Is the Terminator really terminated?
I'm back from the ACGA conference in Philadelphia and catching up on the
latest news items on genetic modification.
Tom Tyler, the ACGA prez, has given me the job of drafting a positon
statement on this subject, so if you are interested in helping with this,
please get in touch with me ASAP.
In the meantime, read this item on Terminator technology:
FoodShare's Community Garden Programme Coordinator
phone: (416) 392-1668
fax: (416) 392-6650
>Rural Advancement Foundation International
>News Release - 4 October 1999
> *** Terminator Terminated? ***
> Monsanto surrenders 'suicide seeds'
> but continues work on other Traitor Technologies
>With biotech's Silver Bullet firmly imbedded in its own foot, Monsanto is
>dropping its guns, abandoning the Terminator, and telling farmers that it
>wants to play nice. Not so fast, hombre!
>Following 18 months of controversy and intense popular opposition around
>the world, Monsanto CEO Robert B. Shapiro has advised Gordon Conway,
>President of the Rockefeller Foundation that Monsanto has decided to
>abandon plans to commercialize Terminator Technology (causing crop seed to
>become sterile at
>harvest time). Monsanto's open letter to Rockefeller is available on the
>company's web site at: http:/www.monsanto.com/monsanto/gurt/default.htm
>However, the company says it will continue to pursue closely-related
>that could allow Monsanto to switch on - or off - other genetic traits
>vital to a crop's productivity.
>RAFI calls it "Traitor" technology.
>"Congratulations should go to the civil society organizations,
>farmers, scientists and governments all over the world
>who have waged highly effective anti-Terminator campaigns during the
>past 18 months," said Pat Mooney, Executive
>Director of RAFI, in reaction to Monsanto's announcement. "The public
>rejected Terminator because its bad for farmers, food security and the
>environment," explained Mooney.
>"Monsanto would never have abandoned the profit-generating
>potential of sterile seeds just because it was an immoral technology,"
>said RAFI's Research Director, Hope Shand. "The company
>finally realized that Terminator will never win public acceptance.
>Terminator has became synonymous with corporate greed, and it was
>met with intense opposition all over the world," adds Shand.
>Limping from a Silver Bullet:
>Monsanto is the second major "Gene Giant" to
>back away from Terminator Technology. In June of this year, the UN
>Convention on Biological Diversity received a letter from UK-based
>AstraZeneca announcing that it would not commercialize seed sterility
>technologies. "In all, more than a dozen companies and public institutes
>have at least 31 patents that include claims involving seed sterilization,"
>Pat Mooney says. Monsanto was the big gun,
>however, and Terminator became a public relations disaster for the company
>when it made a bid to acquire Delta & Pine Land Seed Company in May, 1998.
>Delta & Pine Land co-owns the "prototype" Terminator patent with the U.S.
>of Agriculture (USDA) -- US patent number 5,723,765. In addition, Monsanto
>holds a second patent, WO 9744465, published 27 November 1997.
>Even though RAFI does not question Monsanto's public commitment
>to abandon Terminator, it notes that market and technical realities may
>force a different outcome. In a letter dated 24 February 1999 AstraZeneca
>categorically stated that it abandoned the development of its
>Terminator-type technology for the purpose of seed sterilization in 1992.
>RAFI discovered that ExSeed, an AstraZeneca joint venture with Iowa State
>University, won a new seed sterilization patent on 11 August 1997, based on
>a claim made in 1995 - three years after AstraZeneca's research was to have
>"We can't trust where the technology and companies may be taking us," said
>RAFI's Pat Mooney.
>"The technology for seed sterilization and trait control are on the same
>trajectory. At some
>point, either through a corporate take-over or a change in management,
>trait control could easily be
>transformed back into genetic seed sterilization," cautions Mooney.
>Transnational Trait Control = Bioserfdom
>All the Gene Giants are pursing R&D on Terminator and Traitor technology,
>warns RAFI. Companies, including Monsanto, are working to control important
>genetic traits of plants with external chemical catalysts. Once perfected,
>a seed's genetic trait(s) could be turned on or off with the application of
>proprietary chemical, such as an herbicide or fertilizer, for example.
>"The companies tell us that trait control will mean more
>options for farmers, but chemically-dependent seeds will more likely lead
>warns Hope Shand, RAFI's Research Director. RAFI's in-depth report on
>and a list of private and public sector institutions who hold
>Terminator-type patents, is
>available at: http://www.rafi.org
>USDA Stands Alone:
>When will USDA follow suit? USDA is now in the shameful position
>of supporting and defending a genetic technology that the world's 2nd
>corporation has clearly rejected due to public opposition. At a meeting
>with civil society organizations in June, Under-Secretary of Agriculture
>Richard Rominger told RAFI that USDA refuses to abandon the patent it
>co-owns with Delta & Pine Land (a Mississippi-based seed company in the
>process of being acquired by Monsanto) because it wants to see the
>technology widely licensed.
>Robert Shapiro's letter says that Monsanto made the decision to reject
>Terminator, in part,
>because it was responding to the views of its "very important grower
>"Why is USDA ignoring its farm constituency? Why does USDA insist on
>defending a technology that
>is bad for farmers, food security, and the environment?," asks RAFI's Hope
>"USDA is increasingly marginalized in its support of Terminator, it should
> cease negotiations with Delta & Pine Land, abandon the patent, and develop
>a strict policy
> prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for the development of genetic seed
>sterilization," said Hope Shand.
>Governments Need to Pull the Plug on Terminator:
>"Monsanto has taken a positive step,
> but let's not forget that farmers can never depend on the charity and good
>the Gene Giants to reject immoral technologies," concludes
>RAFI's Moooney. "Without government action to firmly reject Terminator
>and Traitor technology, these technologies will be commercialized
>within a few years with potentially disastrous consequences," cautions
>RAFI urges national governments to take action at WTO and
>elsewhere to reject Terminator and Traitor technology on the basis
>of public morality. Next month, Ministers of Agriculture will gather for a
>at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. "It's the
>opportunity for Ministers to affirm Monsanto and AstraZeneca's conclusion
>Terminator technology is not safe for farmers or food security," concludes
> * * * * *
>RAFI is a non-profit international civil society organization headquartered
>in Winnipeg, Canada. For more than twenty years, RAFI has worked on the
>social and economic impact of new technologies as they impact rural
>For further information:
>Pat Roy Mooney
>110 Osborne St., Suite 202
>WINNIPEG MB R3L 1Y5 CANADA
>Tel: (204) 453-5259
>Fax: (204) 925-8034
>118 E. Main Street, Room 211
>Carrboro, NC 27510-2300
>Ph. (919) 960-5223
>Fax: (919) 960-5224
community_garden maillist - firstname.lastname@example.org