Unpacking the Discursive Construction of Heirloom Seeds: Discourses, Contests, Connections

Abstract

The 2006 Turkish Seed Law prohibited the selling of uncertified heirloom seeds, triggering heated debates on and around seeds. This paper examines the construction of discourses on heirloom seeds in Türkiye, focusing on the arguments of the key social actors in the field with a view to understand how knowledge production is taking place on seed. Conducting interviews with key state and non-state actors and analyzing their published documents related to heirloom seed through discourse-historical approach, we examined the argumentative perspectives shaping the discourse on seed. The results revealed a discursive dichotomy constructed between "heirloom seed" and "certified hybrid seeds." In particular, built on commercial and food security concerns, the state discourse frames heirloom seeds as low-yield and unable to feed the nation in comparison to certified hybrid seeds, whereas non-state discourse using the perspectives of agrobiodiversity and farmers’ sovereignty construct heirloom seeds with superior features, qualifying them as compatible with biodiversity and the current global and regional economic, environmental and climate problems. The study concludes that different perspectives and interests produced contradictory knowledge about seed (hence food) and caused different realities to exist simultaneously within this knowledge.

Keywords

• seed
• heirloom seed
• knowledge production
• discursive construction
• discourse-historical approach

References

1. Adaman, F., Avcı, D., Kocagöz, U., & Yeniev, G. (2020). İklim değişikliği bağlamında tarımda dönüşümün politik ekolojisi [The political ecology of transformation in agriculture in the context of climate change]. İstanbul Politikalar Merkezi. https://ipc.sabanciuniv.edu/Content/Images/CKeditorImages/20201125-22112034.pdf
2. Aistara, G. A. (2011). Seeds of kin, kin of seeds: The commodification of organic seeds and social relations in Costa Rica and Latvia. Ethnography, 12(4), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111400721
3. Akar, S. (2020). Küreselden yerele kamusal mallar: Tohum gen bankaları [Public goods from global to local: Seed gene banks]. Dora Basım Yayın.
4. Akkuş, A. (2023). Türkiye’de tarım politikaları “sürdürülebilir” mi? [Are agricultural policies in Türkiye “sustainable”?]. Kapadokya Üniversitesi Yayınları.
5. Aksoy, Z. (2010). The legal-institutional framework and agrobiodiversity conservation in Türkiye. In B. Karapınar, F. Adaman & G. Özertan (Eds.), Rethinking structural reform in Turkish agriculture: Beyond the World Bank’s strategy (pp. 211–227). Nova Science Publishers Inc.
6. Aksoy, Z. (2014). Local–global linkages in environmental governance: The case of crop genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 14(2), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00226.
7. Aras, B. (2019). Türkiye’de tohumculuk sektörünün mevcut durumu, sorunlar ve öneriler [Current situation of the seed sector in Turkey, the problems and suggestions]. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 9(3), 1763–1775. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.531701
8. Arıkan, A. S. (2016). Avrupa Birliği’nde muhafaza çeşitleri- amatör çeşitler- muhafaza karışımları hakkındaki mevzuat ve Türkiye’de yerel çeşitler/köy çeşitleri [Legislation on preservation varieties- amateur varieties- preservation mixtures in the European Union and local varieties/village varieties in Türkiye]. TÜRKTOB Dergisi, 5(18), 52–61.

