Hybrids don’t “need” pesticides. These seeds are locally adapted and conventionally bred. There’s no inherent need for any inputs with these or any other seeds. I discuss this in this post. The hybrids aren’t “particularly yummy for fungi”. The fungicide was applied as a normal precaution, for the reasons listed in this post. Most importantly, they were applied to prevent any potential fungus from being moved into Haiti.

The genes in the hybrids will be recombined in the F2 generation, but the genes will all still be there in the population. The resulting seed will not be uniform. Some seeds will yield well and some will not. Some will have great disease resistance, others will not. This is the exact same state that heirloom seed or creole seed has. They will be of lower quality than the initial hybrid seed but they won’t be any worse than the creole seed.

Conservation of the creole seed can happen at the same time as using hybrids. In the US there are all sorts of seed banks that exist specifically as a source for genes that are used for breeding, including breeding hybrids. One might even argue that conservation of biodiversity is essential for breeding efforts to succeed.

Your gunpowder analogy fails because the hybrids will preform well regardless of inputs. These hybrids were bred specifically for low input systems similar to those in Haiti.

The whole question here is twofold: number one, the conservation of a native strain of grain (in my eyes needed to protect the global genepool in case the uberfungus or uberpest comes along, we need flexibility, maybe Haitian seeds have the one gene that could be useful)
number two: If they had the money to buy grain, pesticides, fertilizer etc. This would all be of no consequence. But I kind of take it that they don’t. Whats the use of having High calliber hybrid seeds when you dont have the gunpowder to fire it?!?

Hi Eric, could you provide evidence of the above? Thanks, C.

It may be too late in the narrative for Monsanto to adjust its PR position for Haiti. Monsanto has bungled it for a dozen years, and that’s hard to undo.

Even so, it would be productive to point out that Haiti is getting what North Americans eat with gusto, and compare that to the mud pies (no kidding) which are a staple with impoverished Haitians. You can find Haitian mud-pie recipes (main ingredient: dirt) online quite easily.

The statements of actual farmers is completely missing from the dialog. “Actual farmers” is important. Activist groups are quite adept at claiming to “represent” farmers, and at putting forth spokespersons who claim to be farmers, but who are not. Or who are actual farmers willing to say what’s asked of them, on camera, for a few dollars.

Also, pictorials are important. Monsanto tends to rely on pictures that appeal to farmers, but it’s time to use pictures to which urbanites can relate. Pictures of what a poverty diet looks like — mud pies and the rest.

An exposure of the utter corruption within the NGO ‘protest industry’ which lies at the center of this current issue would of course be excellent. Monsanto has relied on the notion that ‘if you ignore them, they will go away’ for a dozen years, and it doesn’t work. A science-based organization should realize that doing the same thing for a dozen years and expecting different results is not the way to go.

1. The first confusion between you and me, perhaps, is on the scope of my comment, which is not specifically directed to Monsanto, but the whole industry and other actors.

2. The second is about the meaning of PR, which I do not equate with advertising (the former includes the latter).

3. “In 5,000 years of farming progress…” people in Europe have struggled for 4,950 years to make both ends meet; people and government in the US have started to enjoy the benefit of comfortable agricultural production a few decades earlier, while billions still struggle today.

4. The upshot is that today’s layman in the affluent countries is sensitive to more than price and quantity (actually, he complains about quantity because, as the political message goes, they have their origin in subsidies from their taxpayers’ money; he also complains about overfeeding and obesity and puts the blame on the food chain rather than his lifestyle). Today’s layman is also bombarded day in day out by messages from a cohort of anti-capitalism/business, environment or nutrition fundamentalists, conspiracy addicts, or simply opportunists. Actually, the situation is so bad that the luddites also have their day in countries that are struggling (e.g. in India in the Bt brinjal case or East Africa and more recently again Zimbabwe with food aid… food aid for starving people, can you believe it? “Better dead than GM fed”?).

What’s on the other side? Not much. And what exists (Biofortified among others) is inaudible and invisible except to those who do not need to be preached.

5. “Misinformation thrives in a vacuum” (Eric Baumholder). The answer to this is simple: fill the vacuum. This is precisely my point.

Let’s be realistic here. You very rightly wrote that “the press … shamelessly parrots what the whackos have to say”. Would that still hold true – to the same extent – if the press contained advertisements (and were to some extent financed, let’s put it straight) from agricultural companies who “apply innovation and technology to” ensure consumers would continue to get what they need and want?

6. A further source of misunderstanding is the fact that we do not live on the same side of the Atlantic. Our experiences are different, although they may converge in future.

7. As regards the present, GMOs are well established in the USA and Bt and herbicide-tolerant cotton, maize and soybean won’t disappear from the countryside.

In Europe, we have some pockets of Bt maize production, and nothing else. Any attempt to move forward runs against against an irrational, but well organised opposition and is regularly defeated. We might have rejoiced at the recent approval of the Amflora potato, but the European Commission is now proposing to leave member States free to decide whether or not to grow GMOs approved at Union level.

So, what will be the scenario once this has gone through (actually, it has already been sort of implemented with the Amflora approval): as soon as a GMO is approved, the antis will be able to mount their campaigns “in a vacuum” and force the political authorities to impose a ban, or conditions (e.g. in terms of coexistence with non-GMO varieties) which will make it impossible to grow the GMO.

8. This brings us to my point on citizens and voting: the “green” lobby is pressuring candidates for election into commitments to implement its demands. The choice for candidates is to sacrifice their rational thinking or their chances in the election. Again, they can do that because public opinion is moulded by one kind of message.

9. As regards the future, I am keen to see what will happen in the US with the herbicide-tolerant alfalfa and, even more so, with GMO wheat. You may end up having the same kind of political landscape than we… it is time to fill the vacuum.

Aside from the immediate details, we are also looking at an experiment involving ‘how to deliver aid the right way’. If what’s being done for Haiti actually works, it would be a model for providing aid elsewhere.

Thus, one would hope that the WINNER project is gathering data in the course of its efforts.

There are indications that Monsanto’s approach to aid is productive and effective:
http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/our_pledge/stronger_society/growing_self_sufficiency.asp

So, efforts to provide relief in Haiti deserve to be studied, and the approach validated, or not.

We can rest assured that, if Monsanto’s efforts indicate progress in the interim, the antis will claim Monsanto is “taking over” Haiti’s rural economy. Monsanto will have to deal with that in an intelligent way, and I predict that Monsanto will completely bungle the PR aftermath.

Unfortunately, there’s not enough detail to answer the very excellent questions about the program which are being posed in this discussion.

The US State Dept. has its own site on Haiti at
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/ha/ and has even less information.

The WINNER program has its own site, at http://www.winner.ht/
Stunningly uninformative.

It seems that neither the US government, nor Monsanto, understands that misinformation thrives in a vacuum.

That the seed dealers are actually farmer associations, which are being set-up with help from the US-led WINNER program. The small amount of revenue these associations receive from the seed will be used to reinvest in seed and fertilizer for the next year. As far as I know, the associations are free to supply the stores from any sources they wish, so they might choose to support local businesses, which would help boost the local economy even more. The way this donation is being distributed, it will go much further than a one time seed donation would.

Monsanto and the US government will receive 0% of the sales – it all goes back to Haitian farmers.