I am sure that statistic is wrong. And it is likely talking about cultivars not plant species. When seed companies create new cultivars of crops sometimes they are a flop and aren't as robust or productive as what is currently on the market so they stop producing that seed. Also as new varieties are produced that are more robust and productive there the less productive varieties are no longer grown so they go 'extinct'. That may be where they get the statistic from. We are constantly selecting for bigger and better traits so I would honestly be scared if those old varieties DIDN'T go 'extinct' because it would mean that our agricultural programs weren't moving forward. I am sure that video failed to mention how many new varieties were introduced since the turn of the century. The video is a skewed view of an incomplete story. I hope this helps you sleep better.

I agree I listen to internet and regular talk radio all day. No tv.
"Seeds of Deception" should be required reading as the book "1984"
Follow the money
It hard for me to know that a public library had this DVD. Wow !!!
I will jump back off my soap box
Jean

keepitlow

I'm with you, though I don't lose sleep about it any more. Huge agribusiness has made hidden and enormous steps into controlling the world's food supply, and particularly here in the US where there is no governmental resistance to the takeover of the food supply, and in fact government complicity in the takeover.

From the link below, a very long article with links to backup research: ....genetically-modified food companies have gone on multi-billion dollar buying sprees, purchasing seed companies and destroying their non-patented (potentially competitive) seed stocks. This includes Monsanto's 2005 purchase of Seminis, the world's single largest developer, grower and marketer of vegetable and fruit seeds (supplying 40% of US vegetable seeds and 20% worldwide), Monsanto is now the world's largest seed company overall (or scarily guardian of our agricultural life forms), either owning or being partnered with 13 other major seed-owning corporations. It further announced its intention to purchase De Ruiter Seeds, in an on-going buying binge of still more seed-owning corporations. With such consolidations, Monsanto and 9 similar seed-growing conglomerates now collectively own over 55% of our entire planet's commercial seeds, and almost 2/3rds of all patented seeds. For commercial advantage, however, competition had to be eliminated, even if this involved heirloom seeds. Time magazine referred to the consequences of a now growing effort to buy out seed companies and eliminate their competitive stocks as the global Death of Birth.

So, the "extinctions" are intentional for the most part on the part of Agribusiness.

Here is a link that might be useful: 50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS

Really?? Is this going to become another GM food thread. I have no problem choosing from a wide variety of seeds and even if someday the worlds seeds are controlled by Monsanto there are still plenty of independent people that save and exchange seeds. Have you had a hard time putting food on your plate? Are grocery stores empty? I don't understand where all this fear comes from. Here is a general rule of thumb that I like to go by, if someone is trying to convince me of anything by using fear it is a safe bet that they are lying for their own personal gains. Don't believe everything you hear.

Without doubt huge numbers of heirlooms are lost. That's the unavoidable effect of the immense reduction in home gardening and local vegetable cultivation that occurred over the past century. However, in most cases those heirlooms are extremely similar to another cultivar that has been preserved and in many cases can be bought. So I think the hullabaloo about a huge shrinkage of diversity in the gene pool is overblown - the diversity is out there, thanks to many very dedicated people, but it's not in factory fields.

weirdtrev

By the same token, one might say that if a corporation is trying to convince people of anything by using overblown claims and false statements, it is a safe bet that they are lying for their own personal gain. Particularly when they are opposed world-wide by hundreds of scientists in the field for polluting the food supply, the soil, and life itself in many cases.

pnbrown

Yes, as long as agribusiness cannot get their hands on OP/heirloom crops and somehow "own" those, too, we can save seeds ourselves and keep the varieties alive.

From the link above: Extinction of Seed Varieties: A few years ago Time magazine referred to the massive trend by large corporations to buy up small seed companies, destroying any competing stock, and replacing it with their patented or controlled brands as "the Death of Birth." Monsanto additionally has had farmers sign contracts not to save their seeds - forfeiting what has long been a farmer's birthright to remain guardians of the blueprints of successive life.

But you'd not be surprised to learn they're eyeing heirlooms now, would you? As you probably know, they've only begun by trying to convince the ignorant that heirloom tomatoes, for instance, are unproductive, inbred, flavorless, and destined for extinction after they've hybridized them. What's key will be what rights we continue to have to grow our own seeds and save them through the years.

