New seed “Terminator” threatens our food
--and freedom
By: Geri Guidetti
There have been times in human history when the line between genius and insanity was so
fine that it was barely perceptible. In the world of biotechnology and food, that line has
just been obliterated. Announcements made last spring suggest that an ingenious scientific
achievement, and subsequent related business developments, threaten to terminate the
natural right and ability of people everywhere to freely grow food to feed themselves and
others.
Never before has man created such an insidiously dangerous, far--reaching and potentially
"perfect" plan to control the livelihoods, food supply ---- and even survival
--- of all humans on the planet.
Overstatement? judge for yourself.
On March 3,1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Delta and Pine Land
Company, a Mississippi firm and the largest cotton seed company in the world, announced
that they had jointly developed and received a patent (U.S. patent number 5,723,765) on a
new, agricultural biotechnology.
Benignly titled "Control of Plant Gene Expression." the new patent will permit
its owners and licensees to create sterile seed by cleverly and selectively programming a
plant's DNA to kill its own embryos.
The patent applies to plants and seeds of all species. The result? If saved at
harvest for future crops, the seed produced by these plants will not grow. Pea pods,
tomatoes, pepperheads of wheat and ears of corn will essentially become seed morgues. In
one broad, brazen stroke of his hand, man will have irretrievably broken the
plant-to-seed-to-plant-to-seed cycle, the cycle that supports most life on the planet. No
seed, no food-unless you buy more seed. This is obviously good for seed companies. As it
turns out, it is also good for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In a recent interview with the Canada-based Rural Advancement Foundation International
(RAFI), U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesman Willard Phelps explained that the USDA
wants this technology to be "widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many
seed companies."
The goal, he said, is "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by U.S. seed
companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries."
The USDA and Delta Pine Land Co. have applied for patents on the 'terminator
technology" in at least 78 countries Once the technology is commercialised, the USDA
will earn royalties of about 5% of net sales.
"I think it will be profitable for USDA," Phelps said. (Royalties? Profits? For
a department of the U.S. federal government? What's wrong with this picture?)
The Terminator technology was created to prevent farmers from saving non-hybrid,
open-pollinated or genetically altered seed sold by seed companies. Open-pollinated
varieties of crops like wheat and rice-staples for most of the world's population-are
typical examples.
The stated logic for Terminator technology is simple, really. A seed company invests money
to develop and produce new varieties of seed. It hopes to sell a lot of that seed to
recoup monies spent on crop research and seed development, and then to realise a profit on
its investment. Fair enough, it would seem, but there are big concerns around the world
about how much profit, how much control many of these multinational seed companies
actually seek.
Many of their proprietary seeds are no more than genetically altered versions of older,
reliable, conventionally bred strains that have been in the public domain for many, many
years. Change a gene to give a seed resistance to some new strain of disease, the logic
goes, and the seed no longer belongs to the people to grow and save as they like, but to
the seed company.
In the past several years, the world community has been outraged as some multinational
seed companies have brazenly tried to claim ownership of whole species of food plants
based on the logic that they had altered a gene in a member of that species and, hence,
now owned its whole genome!
In a world of burgeoning population growth. and hence demand for food, giant,
multinational seed companies hope to sell a lot of proprietary, genetically engineered
seed. Food is a big business that will only get bigger, and they want farmers around the
world to need to come back to them, year after year, to buy the seed and, in some cases,
even the chemicals, to grow it.
Plant patents, gene licensing agreements, intellectual property laws investigations
wrought against farm families for infringing on a seed company's monopoly on seed
varieties are some of the means now used to protect their interests.
The new Terminator technology could render even these modern, legal measures of control
obsolete, as it is potentially so powerful, so effective and so flawless in its
applicability that its corporate owners and licensees will literally have complete
biological control over the food crops in which it is applied.
Seed companies have been working hard to prevent farmers around the world from saving
their own seed from plants originally grown with seed purchased from these companies. They
are also trying to find ways to encourage farmers around the world-in the U.S., Europe,
and especially the huge market represented by farmers in South America, Mexico and
Asia--to switch to genetically engineered, proprietary seed instead of relying on the
eons-old practice of saving their own locally produced and conventionally bred seed.
If they can produce and offer their "improved" seed cheaply enough to convince
even poorer Second and Third World farmers to switch, they will have captured much of the
global market. The Terminator will ensure that this market---these farmers and the
communities and countries they feed---will be completely dependent on the company in order
to continue to eat.
