SEEDS STUDY

4 / 40

SOMMAIRE
4
As Shiva et al write in “Law of the Seed 4” : “Currently no more than 120 cultivated species provide 90%of
human food supplied by plants, and 12 plant species and five animal species alone providemore than 70%
of all human food. A mere four plant species (potatoes, rice, maize and wheat) and three animal species
(cattle, swine and chickens) provide more than half. Hundreds of thousands of farmers’ heterogeneous
plant varieties and landraces, that existed for generations in farmers’ fields until the beginning of the
twentieth century, have been substituted by a small number of modern and highly uniform commercial
varieties. The loss of agricultural biodiversity has drastically reduced the capability of present and future
generations to face unpredictable environmental changes and human needs.”
Commenting on thewhy biodiversity is important, they continue: “…meta-analyses published since 20055
have shown that, as a general rule, reductions in the number of genes, species and functional groups of
organisms reduce the efficiency by which whole [ecological] communities capture biologically essential
resources (nutrients, water, light, prey), and convert those resources into biomass. Thus biodiversity
increases the stability of ecosystem functions through time.”
We need that rapidly-eroding genetic diversity, a vital part of agro-biodiversity, for our long term food
security, in order to mitigate risks of pest attack and crop failure from increased extreme weather
events, and also to maintain genetic capital to adapt around challenges like climate change. We see
breeding moving out of the hands of the users, the farmers who for many centuries have adapted seed
to their own local climatic needs, and instead innovation risks becoming the exclusive preserve of the
corporations, who are intent on promoting and providing for a market of industrial scale production, with
tailor-made dependency on agrochemicals. The same interests who own the seed monopolies are those
of the agro-chemical sector, indeed in some cases they are the same companies, in others the money
used to develop seeds comes from the agro-chemical sector in an open collaboration.
If we look to the USA, we can see what a really concentrated seed market dominated by a few players
looks like. One of the consequences is increased input costs for farmers, particularly the price of seeds:
USA’s Department of Agriculture figures show there have been real increases in seed prices paid by
farmers in the USA. The 2009 report “Out of Hand” of the “National Family Farm Coalition” stated:
“This level of concentration has proven problematic, reducing choice and increasing prices for the
average American farmer.6”
There are also consequences for research and development (R&D). According to a study by the
USA’s Department of Agriculture: “The most rapid increase in R&Dwas in crop breeding/biotechnology.
Generally, the largest four to eight firms in each sector accounted for about three-fourths of the R&D
in that sector ($19.7 billion in 2007), with larger firms spending more than smaller firms on R&D as a
CONCENTRATION OF MARKET POWER IN THE EU SEED MARKET
4. Shiva et al, 2013, The law of the Seed, Navdanya International, p. 9,
5. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB,
Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S, 2012, Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity, Nature 486: 59-67
6. Kristina Hubbard, 2009, Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry,