우리가 개발한 고추 종자, 외국서 수입 왜?
Golden Seed Project, Seed was and monopolization
옛말에 농부는 기근으로 굶어죽는 한이 있어도 이듬해 뿌릴 씨앗을 남겨 머리에 베고 죽는다 할 정도로 농민에게 씨앗은 목숨과 바꿀 정도의 소중한 존재다. 오늘날 우리 농민들에겐 베고 죽고 싶어도 그럴 만한 씨앗이 부족하다. 내 땅에 뿌릴 주요 종자의 상당 부분을 다른 나라에서 사 오는 판이다. 선진국보다 종자 개발 노력을 상대적으로 소홀히 한데다 근래 우리 종자의 소유권이 대거 외국에 넘어간 탓이다.
채소나 과일을 먹을 때 무심코 지나쳤던 씨앗, 하지만 금보다 비싼 씨앗이 있다. 일부 파프리카나 고품질 토마토의 씨앗은 g당 가격이 같은 양의 금보다 비싸게 거래되고 있다고 한다. 이는 해외의 기업들이 종자 사업에 뛰어들어 지식재산권을 사들이면서 일어나고 있는 현상으로 올해부터 10년간 로열티 8000억 내야한다. 씨앗 수입 막히면 청양 고추도 못 먹을 판 이다. 하루가 다르게 치솟는 가격 탓에 농민들의 시름이 날로 깊어지고 있습니다. 게다가 일부 국가에서는 생명공학이나 바이오 기술이 적용되면서 인재를 확보하고 막대한 자본을 투자하고 있어 경쟁이 보다 치열해지고 있어 미래의 식량 문제와 직결되는 총성 없는 전쟁을 벌이고 있다.
톡 쏘는 매운맛이 그만인 ‘청양 고추’, 아삭아삭하기로 유명한 ‘금싸라기 참외’, 당도 높은 ‘삼복 꿀수박’. 이들의 공통점은 무얼까. 얼핏 신토불이 토종 같지만 실은 외국에서 씨앗을 들여다 재배한 농산물이다.
청양 고추는 우리가 개발한 종자인데 이를 보유한 회사가 외국에 팔리면서 역수입하는 처지가 됐다. 삼복 꿀수박 종자는 최근 우리 업체가 외국회사에서 되사들여 우리가 다시 주인이 됐다.
농림수산식품부에 따르면 외국 업체가 소유한 종자의 국내 시장 점유율은 50%를 웃돈다. 전남대 김성길 교수는 “우리 밥상에 오르는 농산물의 절반 이상이 외국 업체의 종자를 쓴다고 보면 된다”고 말했다.
인도에서는 지난 10년간 해외 씨앗 특허 공세로 피폐해진 농민 15만 명이 목숨을 끊었다는 우울한 집계도 있다. 지금 전 세계에서는 우량 종자를 확보하거나 새롭게 개발하기 위해 많은 노력을 기울이고 있습니다. 국제식물신품종보호연맹(UPOV)에 따라 종자로 작물을 재배하기 위해서는 재산권을 가지고 있는 국가에 로열티를 지급해야 하기 때문에 올해부터는 더 많은 돈이 들어간다. 우리나라도 종자 개발권자를 보호하는 국제식물신품종보호동맹(UPOV)이란 국제기구에 2002년 가입했는데 10년의 로열티 예외 품목 유예기간이 끝났다. 올해부터 모든 외국 씨앗에 대해 로열티를 물어야 한다. 농림부에 따르면 그 금액이 향후 10년간 8000억원에 달할 전망이다. 우리나라도 직접 개발한 신품종에 대해 법적인 보호를 받을 수 있게 되었지만 외환위기(IMF) 당시 5대 종자 기업 중 4곳이 다국적 기업에 인수되면서 종자에 대한 재산권과 관련 인력들이 해외로 넘어간 상황이다.
청양고추는 한국을 대표하는 농산물 중 하나로 생각하기 쉽지만, 현재 청양고추의 주인은 다국적 종자회사인 ‘몬산토’다. 청양고추를 개발한 ‘중앙종묘’가 외환위기 직후 멕시코의 한 종자 회사로 넘어갔다가 이를 다시 몬산토가 인수하게 되었기 때문에 우리 농민들은 청양고추를 심으려면 몬산토에 로열티를 지불해야 하며, 만약 몬산토에서 씨앗을 팔지 않으면 우리나라에서 청양고추를 재배할 수 없는 상황이 벌어지게 됩니다.
한국 식탁 점령한 외국 종자!