There is another potential dark side to the Terminator. Molecular biologists reviewing the
technology are divided on whether or not there is a risk of the Terminator function
escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated and
moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in fields nearby.
The means of this 'infection" would be via pollen from Terminator-altered plants.
Given Nature's incredible adaptability, and the fact that the technology has never been
tested on a large scale, the possibility that the Terminator may spread to surrounding
food crops or to the natural environment must be taken seriously. The gradual spread of
sterility In seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually
wipe Out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.
According to USDA researchers, they have spent about $190,000 over four years working on
the joint project. For its share, the Delta & Pine Land Company has reportedly devoted
$275,000 of in-house expenses, plus an additional $255,000. Combined, these dollars are a
mere drop in the bucket compared to the potential profitability of the technology to its
owners.
According to USDA's Willard Phelps, the Delta & Pine Land Co. retains the option to
exclusively license the jointly-developed technology.
In its March 3 press release, the company claimed that the new technology has the prospect
of opening significant world wide seed markets to the sale of transonic technology for
crops in which seed currently is saved and used in subsequent plantings.
In a recent communiqué, RAFI states: "If the Terminator technology is widely
utilized, it will give the multinational seed and agrochemical industry an unprecedented
and extremely dangerous capacity to control the world's food supply."
That fear may be realised much sooner than anyone could have imagined.
At the time of the March 3 announcement of the US government-supported technology, it was
common knowledge that multinational seed and pesticides giant Monsanto was a minor (8%)
shareholder in the Delta & Pine Land Co. The two jointly have a cotton seed venture in
China. On May 11, a mere nine weeks after the announcement of the Terminator technology,
Monsanto bought the Delta & Pine Land Co. and, with it, the complete control of the
Terminator technology.
For an even bigger picture of the implications of this acquisition, here's a summary of
some published information on Monsanto's current agricultural holdings and activities:
The purchase of Delta & Pine now gives Monsanto an overwhelming 85% share of the U.S.
cotton seed market and a dominant global position in this crop.
On May 11, Monsanto also announced the takeover of Dekalb, the second largest maize (corn)
company in the U.S.
In January, 1997, Monsanto acquired Holden's Foundation Seeds. A company spokesman said at
the time that its goal was to get its bioengineered seed on at least half of the then 40
million acres that Monsanto had access to via its acquisitions. It is estimated that
25-35% of U.S. corn acreage is planted with Holden's products. The Holden and Dekalb
acquisitions make Monsanto the dominant player in the corn market.
In November, Monsanto acquired the Brazilian seed company, Sementes Agroceres. This
acquisition gave Monsanto 30% of the Brazilian corn seed business. Brazilian farmers who
have been breeding and saving their own seed for centuries are considered primary targets
for terminator and apomictic (below) corn seed products.
On January 20, the USDA won another patent-No. 5,710,367- covering "apomictic
maize". This corn trait speeds hybrid seed production by allowing the plant to
produce hybrid clones, lowering the price of hybrid seed. Third World farmers unable to
afford more expensive hybrid seed could potentially buy these less expensive clones.
Unlike other hybrids, apomictic corn can be regrown, but its genetic uniformity (remember,
clones) would make it more likely to lose its disease resistance more frequently, forcing
farmers to buy seed more often. There are fears that M6nsanto will obtain these license
rights from the USDA. Monsanto's recent corn company
acquisitions and, now, near monopoly in corn, make this a critical concern.
A Washington connection, according to RAFI: In the past two years, a number of
high-ranking White House and USDA officials have left Washington for the allure of
Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri.
In October 1997, Monsanto and Millenium Pharmaceuticals (another U.S.-based genomics
company) announced a five-year collaborative agreement worth over US$118 million,
including the creation of a new Monsanto subsidiary with about 100 scientists to work
exclusively with Millenium to use genomic technologies.
The exclusive agreement is not limited to a single crop or geographical location; it
covers all crop plants in all countries. Monsanto considers the new subsidiary an integral
part of its life sciences strategy and hopes to gain a competitive edge in the search for
patentable and likely 'Terminator-able' crop genes.
Monsanto has pioneered enforcement strategies for protection of its plant patents. Much of
this pioneering has been centred on its genetically altered soybeans, which have the
ability to withstand spraying with the company's leading herbicide, Roundup. (Weeds and
other native plants die, beans live.)
