Much of what I read about agriculture is a convoluted narrative in service of some activist agenda. There is sometimes a smattering of real information underneath the cruft, but it is fragmented and selected to advance the agenda rather than inform the reader.

The first hybrid cauliflower was introduced in 1983. Before that time production was based on seed from open-pollinated populations raised on farms by growers who often specialized in seed production for their neighbours. While conventional growers were quick to adopt the range of F1 hybrids that the seed companies offered, organic farmers found themselves increasingly neglected.

They want seed breeders to respect both “the natural characteristics of species” and the “integrity of the organism”. The F1 hybrids, which require a form of male sterility developed by fusing two different types of cell, do neither. But conventional seed breeders do not find it worthwhile to develop varieties for organic farmers, a small market that actively seeks diversity and autonomy from the seed companies.

There are no "natural characteristics" of domesticated foods. They are, by definition, unnatural. The most that can be said is that the alteration of the "natural characteristics" was done using pre-industrial methods. Similarly, whatever integrity such organisms can be said to have are human constructs and have no objective worth. It's tradition, which has value to some, but not more.

Seed companies are always happy to produce any seed that has a significant market. The issue here isn't "organic", it is anti-capitalist, as will become apparent later.

The organic farmers of Brittany are well organized. They have a professional body, Inter Bio Bretagne, and a research organization called PAIS (Plateforme Agrobiologique d’Inter Bio Bretagne à Suscino). The French National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA) has undertaken organic research since 1999 and in 2004 limited European Union support became available. the organic farmers and scientists decided to develop the brassica varieties they needed.

All of the money and resources spent on this effort could easily have enticed existing seed companies to develop specialty varieties, but that would not have accomplished to real objective.

The research side of developing new varieties was going well when, according to the researchers, “the next step occurred spontaneously in the field”. Farmers realized that although agricultural biodiversity, breeding and selection could give them the varieties they sought, they would then have to assure themselves of a supply of seed. “Some of them remembered having seen a father or grandfather producing and breeding seed.” Alas, they “did not remember the traditional know-how or were too young”. And the traditional methods covered only the traditional crops, not the new introductions.

Working together, the farmers and their advisers are tackling these issues. They have introduced new varieties, with a label that mentions the role of PPB in their development. And they have re-established specialist seed farmers who supply seed for all in a collective framework.

This is hardly spontaneous, it's the heart of the agenda, and would not occur without subsidy.

The authors of the paper describe how poor farmers “from the Andes to the Himalayas and beyond” have made use of participatory plant breeding and have adapted local laws to make seed available to poor farmers. Europe lags far behind. As the authors say, “French seed legislation represents a limitation on the development of seed exchange by PPB”.

Poor farmers? In Europe? Only for very small values of "poor", and only if one disregards the overweening welfare state.

I find this sort of spin to be offensive. A legitimate argument can be made for diversity and maintenance of heirloom varieties, but the gratuitous bashing of main stream agriculture and the insidious domination of the state bureaucracy are unnecessary to that objective. In the USA similar things are achieved entirely by enthusiasts on their own dime, and are sometimes "mainstreamed" by industrial agribusiness serving a growing market for such. The same could be done in Europe or elsewhere except that they are so regulated that doing so is illegal.

That's the real issue here. Regulations are so comprehensive that nothing is ever spontaneous and nothing can exist without state involvement. More's the pity since it is the truly spontaneous efforts of creative individuals and communities of like minded enthusiasts that are responsible for many of our most interesting and valuable advances. And when those creations prove to be widely valued they are easily mainstreamed, benefiting large numbers of people. For activists this is intolerable. The last thing they want is for the things they advocate to come to be.