapproachtoorganicseedissuesisneededtofurtherrefineandimplementthepriori?esoutlinedwithinthisreport.Thiscollabora?veapproachwilldirectlybenefitresearch,educa?on,andadvocacyac?vi?esintheorganicseedsector,andorganicfarmersandthecommuni?estheyserve.Tothisend,OSAishos?ngseverallisteningsessionstotalkaboutthefindingsofthisreportandtogatherongoingfeedbackandideasmovingforward.OSAisalsoworkingwithseedindustryrepresenta?vestocollectaddi?onaldataaboutorganicseedusageandquality,andtheindustry’sroleincollabora?velybuildingtheorganicsector.Mostsignificantly,OSAislaunchingworkinggroupsinfivecategoriestoini?atetheimplementa?onofthepreliminarypriori?esiden?fiedinthisreport.Thefivecategoriesare:OrganicPlantBreeding;Informa?onandProduc?on;Concentra?on;Contamina?on;andIntellectualProperty.Eachworkinggroupwillincludediversestakeholdersthatcollabora?velyandsystema?callyaddressconcerns,obstacles,andopportuni?esinthe

implementa?onandsuccessoforganicseedsystems.

Theworkinggroupsaremorethanforumsfordiscussion.TheyareeachafocusedgroupofpartnerscommiYedtorefiningstrategiesforac?onitemsiden?fiedinthisreport,andengaginginongoingdialogueandresearchwheretherearegapsininforma?on.TheSOSprojectlaidfundamentalgroundworkfortheseworkinggroups.Throughthisprojectweiden?fiedpartnerswithcapacityandexper?setopar?cipateeffec?vely,andhavestartedtooutlineini?alpriori?esandobjec?ves.Thenextstepwillrequirethedevelopmentofstrategiesandtac?cstoreachbothshort‐termobjec?vesandmakelong‐termtransforma?vechange.Workinggroupac?vi?eswillrangefrompar?cipa?ngindiscussionswithfederaldecisionmakerstoinfluencena?onalpolicytocoali?onworkon?melyissuesinneedofresearchanddiscussion,suchasalterna?veintellectualpropertyprotec?ons.Belowisashortdescrip?onofeachworkinggroup.

Concentra?onWorkingGroup:Thegoalofthisworkinggroupistoinfluencepolicydecisionsthatenhancecompe??onintheseedindustryandsupportdecentralized,farmer‐oriented,organicseedsystems.

Contamina?onWorkingGroup:Thegoalofthisworkinggroupistoestablishcollabora?veac?onsandpoliciesthatprotecttheintegrityoforganicbreedingsystemsandorganicseedfromcontamina?onbygene?callyengineeredspecies,andtherights offarmerstoaccessorganicseedfreeofgene?callyengineeredmaterial.

Sec?on8:MovingOrganicSeedSystemsForward:NextSteps 70

IntellectualPropertyWorkingGroup:Thegoalofthisworkinggroupistodevelopintellectualpropertymodelsforpar?cipatoryvarietyimprovementandplantbreedingthatensuressharing,con?nualinnova?on,andvarietalimprovementinthepublicdomain.

OrganicPlantBreedingWorkingGroup:Thegoalofthisworkinggroupistodevelopmethods,systemsandinfrastructureto

supportandincreasepublicplantbreedingprogramsfocusedonorganicsystems.

OrganicSeedInforma?on,AvailabilityandProduc?onWorkingGroup:Thegoalofthisworkinggroupistocollaborateoneffortsthatimproveorganicproducers’abilitytomeettheNa?onalOrganicProgramrequirementforuseofcer?fiedorganicseed.

Sec?on8:MovingOrganicSeedSystemsForward:NextSteps 71

Looking Ahead

StateofOrganicSeedisthefirstcomprehensiveassessmentofthesuccessesandchallengesindevelopinghealthy,organicseedsystemsacrosstheU.S.Throughdiversestakeholderinvolvement,weprovidedasnapshotoftheorganicseedsector–fromorganicseedusagetopublicbreedingini?a?vestoriskstoorganicintegrity–asanecessarystar?ngpointforconveninglargerandlongertermdiscussionontheopportuni?esbeforeusinbuildingorganicseedsystems.

Thepurposeofthisreport–andthemo?va?onbehindthecollabora?veworktofollow–remainsrootedinthefoundingtenetsoftheorganicmovement:principles,asoutlinedintheintroduc?on,thatacknowledgeandhonorfarmers’rolesandrightsinseedstewardship;protectgene?candbiologicaldiversity;ensureecologicalandhumanhealthoffuturegenera?ons;andencouragecompe??onandsharedbenefitfromcropimprovements.

Anotherprincipleweadheretoistheimportanceofusingseedthatisbredandproducedinorganicsystems.Thatis,tostaytruetothevaluesoftheorganiccommunityandsupportthesuccessoforganicfarmers,seedneedstobebredandproducedfortheagronomicsystemitisgrowninandthemarketitsupplies.Thismaybeself‐evidenttomostintheorganiccommunity,butforothersitiss?llalingeringques?onofdebate.S?ll,wecannotdenythatmuchoftheprogressinagricultureoverthelast

thousandsofyearsisduetotheadapta?onofplantgene?cscombinedwithimprovedmanagementprac?ces.

