Debunking Myths around Regen: Using non-GM seeds automatically grants farmers more sovereignty and control

This blog post is part of a collaborative series between Materra and Cotton Diaries aimed at debunking misconceptions surrounding regenerative agriculture. In this third and final article, we dive into Myth #3: Using non-GM seeds automatically grants farmers more sovereignty and control

Is having access to non-GM (or traditional) seed a mark of farmer sovereignty? Or could it be a case of one special interest (agribusiness) against another (ethical fashion)? This might seem a little David versus Goliath, but the ethical fashion sector has an interest in non-GM seed for its premium markets, and to showcase its pro-farmer credentials. Contentious? Sure. But farmers often seem to be mere onlookers in decisions that shape the cotton sector and approaches to regenerative agriculture. However, like most things in sustainability and cotton, it’s not that simple. 

Farmer sovereignty is the choice of what to grow, when, where, and how. To grow or not to grow. It is also being able to influence decisions relating to farming and markets. To be consulted and heard by decision-makers. To choose seeds and inputs. To save them, breed them, or at the very least to influence research. To adapt planting to climate, weather, and season. 

Seeds originate from farmer and community knowledge, which is public. Farmer-scientists have observed, selected, bred, tested, and maintained seeds, and shared them. Much of the germ-plasm used today in private and government research is the result of lifetimes of citizen, public, and people’s science. 

Farmer discovery is the mother of invention. Legally, discovery cannot be patented because it is something that is observed, but it is not something that has been created. This is why companies try to take ownership of existing seeds: they use them to create new, modified varieties that can be patented and legally protected. In other words, companies rely on these discoveries to develop something they can claim as an invention and profit from. Science is about discovering how things work, like learning that fermented flour and water make dough rise. Similarly, if you plant the seed from the wild cotton with the longest and strongest fibres, the resulting fibres will be longer and stronger than others. That you can make fishing nets from it. Bags. Handy little strings with knots as a way to record knowledge and messages. It belongs to no one and everyone. It was considered a public good until patent law really got going in the imperial and industrial eras, introduced to turn these shared resources into private property, allowing companies to profit from them for longer periods of time.

Cotton and many other global commodity seeds are now considered a private good, owned and patented by companies, and developed on company campuses and in universities, then marketed by private companies (early ones effectively granted monopolies). 

Where science and knowledge are neutral (they just are), their application is not: it is economic and political. GMOs give agribusiness greater power over markets they already dominate, and reduce the value of farmer knowledge. Seed companies are often part of agrochemical companies who like to sell packages of inputs to farmers: seeds, pesticides, and fertilisers. That's only for seeds. 

The need to ensure consistent spinning dictated the use of medium staple-length cotton varieties in the colonial era, serving the needs of industry and plantations, not smallholders and their land. Cotton is a product of industry’s search for streamlined costs. It's why seed saving is not typical, and Upland dominates the market (that, and colonisation and empire). This shapes what cotton spinners request from ginners and farmers, dictating the specific qualities and blends they need for their production.

In cotton, industry requirements for uniform fibre, consistent quality, and the legacy of colonialism mean that farmers have long lost control over seed. Seed goes to gins. In some cases, rare but best, some seed comes back from there to farmers. In others, it goes to breeders, who grow and then harvest cotton seed for planting under strict quality control. In countries like India, only hybrids are available, with decision making even further removed from farmers in terms of control. But ginning, where cotton lint is separated from cotton seed, means seed saving is not an easy option. Further, the need to adapt to changing pest, disease and climatic conditions means new varieties of seed are also being bred. This is one reason why just focusing on supplying non-GMO seed to farmers is a little simplistic. Farmers would still not be saving their own seed. 

The last thing of concern is what farmers want and how the land is cared for. 

Ethical fashion’s response has been in part to promote the use of Non-GM seeds, with the argument that this promotes farmer sovereignty, or reduces the dependence of farmers on technology providers but of course, the reality is that a lack of sovereignty disturbs certification programmes.

Sustainable brands want non-GMO seeds because their market demands them. It’s true that many farmers like growing without chemicals too however, so it is not just a question of someone with more power dictating. Sustainable markets can be more secure. But it’s not an equal relationship: standards requiring no GMOs were created without input from small farmers in the majority world, meaning these farmers often have little say in the rules they are expected to follow. Programs like Fairtrade, which come closest to supporting farmers, tend to focus more on income and rights rather than other aspects. They may even be flexible in areas like GM contamination, ensuring that farmers aren’t penalized for issues beyond their control.