|
|
 
|
ETC Group responds to Purdue U. promotion of Terminator as environmental protector (May 2, 2002 – CropChoice news) -- CropChoice is running this piece with the permission of the ETC Group. Please note the related stories at the end, including an article by Colorado farmer David Dechant that CropChoice published yesterday.
By ETC Group (http://www.etcgroup.org)
An article by Purdue Agriculture Communications (distributed by AScribe
Newswire on April 19) quotes Purdue University professors and one
University of Oklahoma law professor who unabashedly promote Terminator
technology - claiming that it was developed as an environmental
protection tool.
Go here to view Purdue's pro-Terminator article:
http://www.biotech-info.net/sterilization.html
Terminator refers to a technique for genetically modifying plants to
produce sterile seeds. It has been censored by United Nations bodies
and widely condemned by civil society as an anti-farmer technology
because three-quarters of the world's farmers routinely save seed from
their harvest. If commercialized, Terminator technology would prevent
farmers from saving seed, forcing them to return to the commercial
market every year. Due to widespread public opposition, the Monsanto
Corporation and AstraZeneca (now Syngenta) publicly vowed not to
commercialize the technology in 1999.
Terminator seeds quickly became a symbol of corporate greed and
shattered the industry-manufactured myth that biotechnology aims to
feed hungry people. As a result, multinational Gene Giants hastily
retreated from openly pursuing the taboo technology. That is precisely
why Purdue University scientists and other pro-industry academics are
now paving the way for public and commercial acceptance of Terminator.
It is not surprising that Purdue University is openly supporting suicide seeds; the University was granted a patent on its own version of Terminator technology in March 1999 (WO9911807 was issued to Purdue
Research Foundation on March 11, 1999). Proponents of Terminator make
the condescending claim that opposition to Terminator technology stems
from a lack of scientific understanding. The so-called "biotech
experts" seek to re-write history by claiming that the technology was
developed as an environmental protection strategy to contain gene flow
from genetically modified crops. Terminator proponents not only hope to
discredit civil society organizations that are critics of suicide
seeds, they also seek to undermine the credibility of intergovernmental
bodies that have adopted policies opposing Terminator.
According to Purdue scientists, unsophisticated opposition to genetic
seed sterilization has resulted in "reckless policy decisions." The
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the largest
network of public agricultural research institutes in the developing
world, was the first international body to adopt a policy prohibiting
the use of genetic seed sterilization. One Purdue professor claims that
FAO's censure of the technology "was a political decision not based on
understanding neither the science nor the environmental benefits of
trait protection systems."
William Muir, Purdue University Professor of Animal Sciences, is quoted
in the April 19 article saying that "the downside of the [Terminator]
technology is minor in comparison to the potential benefits." Purdue
professor Paul Thompson states, "The important thing that is being
overlooked is that incorporating the [Terminator] gene is a good
strategy for limiting the environmental impact of genetically modified
plants."
In the same article, Thompson states that, "It's an issue that's not
very well understood, and I think environmental groups haven't thought
through the potential benefit of the gene." Thompson, a bioethicist,
seems puzzled by the moral dilemma posed by genetic seed sterilization
and the reality of food insecurity for poor people who depend on
farm-saved seed: "Terminator has captured the public's attention
unlike any other form of biotechnology out there. I have no idea why
that is. My speculation is that making a seed sterile goes against some
basic sense of what's right."
Although Purdue is considered one of America's premiere
agricultural universities, some Purdue professors are not aware that,
according to the United Nations, 1.4 billion people on this planet
depend on farm-saved seed for their survival. The farmers' 12,000
year-old tradition of saving, exchanging and adapting seeds is the
foundation for food security and sustainable agriculture. If
commercialized, Terminator technology has the potential to restrict the
food-producing capacity of farmers. For that reason, it has been widely
condemned as an immoral application of agricultural biotechnology.
Purdue University is not alone in its campaign to win commercial
approval for Terminator. In August 2001 the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) announced that it had licensed its Terminator
patents to Delta & Pine Land Seed Co. - the world's largest cotton seed
company. Delta & Pine Land has publicly stated its intention to
commercialize Terminator seeds. Other companies continue to develop and
refine genetic seed sterilization. Patent owners include major seed and
agrochemical corporations and research institutions such as: Syngenta,
Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Delta & Pine Land, as well as the US Department
of Agriculture, and Cornell, Purdue and Iowa State universities.
It is revisionist history, and a cynical strategy, to suggest
that Terminator was developed as a biosafety tool. In March 1998 when
the USDA and Delta & Pine Land announced their newly won patent on
genetic seed sterilization, they stated unequivocally: "The principal
application of the technology will be to control unauthorized planting
of seed of proprietary varieties (sometimes called 'brown-bagging') by
making such practice non-economic since unauthorized saved seed will
not germinate, and would be useless for planting." Neither USDA nor
Delta & Pine Land promoted their newly patented technology as a
biosafety tool. The primary aim of genetic seed sterilization is, and
has always been, to maximize seed industry profits:
"Our system is a way of self-policing the unauthorized use of American
technology. It's similar to copyright protection." USDA spokesman,
Willard Phelps, describing Terminator technology to New Scientist
(interviewed in New Scientist, 28 March 1998)
"My main interest is the protection of American technology. Our mission
is to protect US agriculture, and to make us competitive in the face of
foreign competition. Without this, there is no way of protecting the
technology [patented seed]." (Melvin J. Oliver, USDA molecular
biologist and primary inventor of the technology, March, 1998, quoted
in RAFI Communique, March 1998).