Op?malseedisthefounda?onofachievingsuccess,beitagronomic,marke?ng,orotherwise.Organicfarmersuseamixtureofmodernconven?onalvarie?esandolderheirlooms,mostlyproducedbyconven?onalseedcompanies.Manyofthesemodernconven?onalandheirloomvarie?esworkinorganicsystems,butaretheyop?mal?Aretheyop?malintheirgene?csandinmee?ngoverallgoalsandvaluesoforganicsystems?Ifwepurchaseconven?onalseedfromconven?onalcompaniesthatarenotinves?nginorganic,howcanweexpecttobuildanorganicseedsectorthathasthenecessaryfundingandinfrastructuretoserve theorganiccommunitywithop?malgene?cs?Giventheincreasedaccelera?onbyconven?onalcompaniestowardgene?callyengineeredtraits,whatwillfutureseedop?onslooklikeifweremaindependentontheconven?onalsector?And,giventheconsolida?onofthatindustry,whatlevelofdiversitycanweexpect?

WhilethisreportaYemptstoprovideasnapshotofthestateoforganicseed,wealsochallengetheorganiccommunitywiththeseques?ons.Itisourbeliefthatorganicagricultureshoulddevelopanduseorganicseed,notbecausearegula?onrequiresitorwefearGMOcontamina?on,butbecausethespiritoftheorganicmovementhas,atitscore,theprincipleofconstantimprovement.Seedholdsthepoten?alforimprovementsincropquality,nutrientdensity,responsestobio?candabio?cstress,andincreasesin

Sec?on9:LookingAhead 72

yield,color,andflavor.Thecommuni?eswefeeddesirethisdiversity.

Theorganicseedworkinggroupshavealonglistofpriori?es.Seedissuesaremanyandcomplex,andthesegroupswillonlysucceediftheyhavethesupportofabroadstakeholderbase.Manyintheorganiccommunityarealreadyapartofsolu?onsiden?fiedinthisreport.Someofthewayssuccesswillbemeasuredisthroughanincreasein:

• Voicescallingonourregulatoryagenciestoprotectourseed;

• Foodcompaniesandretailersvaluingandinves?nginorganicplantbreeding;

• Entrepreneursinnova?ngandinves?nginorganicseedsectordevelopment;

• Publicresearchersinves?ga?ngorganicsystemsandpublicplantbreedersbreedingfinishedcul?varsfororganicagriculture;

• Farmersunderstandingthatconven?onalseedisnotop?malinthelong‐termvisionoforganicsuccess,andwhotrialandexperimentwithnewvarie?es;and

• Farmershavingaroleandinvestmentinseed–asplantbreeders,seedproducers,par?cipantsinresearch,andownersofseedenterprises.

Weneedtocon?nuethisconversa?onwithallstakeholders,andstrengthenfeedbackloopstoexpandourunderstandingoftheissuesandpoten?alfororganicseed.Ifthestateoforganicseedisuncertain,itisalsoexci?ng.Wehavetheopportunitytodevelopanewapproachtoseedasanaturalresource,anapproachthatvaluesecologicalcomplexity,ethics,regionalism,sustainability,resiliency,farmers’rolesandrights,biological andgene?cdiversity,andthehistoricalcropdevelopmentcontribu?onsofallcultures.Wehavegreatmomentumtowardmee?ngthesegoals.Organicagriculturecon?nuestoexpandinourlandscapesandmarketplaces,bringingecologicalandhumanhealthbenefits.Anorganicfoodfuture–onethatfeedsmorepeoplewithfewernega?veimpactswhileprovidinggreaterstabilityandsuccessforfamilyfarms–ispossibleonlyifweprotectandimproveourorganicseed.

Lookingforward,yourinputatlisteningsessions,throughworkinggroups,onnewsurveys,andinfuturerevisionsofthisreportiscri?caltomakingthisfutureareality.Wehopeyouwillstayengagedinthisinvaluablework.

Sec?on9:LookingAhead 73

ListofAcronyms

ACA AccreditedCer?fiersAssocia?onASTA AmericanSeedTradeAssocia?onEIS EnvironmentalImpactStatementEPA EnvironmentalProtec?onAgencyFAFO FarmersAdvoca?ngforOrganicsFDA FoodandDrugAdministra?onGE Gene?callyEngineered

GMO Gene?callyModifiedOrganismIOP IntegratedOrganicProgramLGU LandGrantUniversityNASS Na?onalAgriculturalSta?s?csServiceNOP Na?onalOrganicProgramNOSB Na?onalOrganicStandardsBoardNOVIC NorthernOrganicVegetableImprovementCollabora?ve

OFPA OrganicFoodsProduc?onActOFRF OrganicFarmingResearchFounda?onOP Open‐pollinatedOREI OrganicAgricultureResearchandExtensionIni?a?veOSA OrganicSeedAllianceRAFI RuralAdvancementFounda?onInterna?onal(USA)

RMA RiskManagementAgencySARE SustainableAgricultureResearchandEduca?on

SOS StateofOrganicSeedUNFI UnitedNaturalFoodIncorporatedUSDA UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureUW UniversityofWashingtonVAPG ValueAddedProducerGrants

ListofAcronyms 74