비단 토종 종자의 재산권이 해외로 넘어간 것은 청양고추뿐만은 아니다. 무, 배추 등 토종 채소 종자의 50%가 양파, 당근, 토마토 종자는 80%가 인수 과정에서 해외로 넘어가게 되면서 우리나라에서 재배되고 있지만 재산권 보유국에 로열티를 지불하고 있습다. 2006년부터 2015년까지 최근 10년간 우리나라에서 해외로 지급된 로열티는 약 1,457억원에 달한다.
최고의 크리스마스 트리! 구상나무
좀 더 먼 과거에서도 종자를 빼앗긴 사례를 찾아볼 수 있다. 그것은 바로 매 년 겨울 전 세계 곳곳에서 볼 수 있는 크리스마스 트리에 사용되는 구상나무다. 구상나무는 크리스마스 트리로 사용하는 나무 중에서도 으뜸으로 손꼽히는 나무인데, 미국에서 자라난 나무라 생각하기 쉽지만, 우리나라 지리산 등지에서만 자생하던 토종 나무였다. 그러다 1915년 선교를 위해 우리나라를 찾은 유럽의 신부들이 구상나무 종자를 가지고 가서 현재의 크리스마스 트리로 개량한 것이다. 크리스마스 시즌이 다가오면 전세계적으로 구상나무에 대한 엄청난 수요가 발생하지만, 그 수익을 거둬들이는 나라는 우리나라가 아닌 미국이라고 한다.
이처럼 우리나라가 종자 자원을 잃어가는 동안, 세계 종자 시장은 10년 동안 2배에 가까운 성장세를 보이면서 그 중요성이 더욱 부각되어 왔습니다. 이에 따라 글로벌 종자 기업들은 흡수와 합병을 통해 시장 점유율을 확대해 나가고 있다. 이미 상위 10개 종자 기업의 세계 시장 점유율이 75%를 넘어서는 등 과점 현상이 심화되어가고 있음은 물론, 유전공학을 이용해 한번 재배한 식물의 2세대 씨앗이 싹트지 않게 즉 씨앗이 한 번밖에 발아할 수 없도록 터미네이터 종자를 개발해서 씨앗을 한 번 수입했다고 계속 쓸 수 있는 것이 아니라 해마다 사 와야 한다.
종자는 농림수산업의 기초 자재에 해당한다. 한국농수산대학의 오대근 교수는 “종자 기반이 흔들리면 농림수산업의 성장동력이 약해진다”고 말했다. 뛰어난 재배기술을 갖춰도 내 종자가 아니면 한계가 있다.김성길 교수는 “지구온난화 등 기후 변화로 인해 앞으로 종자 분야의 신축적 대응이 점점 중요해질 것이다. 대응력이 떨어지면 식량주권, 나아가 국가안보마저 불안해진다”고 경고했다. 그러나 우리나라는 농업의 종자 주권은 허약하기 그지없다.
종자 의존국에서 종자 주도국으로!
세계 종자 시장 규모는 2010년 현재 약 700억 달러다. 거대 자본을 앞세운 다국적 기업들은 기업 인수합병(M&A)을 통해 덩치를 불리고 있다. 미국 몬산토 등 10대 종자업체의 세계 시장 점유율은 70%에 달한다. 우리나라도 토종 종자를 개발하기 위에 많은 노력을 기울여 왔으나, 산업 기반 자체가 해외로 많이 빠져나간 만큼 글로벌에 많이 뒤처져 있다. 국내 종자업계는 여전히 영세하다. 950개 업체 중 종업원 수 10명 이상인 곳은 23개에 불과하다. 국내 1위 업체 농우바이오의 지난해 매출액은 555억원으로 세계 최대인 몬산토의 약 13조원에 비할 수 없을 정도다. 영세업체들은 종자 개발은 고사하고 유사품종을 복제해 헐값에 유통시키는 수준에 머물고 있다. 새로운 종자를 개발하는 데는 짧게는 10년, 길게는 20년의 연구 기간이 걸린다고 한다.
국내 R&D 예산, 몬산토의 30분의 1로 규모가 영세하니 연구개발(R&D) 여력도 취약하다. 국내 종자 산업 육성을 위한 R&D 예산은 535억원으로 몬산토 1조5000억원의 30분의 1 수준이다. 동부그룹 계열 농업·식품업체인 동부팜한농이 이달 중순 몬산토코리아의 자산을 인수하면서 무·배추·양파 등 250가지 종자의 사업권을 넘겨받았다. 하지만 고추·토마토·파프리카 등 부가가치가 높은 핵심 종자는 확보하지 못했다.