I'm with Pat. The bulk of what I have planted as a "base" is from saved seed. I'll try different stuff but I still have my base and it is rarely just enough for a one season chance to reproduce.
Consider this type of stuff as even more reason to pick something, learn how to and save seeds. This stuff, while even potentially true in certain aspects, does not and will not prevent seed swaps because of the number of folks preserving their favorites and even doing so in excess.
I know, we also have the "savior" seed banks in place. But considering the numbers, it will be the local absurd farmer that is seemingly adjunct that will prevent issues.
I'm really interested in the seed banks and the effort to prevent a GMO catastrophe but I wonder how much of a "sample" is maintained. Surely they are preserving enough to grow out more .... but that takes time and I seriously doubt that the average Joe will get a cut.
Considering that there were, in 2007, 124,400 acres of fresh market tomatoes planted in the US ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/News/tomatocoverage.htm ) and we still imported 2.361 billion pounds ( same reference). And that CA alone has 308,000 acres of processing tomatoes under contract for 2009 despite their drought ( http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1233&ck=E034FB6B66AACC1D48F445DDFB08DA98 ). And that Indiana alone harvests 884 million acres of corn ( http://www.indianafarmdirect.com/resource_guide/agriculture_tour.php )I ponder the resources of a seed bank being capable of providing this many seeds.
No politics nor prediction involved. Just stuff to ponder on and hopefully initiate a seed saving expedition in your own garden ;) I do not doubt any company taking any step to be profitable but please do not forget about all the little folks hanging in there as they tend to add up.

Here we go again .... anney we have done this all before you know how I feel and I know how you feel. I am just disappointed that you took it upon yourself to use this thread for your own personal interests. You did nothing to answer the posters original questions. They didn't even mention GM food but you decided to bring it up. And I wasn't saying other people don't also lie, but I am saying more often than not those who use fear to motivate are not very trustworthy or honorable people. That is just a general rule I go by. It is true that most if not all large scale farmers don't grow heirlooms because they are not a marketable, consistently sized and uniformly colored product.

WT

My first post addressed exactly his question about seed extinction -- read it. It just happened to be part of a larger report, and it's agribusiness involved in GMO crops that's doing it.

You'll need to talk to the hundreds of scientists worldwide that are strongly opposed to GM foods and decide for yourself whether they have any "honor" or not.

However, I imagine that the occasional story of the discovery of some OP seed stash from 50 or 75 years ago that's amazingly still viable heartens the OP, who fears that some varieties of crops are becoming extinct.

Agribusiness doesn't sell heirlooms to large scale farmers because there's no profit in it -- farmers can save the seeds. The heirlooms and OPs are certainly marketable, if fragile for shipping, and various shapes, colors, & sizes, yes. Agribusiness will always provide hybrid and even GM seeds to large scale farmers who want to produce crops that ship well. Too bad they want to squash the smaller scale farmers and organic farmers, as well as messing up the food supply. Probably nobody would complain if they weren't trying to hog the whole market and their products were safe.

Weirdtrev, to address your points and the concerns of Keepitlow, I read an article today that cited USDA statistics that current food crops are measurably less nutritious than the same crops in the past. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Nutrient-Decline-Industrial-Farming.aspx
There are 2 reasons for this: declining soil quality, and selection for crop characteristics that include volume and uniformity over flavor and nutrition. There are wonderful organizations out there dedicated to retaining the genetic and microclimate variety available in open pollinated seeds, such as Seed Savers Exchange. I am not against hybrids or GM, but the purpose of a multinational company is to make money. That's it. They are not concerned about our children's food security. In fact, Monsanto has inserted a gene called Terminator into some of its GM crops. The gene renders the crop seed sterile, forcing farmers to buy their seed every year. GM could be usefully used to increase drought resistance or protein content, but for now, I prefer to grow my own and use heirlooms where possible. I do massively resent the patenting of genes and crops that farmers refined for thousands of years. Companies change some tiny gene feature and then basically steal a community's collective heritage by selling essentially the same seed, and since it's patented, you ARE NOT ALLOWED to save the seed. They send agents to your fields to look for their gene markers. It's a ripoff.

Here is a link that might be useful: seed savers exchange

Although I find GM worrying from the point of view of a few companies owning the food we eat, I have to say I come from a different angle on this rather than food safety, my concerns are that GM crops, can't be "seed saved" as the plants are sterile, turning all growers into annual customers and that includes subsistance farmers in the developing world, who understandable have swapped to GM due to the better yields and disease resistance to find a year later they are forced to buy seeds again or risk no crops!

Not mentioned is Biopiracy, the only case I am aware of any particular detail is the Yellow bean from Mexico as it has been covered by the Food program and farming today on BBC Radio 4 , which has been cultavated for at least a century in Mexico, and like all heirloom plants, does not have a patent (and why should it?), some enterprising? individual had a patent on this common food stuff granted in the US! and has chased there "royalties" with great gusto, this has recently been overturned by the US patent office, after international outrage (after all who patents a native plant! and what is to stop companies from raiding the food stuffs of the world!" this is still not quite over as it can be appealed, in the federal court.
I find this more disturbing than GM almost, but not quite they are about equal in my eyes of making us beholden to vast faceless companies, so much for democracy!
years ago I listened to a comedy program! where the world had been taken over by vast multinational companies and the UK was a subsibsidary of the AmJap corportation, and I remember thinking "that would be terrible"!