9. Aslan Ünlübay, L. (2017, November 14). Yerli, hibrit, GDO’lu... Nedir bu tohum meselesi? [Local, hybrid, GMO…What is this seed matter?]. Buğday Blog. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://www.bugday.org/blog/tohum-meselesi/
10. Atalan Helicke, N. (2019). Markets and collective action: A case study of traditional wheat varieties in Turkey. Journal of Economy Culture and Society (59), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS402676
11. Aysu, A. (2008). Küreselleşme ve tarım politikaları. Su Yayınevi.
12. Bağcı, S. A., & Özer, İ. (2021). Türkiye tohumculuğunun tarihsel gelişimi, mevcut durumu, problemleri ve çözüm önerileri [The historical development of Turkish seed, its present, problems and solutions]. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 11(Special issue), 3559–3572.
13. Buğday Ekolojik Yaşamı Destekleme Derneği. (2009). Tohum sever’in el kitabı: Yerli ve köylü [Seed lover’s handbook: Local and peasant]. Buğday.
14. Buğday Ekolojik Yaşamı Destekleme Derneği. (2020). Atalık tohumlar için yetiştirici rehberi [Grower’s guide for heirloom seed]. Buğday.
15. Budak, A. (2013). Tohumda tekelleşme ve Türkiye üzerindeki etkisi [Monopolization on seeds and its effects on Turkey] (Thesis No. 340292) [Master thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal Universitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
16. Ceylan, O. (2019). Neoliberal ekonomi ve Türkiye tarım politikaları arasında küçük köylülüğün dönüşümü: Edirne ili örneği (1980-2015). [The transformation of small peasantry between neoliberal economy and Turkish agrarian policies: The example of Edirne province (1980-2015)]. Anadolu İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 3(2), 134-152. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/anadoluiid/issue/49438/618240
17. Çameli, T. (2019). Tarımda 2018 Türkiye’si – İşaret Fişekleri [2018 Turkey in Agriculture – Flares]. 1+1 Express. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://birartibir.org/isaret-fisekleri/
18. Çelik, Z. (2013). Tarımsal biyoçeşitliliğin korunmasında yerel tohum bankalarının rolü üzerine bir araştırma: Karaot Köyü Tohum Derneği ve yöresi örneği [A research on protection of agricultural biodiversity and local seed banks: Example of Karaot village seed association and it's environment] (Thesis no. 342687) [Doctoral thesis, Ege Üniversitesi Tarım Ekonomisi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
19. Çiftci, H. N., Gundogdu, M. A., & Kaynas, K. (2023). Farklı rakımlarda yetiştirilmiş Yenice kırmızı biberinin kalite değişimleri. International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Science Research, 7(2), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiasr.2023.578.1
20. Dalyan, C. (2018). Latent lives: Genebanking and the politics of conservation in Türkiye. [Doctoral thesis, Cornell University]. https://doi.org/10.7298/X47H1GTJ
21. Doğan, İ. (2024). Bazı yerel buğdayların morfolojik, fizyolojik ve kalite özellikleri bakımından karakterize edilmesi. [Yüksek lisans tezi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi]. Fen Bilimleri Yüksek Lisans Tezleri.
22. Ficiciyan, A., Loos, J., Sievers-Glotzbach, S., & Tscharntke, T. (2018). More than yield: Ecosystem services of traditional versus modern crop varieties revisited. Sustainability, 10(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082834
23. Forchtner, B. (2019). Articulations of climate change by the Austrian far right. In P. Bevelander & R. Wodak (Eds.), Europe at the crossroads: Confronting populist, nationalist and global challenges (pp. 159–180). Nordic Academic Press.
24. Gibson, M. (2012). Food security-a commentary: What is it and why is it so complicated? Foods, 1(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods1010018
25. Graddy-Lovelace, G. (2020). Plants: Crop diversity pre-breeding technologies as agrarian care co-opted? Area, 52(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12499
26. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445–456.
27. Jordan, J. A. (2015). Edible memory: The lure of heirloom tomatoes and other forgotten foods. University of Chicago Press.
28. Kan, M., Küçükçongar, M., Morgounov, A., Keser, M., Özdemir, F., Mumınjanov, H., & Qualset, C. O. (2017). The general situation of wheat landrace populations and factors affecting production decisions of wheat landrace producers in Türkiye. Gaziosmanpașa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 54–64.
29. Keyder, Ç., & Yenal, Z. (2013). Bildiğimiz tarımın sonu: küresel iktidar ve köylülük [The end of agriculture as we know it: Global power and peasantry]. İletişim Yayınları.
30. Kimbrell, A. (2002). Corporate lies: Busting the lies of industrial agriculture. In A. Kimbrell (Ed.), The fatal harvest reader: The tragedy of industrial agriculture (pp. 3–37). Island Press.
31. Kloppenburg, J. R. (Ed.). (1988). Seeds and sovereignty: The use and control of plant genetic resources. Duke University Press.
32. La Via Campesina. (2007). Declaration of Nyeleni. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-of-nyi/
33. Nazarea, V. D. (2005). Heirloom seeds and their keepers: Marginality and memory in the conservation of biological diversity. University of Arizona Press.