Golden Seed Project
이에 정부에서는 종자 산업의 중요성을 인식하고, 미래성장 산업으로 육성하기 위해 Golden Seed Project 프로젝트를 진행하고 펀드를 개설해 종자 주도국이 되는 것을 목표로 하고 있습니다.
Golden Seed란 머리말에서 설명했던 금값 이상의 가치를 가진 고부가가치 종자를 의미한다. Golden Seed Project는 정부에서 종자 산업을 적극 육성하기 위해 진행하는 프로젝트로 농림축산식품부, 해양수산부, 농촌진흥청, 산림청이 힘을 모아 채소, 원예, 수산, 종축(번식용 가축) 등 5개 사업단을 구성해 금보다 비싼 종자를 개발하기 위한 전략형 종자 사업이다. 토종 종자의 보호와 신품종 개발은 물론, 종자 수출을 확대하고 실용화 방안을 검토하는 등 종자 관련 산업의 근간이 되고 있다.
오늘은 미래의 식량문제와 직결되어 있는 종자전쟁에 대해 소개해 드렸습니다. 전세계의 인구는 갈수록 늘어나는데 반해, 지구 온난화로 인해 경작 면접은 좁아지고 있다고 하는데요. 여기에 식량 자원화까지 진행되고 있는 만큼 종자의 중요성은 날로 커져가고 있습니다. 우리의 식량 주권을 지켜내기 위해 정부뿐만 아니라 기업은 물론, 우리들의 관심이 필요한 시점이 아닐까 싶다.
Seed wars and monopolization: the case of Monsanto
The Genetically Modified (GM) seeds world has been facing a serious threat: that of monopolization, resulting in “seed wars” across the world. In 2013, Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State University and creator of the popular Who owns Organics info-graphic showed that Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta controlled over half of the global seeds production, a sharp rise since 1996 when the top three corporations in the global seed industry controlled 22% of the industry. GM crop cultivation is predominantly limited to a few countries: 90% of GM crops are grown in the US, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada.
The “big four” biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences—own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. This movement away from a competitive market to one that is an oligopoly or even worse, a monopoly is evident from the fact that the largest and the best known company of these, Monsanto, licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed companies and as a result, more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year are attributable to Monsanto. The Department of Justice in the US investigated Monsanto’s dominance of the seed market in 2010 but failed to take any action.
Monsanto’s legacy includes the production of herbicides RoundUp and Agent Orange (used during the Vietnam War and later proved to be a carcinogenic), banned substance DDT, and saccharine (artificial sweetener). In mid-90s it started producing GM crops such as soybeans, alfalfa, sugar beets, and wheat. These crops were immune to its leading weed killer, Roundup. That meant that farmers no longer had to till the land to kill weeds, as they had been doing for hundreds of years. They could simply blast their entire fields with chemicals, leaving GM crops the only thing standing. Monsanto then patented the seeds. Since 1980s, Monsanto has won 674 biotechnology patents according to US Department of Agriculture data, much more than any other company has.
However, the usage of GM seeds imposes additional indirect costs on the farmers. Traditionally farmers were able to save money every year by replanting seeds produced in the previous year’s planting. Monsanto’s contracts prohibited them from using these, implying that the farmers had to purchase new seeds every year from Monsanto or face penalties worth millions of dollars. Monsanto engaged in spying and intimidating farmers to prevent them from replanting seeds. Traditional seed varieties were pushed out of the market making it impossible for farmers to cultivate non-GM seed varieties, since Monsanto bought two major traditional seeds companies in 2005. Since 1996 Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed hundreds of lawsuits against farmers alleging violation of its patent rights. Most farmers settle and pay an amount in damages as they don’t have the time or the money to pursue the case.
According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, the average per-acre cost of soybean and corn seed in the country increased 325% and 259%, respectively, between 1995 and 2011. This corresponds to the time period when acreage of GM corn and soy grew from less than 20% to more than 80-90%. Moreover, the crops do not command a higher price once they are grown and continuously increasing pesticide usage adds to costs for farmers. A US Department of Agriculture Report and a 2009 study by Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, confirmed that commercial GM crops do not increase the intrinsic or potential yield of any crop. Instead, pests become increasingly resistant to them. Since GM crops were introduced in 1996, pesticide usage has increased by 404 million pounds. Sales of a corn-soil insecticide produced by Syngenta, one of the world’s largest pesticide makers, more than doubled in 2012, due to the increased resistance to Monsanto’s pesticide.