In 1996, the company set a new precedent by requiring farmers buying its genetically
engineered Roundup Ready Soybeans" to sign and adhere to the terms of its "1996
Roundup Ready Gene Agreement." Terms: The farmer must pay a $5 per bag
"technology fee;" the farmer must give Monsanto the right to inspect, monitor
and test his/her fields for up to three years; the farmer must use only Monsanto's brand
of the glyphosate herbicide it calls Roundup; The farmer must give up his/her right to
save and replant the patented seed; the farmer must agree not to sell or otherwise supply
the seed to "any other person or entity." The farmer must also agree, in
writing, to pay Monsanto "... 100 times the then applicable fee for the Roundup Ready
gene. times the number of units of transferred seed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and
expenses..." should he violate any portion of the agreement. The farmers' outcry
against the stringent inspection and monitoring of their private property caused Monsanto
to modify that part of the agreement in 1997.
The company has used a similar licensing agreement for its genetically engineered cotton
and, according to a spokeswoman, plans to introduce licensing agreements with all
genetically engineered seeds Monsanto brings to market. These will include Roundup Ready
canola (canola oil), corn, sugarbeets, etc. (Keep in mind that now Monsanto has Terminator
technology to license, as well. It is applicable to all crops, according to its primary
inventor.)
In June, the scope of the potential impact of the Terminator technology on global
agri-culture broadened explosively with the announcement that American Home Products
Corporation (AH P) had agreed to buy Monsanto Co. for $33.9 billion in stock.
"AHP" according to its press release, "is one of the world's largest
research based pharmaceutical and health care products companies.. It is also a global
leader in vaccines, biotechnology, agricultural products and animal health care."
Reuters reports that the acquisition will create "a powerful pharmaceutical company
with a massive presence in the growing market for genetically engineered agricultural
products."
Actually, AHP is a family of companies, including American Cyanamid, Cyanide Agricultural
Products Group, Wyeth Ayres, and others. It is the third largest in the U.S. in
herbicides, insecticides and fungicides but, with its acquisition of Monsanto, it is now
estimated that the combined companies will become the largest agrochemical/life Industries
Company in the world, --beating Swiss global giant, Novartis.
It does not take a giant mental leap to see the massive potential for the application and
marketing of Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed and licensing agreements and the Terminator
technology to an increasing number of companies and food crops. If the Terminator
technology is not globally banned, its eventual incorporation into all genetically
engineered and open-pollinated, nonhybrid food crops is predictable.
In the past, I have often fretted about the vulnerabilities of our increasingly
centralized, computer-based, bottom-line-driven, large corporation dominated food
production, processing and distribution system.
Extreme weather patterns, toxic waste contaminated fertilizers, epidemic bacterial
contamination of food and the year-2000 crash of computers responsible for keeping the
whole, complex system running have been big concerns.
I have warned of the planned disappearance of non-hybrid, open-pollinated seeds---seeds
that let people retain the means of growing their own food if they want or need to, seeds
that ensure protective biodiversity, seeds that may provide personal food security in
insecure times. Now the Terminator threatens even these.
Make no mistake about it: widespread global adoption of the newly patented Terminator
technology will ensure absolute dependence of farmers, and the people they feed, on
multinational corporations for their seed and food.
Dependence does not foster freedom. On the contrary, dependence fosters a loss of freedom.
Dependence does not increase personal power, it diminishes it. When you are dependent, you
relinquish control. History is full of examples of peoples and cultures who lost
fundamental freedoms-who were controlled by their need for food. This shouldn't happen to
Second and Third World farmers. It shouldn't happen in any of the 78 countries in which
the patent has been applied for. It shouldn't happen in the U.S. or Canada.
The Terminator technology is brilliant science and arguably "good business," but
it has crossed the line--- the tenuous line between genius and insanity. It is a very
dangerous, very bad idea that should be banned. Period.
Geri Guidetti is active with the Ark Institute—
web site: http://www.arkinstitute.com/
—and can be reached by e-mail at: arkinst@concentric.net
Thanks to: George McKnight for scanning and correcting.
also: Kerri-Anne Finn, wrote & scanned:
William,
Feel free to distribute material from The Monitor, just give proper credit.
I have copied the article into the e-mail for you to save you the trouble
of scanning it.
Best wishes,
Kerri-Anne Finn
Technical Officer
The article came from the Monitor, Nov. 98 issue, Page 24-25-26.
Further correcting from scanning errors etc. and the underlines are mine.
Submitted by: W. G. Windley, Alberni C of C.