34. Nazarea, V. D., Rhoades, R. E., & Andrews-Swann, J. (Eds.). (2013). Seeds of resistance, seeds of hope: Place and agency in the conservation of biodiversity. University of Arizona Press.
35. Nizam, D., & Yenal, Z. (2020). Seed politics in Türkiye: The awakening of a landrace wheat and its prospects. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 741–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1708725
36. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage
37. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). Sage.
38. Rhoades, R. E. (2013). When seeds are scarce: Globalization and the response of three cultures. In R. E. Rhoades, V. D. Nazarea, & J. E. Andrews-Swann (Eds.), Seeds of resistance, seeds of hope (pp. 262–286). University of Arizona Press.
39. Shiva, V. (1999). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. South End Press.
40. Shiva, V. (2016a). Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply. University Press of Kentucky.
41. Shiva, V. (2016b). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology and politics. University Press of Kentucky.
42. Şık, B. (2018, October 30). Tohum yasasındaki son değişiklik ne getiriyor? [What the latest change in seed law brings?]. Bianet. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://m.bianet.org/bianet/tarim/202138-tohum-yasasindaki-son-degisiklik-ne-getiriyor
43. Şişman, B. (2023). Ankara kırsalında tarımsal gıda sistemi olarak agroekolojinin sosyolojik analizi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.1382530
44. Tan, A. (2009). Türkiye geçit bölgesi genetik çeşitliliğinin in situ (çiftçi şartlarinda) muhafaza olanakları [In situ (on farm) conservation of land races from transitional zone in Türkiye]. Anadolu Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(1), 1–13.
45. T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı (Ministry). (2013). Stratejik plan 2013-2017 [Strategic plan 2013-2017]. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/Stratejik%20Plan%202013-2017.pdf
46. T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı (Ministry). (2018a). 2017 faaliyet raporu [2017 activity report]. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/Bakanl%C4%B1k_Faaliyet_Raporlar%C4%B1/2017.pdf
47. T.C. Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı (Ministry). (2018b). Stratejik plan 2018-2022 [Strategic plan 2018-2022]. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SGB/Belgeler/2013-2017/GTHB%202018-2022%20STRATEJI%CC%87K%20PLAN.PDF
48. Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International Affairs, 76(2), 265–281.
49. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (ZMO). (2018a). Yerel çeşitler biyoçeşitliliğin ve küçük aile çiftçiliğinin vazgeçilmezidir. Oda görüşleri [Local varieties are essential to biodiversity and small family farming. Chamber views]. http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=30431&tipi=5&sube=0
50. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (ZMO). (2018b). Yerel çeşitler ortak varlığımızdır şirketlere devredilemez. Oda görüşleri [Local varieties are our common assets not transferable to companies. Chamber views]. http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=30489&tipi=5&sube=0
51. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (ZMO). (2018c). Açlık ve yoksullukla mücadele için gıda ve tarımda dışa bağımlılığa son verilmelidir! Oda görüşleri [To fight hunger and poverty foreign dependency in food and agriculture must be ended! Chamber Views]. http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=30340&tipi=5&sube=0
52. TMMOB Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası (ZMO). (2022). Tanıtım [Introduction]. https://www.zmo.org.tr/odamiz/tanitim.php
53. Trauger, A. (2017). We want land to live: Making political space for food sovereignty. University of Georgia Press.
54. TÜBİTAK TÜSSİDE [Türkiye Sanayi Sevk ve İdare Enstitüsü]. (2017). Tohumculuk sektörü ulusal strateji raporu [Seed sector national strategy report]. https://www.turktob.org.tr/uploads/plugo/TURKTOB%20-%20TOHUMCULUK%20SEKTORU%20ULUSAL%20STRATEJI%20RAPORU.pdf
55. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi. (2006). Tohumculuk kanunu [Seed Law]. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k5553.html
56. TÜRKTOB. (2015). Tohumda doğruyu bilin istedik [We wanted you to know the truth in seed]. TÜRKTOB Dergisi. http://www.turktob.org.tr/dergi/ek2/index.html.
57. TÜRKTOB. (2023). Introduction. Retrieved March 27, 2024, from https://www.turktob.org.tr/en/introduction-134
58. United Nations. (2018). United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas: Resolution. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1650694?ln=en
59. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
60. World Food Programme. (2022). A Global Food Crisis. Retrieved March 27, 2023, from https://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis
61. Yıldız, M., & Özkaya, T. (2024). Pioneering communities in dissemination of local wheat varieties and products in Turkey. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1217580
62. Zimmerer, K. S. (2003). Geographies of seed networks for food plants (potato, ulluco) and approaches to agrobiodiversity conservation in the Andean countries. Society & Natural Resources, 16(7), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309185