The effects have not been limited to the US alone. According to Consumers International, around 270,000 small-holding farmers were forced to grow GM corn in the Philippines and ended up in debt as the cost of corn seeds rose 282% from its introductory price. In India, farmer suicides by farmers cultivating Bt Brinjal were attributed to the increasing cost of seeds and pesticide use. In 2011, 90% of total area of cotton production was under Bt cotton, an insect-resistant variety. However, the bollworm pest which plagued cotton and initiated farmers to shift to Bt cotton eventually became resistant to Bt cotton. However, a greater threat faces our food supply system. In 2012, Christian Krupke, a professor of entomology at Purdue University, showed that neo-nics which had been used to treat Monsanto’s GM corn, led to the collapse of bee colonies which threatens the entire food system since one-quarter of the human diet is pollinated by bees.
GM crops have faced greater resistance across the world than in the US. Mass mobilizations in Haiti restricted Monsanto’s donation of GM seeds after the Haitian earthquake to protect their small farmers and the food sovereignty in the country. The European Union imports 30 million tons of GM crops annually for livestock feed, but it has approved only two GM crops for human consumption- Monsanto’s MON810 maize and BASF’s Amflora potatoes. Several countries in Europe now have national bans on these two despite the European Commission’s opposition to these bans. Between 2008 and 2010, the total area of agricultural land under GM crops in the EU declined by 23%. In 2010, a moratorium was imposed on Bt Brinjal in India, restricting Monsanto from commercializing an Indian staple food. In 2011, the Indian government’s National Biodiversity Authority took legal action against Mahyco Monsanto for biopiracy alleging that the company had used six local varieties of brinjal for the development of Bt Brinjal without essential approvals. In Latin America and the Caribbean countries like Haiti, Brazil, Argentina and Peru, movements and local communities are fighting for bans on GM seeds and pesticides, and for food sovereignty and independent local control of seeds and agriculture. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the US does not require genetically modified foods to carry a label, but organic food companies and some consumer groups have intensified their push for labels arguing that they have a right to know what their food is made up of, and this has been supported by consumers who are averse to processed and modified foods.
The problem of seed and food monopoly does not have easy answers. Whoever controls the seed supply of the world ends up controlling the food supply of the world. Independent and uninfluenced research will go a long way in paving the way for future developments and from preventing the monopolization of agriculture by unscrupulous companies as has happened in the case of the US. The fact that developing countries depend much more on agriculture than the developed countries makes this issue one of equitable distribution of income and resources for them and therefore, agriculture in these countries cannot be ruled by the profit making motives of global organizations. A much more careful analysis is needed of the impact of this ‘industrialized’ agriculture on the smallest of farmers.
Are seed patent protections abused by Monsanto and other agro-corporations?For 85 years, the same patent protection that covers all other inventions, from new processes to new machines, has applied to seeds, plants and other agricultural products. It's been the beating heart of innovation, recognized around the globe. However, anti-GMO activists now steadfastly insist that genetic engineering is using patent protection to stifle innovation and diversity.
Activists claim that patents prevent farmers who use legally protected seeds from being able to keep these seeds from their harvest to be used in subsequent years—which is true. Philosopher and anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva blames patents for strangling biodiversity.
Corporate-led industrial monocultures are destroying biodiversity, and we are losing access to the food systems that have sustained us throughout time. When we consider the number of patents involved in these initiatives, it becomes all too clear that the only beneficiaries of these supposedly ‘people-led’ ventures are large companies operating for profit — not for people.
Do they have a case?
What have patents wrought?
Patents, or at least some sort of protection from copying somebody else’s invention, go back to at least the Middle Ages. In the United States just after the Revolutionary War, intellectual property protection was written into the new constitution, and almost as soon as the ink had dried on that document, the 1790 Patent Act was passed. The law defined a U.S. patent as “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement thereon not before known or used.” It granted the applicant the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used" of his invention.
Initially, patent protections were not adopted by agriculture, except in the use of new farming tools. The idea of patenting seeds was not even considered. Until the very early 20th century, farmers did not purchase seeds; there was almost nobody to purchase them from!
Typically, a farmer kept seeds from previous harvests and reused them, or shared seeds with neighbors. They did get some government help, too. As farmers moved west to settle the new United States, the Patent Office and later, the Department of Agriculture, distributed seeds to farmers for free. Between 1890 and 1897, some 10 million packages of seeds were given out. While this practice helped create more predictable production, it did not foster innovation.
Growers of asexually reproducing plants (such as apples, pears or roses) had unique problems. They too, could keep and graft successful fruits onto a new generation of trees, but this process could take years to determine which grafts were the best. In addition, it was a simple thing for somebody to take a new type of fruit and graft it onto a host of trees with no recognition of (or payment to) the original breeder. Nursery owners, then, pressed for passage of what eventually became the first patenting of plants, the 1930 Plant Patent Act.
