Honoring the Third Fire: Investigating Claims to Ownership of Seeds as Reproducible Property

Final Report for GNC04-039

Project Type: Graduate Student
Funds awarded in 2004: $9,739.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2007
Grant Recipient: U. of Wisconsin-Madison
Region: North Central
State: Wisconsin
Graduate Student:
Faculty Advisor:
Michael Bell
Dept. of Community and Environmental Sociology, U. of Wisconsin-Madison
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

The Department of Rural Sociology at UW-Madison partnered with the White Earth reservation in Minnesota in a research program designed to investigate and facilitate the dialogue about wild rice. This program encouraged the exchange, development, and documentation of ideas about the importance of wild rice as a natural and cultural resource through interviews and participation in two day-long public meetings. These meetings explored the importance of wild rice to the Anishinaabe, to non-native communities and ecosystems in Wisconsin, and to the larger agricultural and political landscape of the United States.

Introduction:

European values and division of land disrupted Native American land tenure and agricultural systems. Land loss, along with uncountable cases of discrimination and exclusion, caused Native Americans to become one of the poorest minority groups in the country. Fewer Native Americans are farming now than ever. In 1940, sixty eight percent of the Native American labor force was employed in agriculture. Forty years later, less than six percent remained.

The Anishinaabe live primarily on reservations in the upper Midwestern United States and Central Canada. Their territory overlaps with the center of biodiversity for wild rice. The third prophesy, or the third fire, of the Anishinaabe establishes wild rice as their most important cultural and spiritual resource. Wild rice is also an important economic, medicinal, ecological, and nutritional resource for both native and non-native communities in the Midwestern United States. Wild rice is the only major North American cereal that is still harvested in the wild, and it is endemic to this region. There are numerous threats to wild rice stands such as invasive plants, dams and pollution. These threats to wild rice ecosystems have both social and economic origins and consequences.

The Anishinaabe are worried about the effects of new technologies that support the genetic engineering and commercial cultivation of wild rice. Over the past 20 years, wild rice has rapidly become a global commercial crop. This rice, although often marketed as wild, is referred to by the Anishinaabe as paddy rice. By the early 1980s, a glut of wild rice flooded the market and caused all wild rice prices to plummet. Not only was the newly emerging domesticated market affected, but the native wild rice economy was devastated as lakeside prices crashed. Paddy rice growers were forced to intensify their production and use more agricultural chemicals which pollute the lakes used for Native American harvesting.

The Anishinaabe are also concerned about the consequences that genetically engineered wild rice could have for natural stands. The Anishinaabe’s fear is that either the cultivated varieties of wild rice or the genetically engineered varieties will pollute natural stands of wild rice. The University of Minnesota is operating four wild rice research stations in the heart of natural wild rice bio-diversity. Understanding the real possibilities and consequences for the native harvest of wild rice is crucial for maintaining Anishinaabe cultural identity and quality of life. The Anishinaabe’s concerns have important implications for the sustainability of agriculture, the safety of our food supply, and social justice in the United States.

Perhaps the closest, and by now classic, study of the social impacts of biotechnology was published in the book, First the Seed (Kloppenburg 1988). In this book, Kloppenburg examines the social institutions that have developed around the seed, tracing their development and evolution from 1492 (discovery of new world), to the year 2000 (projecting into the future). By their nature, since seeds reproduce themselves, the conversion of the seed into something that is bought and sold has been a major dilemma for capitalists. Kloppenburg’s main point is to challenge prevailing assumptions about the societal costs and benefits of scientific achievements like the hard tomato, high yield hybrid corn, and frost resistant planes. He shows that developments in plant breeding and seed research have influenced enormously the rate and direction of change in agriculture on a national and global scale. Developments in plant breeding must be understood within the political and economic environment and are shaped by capitalism.

This project starts with Kloppenburg’s thesis, that seeds as reproducible property are inherently different from other commodities. Through interviews and workshops, I engaged the Anishinaabe in a dialog about their claims to ownership over the genetic resources of wild rice. What I found was that over and over again, their claims revolved around the spiritual importance of wild rice, and the scientific justification was of much less importance.

This project challenges our understanding of the social components of sustainable agriculture and suggests that we rethink the type of commitment necessary in working with marginalized rural farmer populations, specifically native populations. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of understanding “the social” for addressing the sustainability of agriculture, but more work needs to be done that directly addresses the link between sustainable agriculture and cultural survival or spiritual continuity. In addition, the “wild” nature of wild rice combined with the possibility for contamination presents new challenges for intellectual property rights and agricultural ethics.

Kloppenburg, Jr., Jack. 1988. First the Seed: the Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Project Objectives:

We will organize two day-long public meetings involving community members from the White Earth reservation and members of other Minnesota and Wisconsin reservations. The meetings will help the Anishinaabe form networks and communication channels to share their knowledge about the current status of wild rice. Through both presentations and dialogue, these meetings will explore the importance of wild rice to the Anishinaabe, to non-native communities and ecosystems in Wisconsin, and to the larger agricultural and political landscape of the United States.