According to USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps, The [Terminator]
technology is designed "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned
by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third
World countries." (Willard Phelps, USDA spokesman, described the newly
patented technology to RAFI (now ETC), March 10, 1998).
We are alarmed and insulted by the campaign to promote Terminator as a
biosafety mechanism. It is unacceptable and dangerous to suggest that
agriculture is dependent on genetic seed sterilization as a method for
minimizing genetic pollution from genetically modified plants. There is
growing evidence that unwanted gene flow from genetically modified
plants is causing genetic contamination. Most recently, at the Sixth
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in
The Hague, April 8-19, the Mexican government confirmed that GM maize
has contaminated farmers' maize varieties in the Mesoamerican center of
genetic diversity. This is a serious problem that must be addressed,
but food security for poor people must not be sacrificed to solve
industry's genetic pollution problem. If GM seeds are ecologically
unsafe they should not be used.
The promotion of Terminator seeds as a "green" solution to GM pollution
is the Trojan Horse of biotechnology. If Terminator technology wins
market acceptance under the guise of biosafety, it will be used as a
monopoly tool to prevent farmers from saving and re-using seed.
Purdue's Paul Thompson statesthat "the Terminator tussle is just
one example of how language has been used to misconstrue science." The
article notes that the Terminator name was given to the technology by
"anti-biotechnology interest groups," but that "the scientists who
developed the gene originally gave it the name 'control of gene
expression.'" The Purdue article demonstrates how language is being
used to misconstrue history. While it is true that some of the
Terminator patents are titled "control of gene expression," industry
generally refers to genetic seed sterilization technology as TPS: the
acronym does not stand for "Trait Protection System" as the article
repeatedly states (five times); rather it stands for Technology
Protection System. The name given to the technology by those who
invented it now undercuts their revisionist history: if, in fact, it
was the environment that was being protected by these altruistic
researchers back in 1993, why wasn't that motivation reflected in the
name they chose for it? Why didn't they name it EPS--Environmental
Protection System-- rather than employ the "misnomer" TPS, Technology
Protection System? TPS is unambiguous: it is the technology that is
being "protected" ?by the control of gene expression. The
pro-Terminator campaign is making a desperate attempt to erase evidence
of industry's original (and ongoing) motivations to monopolize seed and
maximize profits.
According to Marshall Martin, associate director of Agricultural
Research Programs at Purdue, because of poor profit potential in
low-income developing nations, major seed companies don't consider
farmers in these countries to be attractive customers. We reject the
claim that the seed industry is not interested in marketing Terminator
in the developing world, or that it will have no impact on poor farmers
who cannot afford to buy Terminator seed. Patents on Terminator
technology have been issued or applied for in over 90 countries
worldwide.
There is no doubt that industry seeks to commercialize Terminator seeds
in the South, as well as the North. The president of Delta & Pine Land,
Murray Robinson, said that Terminator seeds could someday be used on
over 400 million hectares worldwide. He also said that the technology
would provide seed companies a "safe avenue" for introducing
proprietary products into giant, untapped markets such as China, India
and Pakistan. (Seed & Crops Digest, March/April, 1998.) A recent study
on Terminator conducted by Wagengingen University for the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, finds that "Serious
seed security risk can be expected for those already seed insecure poor
farmers who are not able to save their own seed for the next season.
Risks of crop losses due to absent viability exist when poor farmers
access the grain market for their seed (in many cases 20% of farmers),
often at a late moment." (Visser, B., D. Eaton, N. Louwaars and I.M.
Van der Meer, 2001. Potential impacts of genetic use restriction
technologies (GURTs) on agrobiodiversity and agricultural production
systems. FAO, Rome, Italy.)
In 1998, Harry Collins, Vice President of Technology Transfer for Delta
& Pine Land, revealed an appalling lack of understanding and awareness
when he promoted Terminator for Third World agriculture and dismissed
the need for farmer selection, breeding and seed-saving: "The
centuries old practice of farmer saved seed is really a gross
disadvantage to third world farmers who inadvertently become locked
into obsolete varieties because of their taking the "easy road" and not
planting newer, more productive varieties." (From an unpublished paper
distributed by Harry Collins at FAO meeting in Rome, 1998, entitled:
"New Technology and Modernizing World Agriculture.")
The current campaign to promote seed sterility as an
environmentally beneficial technology is illogical and dangerous, and
it underscores the need for governments to take action. We urge
national governments to ban the development and commercial use of
Terminator - or any form of genetic trait control that controls seed
sterility or viability and prevents farmers from saving and re-using
seed from their harvest. We urge the FAO to call for a ban on
Terminator technology at the World Food Summit Five Years Later in
June, and for Heads of State meeting at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development to affirm a complete ban on Terminator.
Related stories: | |