The Plant Patent Act of 1930 helped usher American agriculture into the scientific age. Gregor Mendel’s paper on genetics had been rediscovered in 1900, but growers and breeders had not yet adopted these ideas to plants. That situation began to change, as protection of inventions allowed innovators to earn enough in royalties, fees and licenses to support seed research and development. Previously, this research was carried out only at land-grant universities, state experimental stations and other government agencies.
This law established patent rights for developers of new varieties of many asexually propagated plants, for example apple trees and rose bushes that are propagated by cutting pieces of the stem rather than by germinating seeds. Tuber-propagated plants, such as potatoes, were exempt from patent coverage because the part of the plant used for asexual propagation was also the part used as food. Similar laws were passed in Europe in subsequent years.
Patent laws were expanded with the 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act to include sexually reproducing plants (most notably, their seeds). This act is a voluntary program that has provided patent-like rights to breeders, developers and owners of plant varieties. The amended act also added protection to potatoes and other tuber crops. The primary purpose of the PVPA is to ensure that developers of varieties would benefit and be able to recover research cost. Without it, the only protection available to breeders was the biological protection of inbreds used for hybrid seed production; hence, the act was passed to encourage the development of new non-hybrid varieties.
Patents today
Without protection of intellectual property, such innovations, in conventional farming as well as in genetic engineering, would be far less likely, due to the ability of copiers to simply take somebody else’s work as their own after the inventor spent years and often millions of dollars in development costs.
Patents on plants are still not as plentiful as patents on other inventions. According to a Department of Agriculture report, more than 18,000 plant patents were granted to inventors between 1990 and 2014. Of those, 6,658 were filed by U.S. corporations, 7,468 were filed by foreign corporations, 1,955 by U.S. individuals, and 1,892 by foreign individuals. In 2014 a total of 1,072 plant patents were granted, compared to 326,000 patent grants in total.
For a patent to hold, the innovation must be novel, non-obvious, and usable. Once the US Patent Office has approved a patent application, it holds for between 17 and 20 years, although extensions can be made for further innovations on an original invention. Ironically, one of the most common targets of intellectual property anti-GMO critics, Monsanto's Roundup-Ready seeds and plants, just lost its patent protection. The University of Arkansas in 2015 released a public version of what was once Roundup Ready soybean seeds, available without fees and for saving and replanting in multiple harvests.
Saving versus spending turned sideways
Patents do prevent farmers from saving and reusing patented seeds, particularly highly productive GMO and non-GMO hybrids, some of which are used by organic farmers. But how many farmers actually save seeds? Or want to save seeds but are denied the opportunity because of the patent laws?
The anti-GMO lobby uses this argument against Monsanto and other patent-holders, claiming that companies and the patents they hold prevent farmers from reusing seeds from their harvests, forcing them into an indentured servitude of sorts wherein they are forced to buy new seeds every year. This meme is also common in the developing world; in India for example, Vandana Shiva and other GM critics contend that the country is awash in suicides because farmers are bullied into buying patented seeds and then cannot afford to repurchase them, prompting a rash of suicides. Shiva is wrong; the evidence confirms that the number of suicides in India has held steady for decades, dating to well before patented and GMO seeds were used in any great numbers.
In the developing world, it turns out that most farmers don’t save seeds, and prefer to purchase new ones each year. Why? Because the hybrids that created a uniform, vigorous crop don’t reproduce as consistently as saved seeds. Subsequent harvests from saved seeds do not show the same successful results as the original hybrids. The genes for desired traits often get reshuffled in hybrid progeny, as seen in this video:
To maintain high productivity, farmers willingly pay the extra cost to use new hybrid seeds each year. If at some point the cost of buying patented seeds exceed the return, farmers would simply stop buying. Bu with technology driving regular improvements in seed quality, this simply will not happen.
These facts put patent infringement lawsuits into a different perspective. Anti-GMO activists cite cases like Bowman vs Monsanto to illustrate what they believe is the harassment of innocent farmers who would have preferred to save seeds for subsequent harvests, and/or were the innocent victims of the wind or the odd grain silo. But the case actually illustrates the opposite of what activist claim. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that farmers could not use Monsanto’s patented genetically altered soybeans to create new seeds without paying the company a fee. SCOTUS ruled that Bowman had in effect stolen Monsanto's intellectual property and then lied about it.
📝📷 Story & image Source : LG케미토피아 & 더농부
https://post.naver.com/viewer/postView.nhn?volumeNo=10475858&memberNo=29922182
https://blog.lgchem.com/2017/11/27_seedwar/
https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=nong-up&logNo=221255967835&proxyReferer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F
Comments