Here is a link that might be useful: here something that might help

Haha glorygrown you beat me I was still typing obviously, there where only 8 replies when I started!

But you are right Heather. I read about a Canadian rape seed farmer who was sued by Monsanto for planting their crop seeds which he'd never bought. It turned out that his neighbor's GM crop had wind-fertilized his crop and his saved seed had genetic markers for Monsanto's patented oil seed. He actually lost in court even though he could have had no way of knowing that his crop had been genetically polluted. I think he should have sued them. Genetic diversity matters. But to address one of your points, unless the GM crop has a Terminator gene in it, you can save the seed; you're just not supposed to since you don't OWN it.

thanks for that I didn't realise that seed saving can happen! But then that is chased up when they seed, I was under the impression the terminator gene was in all seeds, as farmer friend of mine was site testing on her farm in the UK in about 1995ish! for the seeding potential of germination of GM crops, she had a huge (for the UK) mixed farm in Oxfordshire and she didn't know if she had the terminator or the plain GM the study was done by one of the Oxford colleges, paid for by a GM company of course, she pulled out after 2 years as she felt she clearly wasn't a "terminator" crop and at that point the UK was in upraw about GM which hasn't really gone away, and she was frightened for her business. and the thing that the companies keep telling us for the last few years is that the seed are sterile so they can't be cast down wind and sprout up else where! interesting

By what means do they acquire their sterility?

If the *pollen* itself is able to produce seed, what is to keep it from producing sterile seed in a neighboring crop?

:o/

keepitlow,
Your questions and fears are shared and relative to the reality of what is happening around the globe. If anyone cares to find out, there are many sources of information.

This website does not offer a forum for this particular subject, but once in a while there is an opportunity to get a few words in edgewise. The subject is every bit a political subject.
Bless the farmer and all of us that look to the heavens for our rainbows.
Brass

I'll keep this short and to the point...

No.

This thread is absolutely chock full of crap.

Terminator technology for seed exists, but even Monsanto's own people think it's too dangerous to even try to have it approved for release. It's not there. It probably won't be. This was "bought" technology by the way...and partly funded by our own govt. research...put that in your aluminum foil hat, too.

"They" (watch out, they'll GIT YA!!) have the technology to make it happen, but even they realize it's really not a good idea.

There are a lot more things to worry about as far as our crop health beyond seed companies. We save a TON of seed here, we have seed banks to back it up, and we could probably use less people trying to drive this nearly 15 year old debate into the ground since...as of now...it's pretty much a non-issue.

Okay, that last one was a little harsh.

Still, there's some misinformation going around in some of these rants. As someone who's very much a fan of, and involved in, sustainable agriculture I really am not a fan of this agri-business-must-fall mantra that wraps itself in a culture of creating fear.

It's just not enough to say "Monsanto has the terminator gene"...you gotta look further.

GM crops, we're talking about corn, cotton, soybean, and canola for nearly 100% of crops that are actually in use in North America. The push for GM "garden veggies" isn't huge business because weed suppression wouldn't be the main goal with these crops...shipping life would be. Yum. So far almost every effort has been a horrible disaster trying to compete with our many generations of selectively breed (both traditional seed saving and hybridization) veggies.

We have to investigate our passions before we fall for a campaign for hearts over minds...that's all.

PS- the 97% of all fruits/veg is crap right out of the can because almost every fruit we eat comes from a plant taken from cloned parent plant...not seed.

...and I do mean almost all. The Hass avocado, for instance, is a perpetual clone of 1 man's tree. The original tree died not too many years ago. The same goes for most every apple, pear, peach, nectarine, banana, etc. you've ever eatten.

That's true about the fruit, NC, and case-in-point. I'm sure you know what a spectacular array of different clones were more commonly available a century ago. If they exist at all now it's in repositories like Cornell's amazing apple research station. The good news is that new eating types of fruit can be created if we have access to the more primitive base types of the species in question. That goes for vegetables that are typically cloned as well, like potatoes.

"Food" is not going extinct.

Old varieties go extinct as they are replaced by improved versions. While concern for genetic diversity has an element of legitimacy, not only will customer demand keep the most desirable varieties in circulation in some fashion the commercial seed breeders and distributors have a vested interest in keeping varieties with desirable traits available because they need those traits for their breeding programs.

I'll illustrate why varieties go extinct from my own garden. I used to grow Royalty Purple Pod beans. I now grow Royal Burgundy. I tried them against each other and found that the taste is equal, the vigor is equal, and the productivity is close -- with a slight edge towards Royalty.

However, Royalty beans are sharply curved while Royal Burgundy beans are straight. This is irrelevant if they were all eaten fresh or if they were canned. But I freeze my beans and the Royalties will not pack neatly in the zipper bags with minimal air so they end up freezer-burned.