We will conduct follow-up interviews with a few key community leaders.

Research

Materials and methods:

Kaelyn Stiles was the main coordinator of this project from the University of Wisconsin. Kaelyn helped coordinate and facilitate speakers and activities for two wild rice camps held on August 12-16th 2005 and September 7-9th 2007. She also has been working with Joseph LaGarde on a regular basis over the last four years. They have traveled together on the reservation (learning about important wild rice heritage sites), have attended two community powwows, and interviewed at least 10 elders.

Joe LaGarde was the main consultant for this project from the White Earth reservation. He devotes much of his time to increasing the public’s awareness of the importance of wild rice and has been doing so for 23 years. Mr. LaGarde helped facilitate the two wild rice camps held on August 12-16th 2005 and September 7-9th 2007. Kathy and Earl Hoagland were the main coordinators and facilitators of the yearly wild rice camps held on August 12-16th 2005 and September 7-9th 2007. We conducted a number of outcome evaluations after the first wild rice camp, but found that the process did not really work for the camp attendees and was not culturally appropriate.

The primary methods used for this project were participant observation and interviews. The research was conducted almost entirely on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota. The wild rice camps were held at the White Earth Rediscovery Center, an old church camp that is used by the tribe as a place for learning and rediscovery of tribal culture. The interviews were held in various locations, but for the most part they were conducted in the individuals’ homes.

Research results and discussion:

Our original plan was to host two day-long public meetings targeting community members from the White Earth reservation as well as members of other Minnesota and Wisconsin reservations. The meetings were designed to help the Anishinaabe form networks and communication channels to share their knowledge about the current status of wild rice.

However, at the beginning of the project, we learned that the White Earth Land Recovery Project had tried to host similar meetings earlier during the summer of 2004. Despite adequate planning and advertising, attendance was low. This, we believe was because of the complicated political climate on the reservation as well as the difficulty in getting people together who are spread out and have inadequate transportation options. A large proportion of the population has unreliable cars. Another reason that we changed the plan was because it became apparent that it wasn’t culturally appropriate for Kaelyn Stiles, as an outsider, to call a meeting about wild rice.

For that reason, Joe LaGarde suggested that we use an alternative arrangement. We replaced the two public meetings with more intensive participant observation and interviews at an existing wild rice camp. Joe and Kaelyn coordinated to make sure key community members were able to attend the camp to share their opinions on the protection of wild rice. We participated in three of these rice camps and had the opportunity to interact and interview Anishinaabe elders and others who are involved in disseminating information about wild rice.

Before the grant officially started, Kaelyn made four trips up to the Anishinaabe reservation accumulating information and making contacts in the community. She also attended the wild rice camps in 2004, 2005, and 2007. At these camps she talked with many people about wild rice, and participated in the actual ricing and processing. Kaelyn also made a special trip in August 2005 (12-16th) that was devoted to interviewing Anishinaabe about their thoughts on wild rice. During that trip, she attended a powwow to interview powwow participants about wild rice.

Participation Summary

Educational & Outreach Activities

Participation Summary

Education/outreach description:

Stiles, Kaelyn, Ozlem Altiok and Michael M. Bell. (Under Review) The Ghosts of Taste: Food and the Politics of Authenticity. Submitted to Sociologia Ruralis. (Upon request, a copy of this paper in its final form as accepted for publication will be forwarded.)

Project Outcomes

Project outcomes:

We talked with many members of the Anishinaabe community about wild rice. The project contributed to the political momentum of the wild rice issue and several important pieces of legislation were passed during the project’s duration. The project’s support of the wild rice camps increased the understanding of the issue for the Anishinaabe who attended these camps. It also contributed to our understanding of the importance of spirituality and cultural sensitivity with respect to the dialog about genetic engineering and intellectual property. In the future, understanding the spiritual dimension of wild rice for the Anishinaabe could change the way we think about cross cultural ethics and spirituality in intellectual property rights cases.

Economic Analysis

There was no concrete economic analysis done of the costs/ benefits of protecting wild rice from hybridization or genetic engineering.

Farmer Adoption

There were no direct changes in farmer adoption of growing cultivated rice or changes in the policy decisions about the advertisement or sale of wild rice due to this project.

Recommendations:

Areas needing additional study

More culturally appropriate outreach to the Anishinaabe, paddy rice growers, and the University of Minnesota researchers is needed to bring these perspectives together regarding both what has happened historically with wild rice, as well as potential solutions for the future.

We talked at the last wild rice camp about creating cultural sensitivity review boards at research institutions that would be trained to protect cultural traditions and spirituality that might otherwise get overlooked by human subjects review boards.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.