- It's easy to understand why a private business would
want total monopoly control over seed. But it's hard to understand why
public research institutions would want the same or why they would even
assist business in doing so. By definition, the term "public research"
contradicts "exclusive rights." Nonetheless, our public research
institutions are very much interested in obtaining exclusive rights, not
only for themselves but also for their corporate "partners."
-
- Last week's Purdue press release, "Terminator Tussle:
Controversial Technology Needed, Experts Say,"
- http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=685 illustrates
this.
-
- Therein, Purdue University bioethicist Paul Thompson
says much of the opposition to plant sterilization technology is misplaced
fury. Purdue animal science professor William Muir and biology professor
Rick Howard further defend the Terminator, saying that it will be of great
benefit in reducing the hazard of uncontrolled spread of genetically modified
animals and plants. And, last but not least, Marshall Martin, the associate
director of Agricultural Research Programs at Purdue, defends the Terminator
by saying that most farmers in the US and other industrialized countries
don't save seed.
-
- Something is very much wrong. Even the most vilified
biotech/seed company in the business, Monsanto, disavowed the Terminator.
The public generally holds its research institutions in high esteem, and
it is very sad indeed when they can't even rise a step above the company
Indian farmers burned an effigy of when they heard of its plans to commercialize
the Terminator.
-
- For Mr. Thompson's information, Daniel Charles, author
of "Lords of the Harvest," credits RAFI, now known as the ETC
Group, with giving the Terminator its name. The ETC Group is not anti-biotechnology.
It is, however, the seed saving farmers' friend, as it tirelessly fights
the monopolizationof genetic resources. It is also a good name giver. Could
anyone have thought of a more appropriate name for Sterile Seed Technology,
a.k.a. Technology Protection System, a.k.a. Control of Plant Gene Expression?
-
- The fury over this technology is not misplaced; it is
right on target. This technology that the USDA and Land Grant Universities
shamelessly helped create not only terminates an organism's lineal descent,
it also terminates farmers' historical and natural rights. It is also a
sneaky way of bypassing national and international laws which do not allow
seed companies to contractually prohibit seed saving by biologically prohibiting
it instead. It also is means of patent extension, as the Terminator won't
expire as patents do.
-
- As for Professor Muir's and Professor Howard's concerns
of uncontrolled gene flow and spread of GMOs, aren't there other alternatives
of doing the same? Through apomixis, some plants can reproduce seed asexually.
One biology Professor who obviously understands he is working for the public,
Dr. Stephen L. Goldman at the University of Toledo, works to create apomictic
corn. He has been quoted as saying, "It's the challenger to the terminator
technology." Perhaps if apomixis can be combined with male sterility,
then at least the flow of pollen can be controlled.
-
- Putting transgenes into DNA that is only maternally inherited
could be another means of preventing unwanted pollen flow. In any case,
the Terminator is more about taking away farmers' right and ability to
save seed than it is about protecting the environment. If not, then why
don't its supporters put the means of controlling fertility in farmers'
hands?
-
- Terminator promoters donít want to because they
desperately want to force an expansion of the seed market, especially abroad
where they cannot contractually prohibit farmers from saving seed. Though
the US government and the multinational Biotech companies have been trying
very hard at theWTO and other international forums to get the rest of the
world to take away farmers' rights, they haven't had much luck in doing
so.
-
- Even in the European Union, Community law allows farmers
to save seed. Consequently, Marshall Martin's comments that most farmers
in the US and industrialized countries don't save seed are way off base.
Otherwise, Monsanto never would have prosecuted hundreds of farmers in
the US and a like number in Canada. Otherwise, the EU never would have
included a seed saving provision in its laws. Otherwise, this article's
author, a wheat farmer, wouldn't be writing. Wheat farmers commonly save
seed, and so did soybean farmers, at least until the Monsanto Mafia came
along.
-
- Purdue's support of the Terminator is a symptom of a
much bigger problem: the corporate takeover of our public research institutions.
Federal and state governments have abdicated their responsibility to adequately
fund our public research institutions by putting the fox in the henhouse.
Research institutions now see selling exclusive rights to patents and "partnering"
with corporations as a way of getting much needed funds. Industry has not
only eliminated the public sector as a competitor; it has appropriated
its resources, too.
-
- Of course, seed research takes a lot of money. But when
it costs farmers their historical, natural rights, and tears the social
fabric of rural America because neighbors are encouraged to rat out seed
saving neighbors, then it is too expensive. Meanwhile, farmers look towards
their Land Grant Universities as the only thing between them and a total
corporate takeover of the seed supply, and it disturbs them to see that
their Land Grants are being taken over, too.
-
- Public seed research needs to be directed back into producing
seed that farmers can save for crops that consumers demand. Farmers and
consumersneed to convince legislators to provide more public funding for
such research. Perhaps there is one other means of funding: let's put a
tax or an assessment on all privately owned patented seed and direct the
money towards farmer and consumer friendly public seed research.
-
- The Terminator and closely related Traitor technologies
might also put the World's food supply at risk. For example, DuPont/Pioneer
didn't have enough quality soybean seed to provide its customers for 2001
spring planting. Due to hot, dry weather, a lot of seed grown in 2000 didn't
meet quality standards. No problem, Pioneer pulled soybean seed out of
farmers' bins, even if it wasn't grown under a seed contract with the purpose
of producing seed. As long as farmers could verify that it was all of a
given variety and met seed quality standards, Pioneer bought it and bagged
it up. (Ironically, farmers couldn't legally plant the very same seed out
of their own bins.)
-
- So what would Pioneer have done if farmers had nothing
but sterile seed in their bins?
-
- In another case, US corn production fell sharply in 1970
due to Southern Corn Leaf Blight. Most hybrids of the day were produced
from a parent line with Texas Male Cytoplasmic Sterility, and hybrids produced
from it weren't resistant to the blight. By the time that everyone knew
that they needed to plant resistant varieties for the next year, it was
already too late to produce enough seed in the US cornbelt. Frantically,
seed companies rushed to grow an interim winter crop anywhere they could.
Since corn seed grown from hybrids doesn't produce very well, farmers who
had corn varieties with resistance couldn't pull seed out of their bins.
-
- Last, is Purdue's real motivation for promoting the Terminator
gene that it wants to profit by selling exclusive rights to the patent
of its version, patent no. WO9911807? Or do Purdue researchers need to
take remedial English, as many incoming freshmen do, to figure out that
the word "public" implies inclusivity? Or maybe Purdue wants
to please its industry partners?
-
- Again, if Sterile Seed Technology, a.k.a. the notorious
Terminator, is absolutely necessary, then put the means of controlling
fertility and reproducing productive seed in farmers' hands!
-
- About the author: David Dechant grows corn, wheat and
alfalfa in Colorado.
-
- Editor's note: Readers can find the Purdue article to
which David refers in his piece at Terminator tussle: Controversial technology
needed, some experts say; http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=685
- First Published 4-30-2
|