Suzanne Nelson, Native Seeds/SEARCH

Suzanne Nelson is director of conservation and seed bank curator at Native Seeds/SEARCH in Tucson, Ariz.

Native Seeds/SEARCH was the focus of a feature article in a local newspaper yesterday. Though this one was nicely done, there's almost always something that's not quite right -- out of context or a slight variation on what was actually said. One gentleman came into the NS/S retail store yesterday simply to refute the article's statement that no more traditional Havasupai farmers existed and that no one in the tribe farms the old way. He assured us that his Havasupai friends with gardens would be interested to know they didn't exist.

The larger point is simply that for many Native American tribes, assimilation into "western" culture has meant a loss of many traditions, not only of crops but also the associated knowledge and use of them. A few years ago, NS/S began to record and organize cultural information -- the songs, oral histories, planting information, recipes -- associated with the nearly 2,000 collections of traditional crops in the seed bank. The Cultural Memory Bank is an extension of the seed bank and combines the geneticist's concern with conserving genes for unique plant traits with the folklorist's concern for conserving oral history.

Interviews have been conducted with Tohono O'odham, Mountain Pima, Tarahumara, Mayo, and Navajo farmers. We are currently working on a CD-ROM that will contain information about Navajo agriculture and traditions so young Navajo students may learn about their agricultural heritage and hear it in their own language. The program includes text, photographs, drawings, and audio clips (in Navajo) from interviews, songs, oral histories, and stories about Navajo crops, foods, legends, and history. It is our hope that the CD will be available for piloting in two Navajo schools next year. A number of Navajo educators and other professionals have helped with interviews and reviewing material so that it is sensitive to Navajo cultural issues and consistent with traditional Navajo educational philosophy.


















The article addresses several other important issues, issues that affect us all. Terminator technology, genetically engineered plants, and genetically modified plants are big buzzwords in environmental circles today -- in fact, even in mainstream media circles. And rightly so. For the most part, we don't have a clear understanding of what long-term environmental or health-related problems may result from their use. Recent research has claimed that pollen from Bt corn (corn engineered to contain the Bacillus thurengensis gene, which kills at least some lepidoptera species, like corn earworms) will kill monarch butterflies (which also happen to be lepidopterans). Criticism of the study suggests that because it was performed in a lab and exposed monarchs to quantities of pollen larger than those that might be found in natural settings, it's not necessarily indicative of what might happen in nature. And while that might be the case, it is my understanding that much of our current "knowledge" about cancer-causing agents derives from experiments conducted in labs involving exposure of mice and other animals to larger than normal doses of the agent under study. Yet many of our drug and health-related regulations are based on precisely these types of studies. So if it's acceptable to base cancer-causing regulations on these types of studies, why isn't it acceptable to base food production regulations on them? The only potential harm to be done by being cautious is to someone's profit margin.

The degree to which chemicals have infiltrated our everyday lives is certainly an issue we should all be aware of, though being chemical in nature doesn't make an object bad. My father-in-law, a chemist, always gets his feathers ruffled when he hears people (who are usually not chemists) talk about "organic" versus "inorganic" pesticides. If it's got carbon in it, it's organic. Doesn't matter whether it was produced in a lab or not, he says. (Although, according to the 1966 dictionary I just looked it up in, "organic" was "formerly" used to refer only to chemicals existing in or derived from living organisms. I wonder when "formerly" was?). He and I have these conversations from time to time because pesticide use, of any kind, is an issue for most folks here at NS/S.

NS/S has always tried to produce seed by organic methods. We don't use synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, or herbicides. We use lots of compost, fish emulsion or meal, and horse manure, at least as long as I've been here. We have used garlic/chile sprays, Safers' Soap, and hand-picking for some insect problems. We've also used ladybugs and lace wings. We have no history of using "inorganic" chemicals. The theoretical quandary that haunts us is this: What should we do if the last individuals of an heirloom crop variety in our fields are in danger of succumbing to an insect or disease? How far should we intervene? Do we let a crop variety go extinct simply because the product that might save it for all of humankind was derived in a lab, or because it might kill beneficial insects as well, or even because it might hang around in the soil for 10 years? How does 10 years compare to forever? And what do we tell the original stewards of that variety, or their descendants, if it goes extinct? There are choices, though none without potentially negative consequences. The extreme choices are to let it go extinct or nuke it with an "inorganic," though effective, treatment. Maybe there's something in between, like IPM (integrated pest management). My own hope is that we're never faced with the situation.

NS/S's origins derive from an attempt to bring traditional crops back to interested Tohono O'odham farmers -- the crops their grandparents had grown. It's a focused mission, though there are many ways of achieving it. By safeguarding and promoting the seeds of the past, we hope to also be providing the seeds of the future.