Look at the garden catalogs -- there are thousands of varieties available. Some will drop out as they loose popularity. Others will replace them.

I'm looking forward to the day when someone develops a pole version of my beloved Dragon Langerie beans.

Lots of great feedback. Thanks.

To the responder that said:

"Here is a general rule of thumb that I like to go by, if someone is trying to convince me of anything by using fear it is a safe bet that they are lying for their own personal gains. Don't believe everything you hear."

Scare tactics? Maybe in some cases. But we should try and go by the truth best we can discern it. Too much wishful thinking can keep us in denial. And too much fear makes up paranoid.

But we should also remember how things have turned out in the past...

http://api.ning.com/files/51yPmHN3cHHtza*qDZCIUgz-mqJVZUq7mwrxtCun7Y4_/ddtisgood4meC.jpg

KIL

Touché! I just heard Rachel Carson weep. How did you find that amazing ad?

nc-crm I didn't make it clear in my post sorry, I personally, don't have a problem with GM for food safety, I don't avoid foods that have been modified for me or my children (4 1/2), and in many cases such as developing countries the better yield, and disease resistance is to be appluded! the problem comes with the "dependance" and royality problems which then enslave people to these companies.

I am baffled because I have the opposite point of view entirely.
Has anyone ever thought about what your ancestor Gunter in Germany was eating a thousand years ago? Probably cabbage, cabbage, cabbage, onions, garlic, barley, cabbage, pork, and turnips. How about Earnest in England?... pretty much the same.
Far from food going extinct, I think there is tremendous diversity now in food production. Industrial production might require GM and capitalization of research through protection of intellectual property, but the fact remains that you are eating tomatoes, kohlrabi, six kinds of lettuce, two kinds of carrots, brussels sprouts, etc. All of those are robust and are grown as millions of mini varieties in gardens all over the world. I mean EVERYWHERE. Seed banks, seed companies, and people's dresser drawers hold huge stores of DNA, all slightly different. In five minutes, I could buy 100 different packets of seeds at the hardware store. Was that even possible in the 50s? And that is F1 or F2. Some okra farmer in Alabama has seeds produced through 50 crosses.
People can and do create and study their own cultivars of darn near everything every season and then trade them internationally. How will that change?

Activism is all well and good, but GM and Mxxxxxxo are small in the big picture and probably getting smaller. Remember that they have to invest millions in a cultivar just to get it to a commercial seed stage. How many cultivars can they do that with? And they and their timing are going to be wrong how often? Monsanto is not a juggernaut, it is a riverboat gambler. The bigger it gets, the bigger it bets. For better or worse, some gardener in China has a seed that is better than what Mxxxxxxo has got, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world finds out about it.
In Japan, a single pumpkin seed can sell for hundreds of dollars. Mxxxxxxo has not moved in on that action, and it never will. The market is fuelled by enthusiasts and connisseurs. If the market gets cornered, people will immediately lose interest.
Viewed in terms of sheer greed, it is in Mxxxxxxo's interest to maintain wild type specimens in environments all over the world. Even if Mxxxxxxo could sell one type of tomato seed that would make all others extinct, it would not do it. Has anyone considered that?

Well, I guess that is enough. I could give 20 more examples. Viewed from a wider perspective, food diversity has never been better. And I will not be buying Mxxxxxxo stock. I should watch more TV, it sounds very entertaining.

I think many foods are "Excint" that is from ever seeing them in the grocery store. What can we really get from the super market today? Every store has the same tomato, the same orange carrots, the same red or green apples.. the same the same.

and GM food I'm totally against. Why would I want to put BT in my stomach? That is insane.. I dont mind GM cotton or anything liek that, But if its something I'm putting in my body then you got to take a word from me..of course those big agri businesses will ignore us to pigs fly. they dont really care. They care about $.

toogreen, just reverse your point of view and you will no longer be baffled!

To nitpick your medievel european scenario, gunter and earnest probably were eating kale rather than heading cabbage, non-bulbing onion, parsnips rather than turnips, more dairy than pork, and perhaps some wheat and rye bread if they were a bit prosperous. Oat porridge if it were archie in scotland or sven in sweden. And quite a bit of seasonal berries, apples, pears, plums and various other semi-wild tree fruits.

But of course your point that the average person's diet became far more varied in the centuries after the melding of new and old world plant varieties is a truism. That is simply history now. The question is, has the basic diversity and genetic vigor of food plants, developed by humans, in total over the whole planet peaked and now in decline? I'm pretty certain the answer is yes. Disastrously so? Probably not. No food-plant family is in serious danger that I know of, with the possible exception of maize due to it's not having any analog whatsoever outside of direct human maintenance.