It Goes Against the Grain

 

Comparing hybrids and GMOs

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has come out on the side of Monsanto in the case of Vernon Hugh Bowman vs. Monsanto Company et al, those of us with an interest in food and agriculture are thinking a lot about seeds. Vernon Bowman is a farmer sued by Monsanto for patent infringement who took his case all the way up to the highest court in the land and lost.  Reading about this case, its background and its ramifications quickly gets one into hundreds and hundreds of articles largely about corn and soybeans, GMOs and Monsanto. One soon finds that this is because these two crops dominate US agriculture and it is estimated that more than 80% of corn and 90% of the soybeans in the US are grown from GMO seed, most of it sold by Monsanto. These mind-boggling statistics alone are an indication of the rich lode of material to be mined in this situation and looked at from any number of perspectives: legal, health and safety, history and tradition, farming practices, mentality, philosophy and beliefs etc.

One aspect seldom mentioned in the articles I have found is a comparison of hybrid and GMO seeds. The comparison of GMOs and traditional open-pollinated crops is discussed frequently as a juxtaposition of the most modern technology and the oldest, most traditional way of growing food. Hybridization is somewhere in between and throws a lot of light on the reasons for the extreme contentiousness of the whole Monsanto/GMO/industrial agriculture subject matter. Hybrids and GMOs have a lot in common and some revealing and far-reaching differences.

Hybridization got its start in the US in the 1920s, and by the mid 1950s virtually all the corn in the US was grown from hybrid seed. This rapid acceptance is replicated in the 20-30 year history of GMO crops, with the high percentages of corn and soybeans mentioned above accompanied by that of GMO cotton, weighing in with well over 90% of the American crop. Hybrid seeds, like GMO seeds, are more expensive than open-pollinated varieties. But the most interesting similarity is the fact that hybrid seeds, like GMOs, have to be purchased anew each year, but for a different reason. The second generation of hybrids will have far smaller yields, as a rule, and will not “breed true”; the progeny will not all resemble the parent plants and will usually be of lesser quality. On the other hand, it is Monsanto that has decreed that its GMO seeds may not be propagated into the second generation; they grow true to their parent seeds if planted.

This far different reason points up the fact that while GMOs are man-made, hybrids are man-manipulated; the pollination process is natural. It is easy for the farmer to pay more for hybrid seed that promises better taste, resistance to disease and greater yields; it will pay off financially, even though he must buy it anew each year. In addition, while hybrids usually have a number of superior qualities appreciated by the consumer, GMO crops tend to have only one different characteristic, resistance to a particular herbicide, for instance. It is difficult not to notice that the particular herbicide is sold by the same firm that owns the patent on the seeds.

No one worries about the safety of hybrids or contamination by them. There are no suits and court cases brought against hybrids. Farmers and hobby gardeners have free choice between hybrid and open-pollinated seed. There is an enormous difference between adapting natural processes to human needs, which is, after all, what farming is all about, and interfering with those processes at the genetic level. The latter goes against the grain of agricultural history; it produces gut reactions – puns intended.  It definitely goes against the grain of human freedom not to have a choice of GMO or non-GMO seeds, and this is fast becoming reality. GMOs are contaminating non-GMO plants about as rapidly as agri giants like Monsanto are taking over the seed market in the United States.