Ag Corporations Rushing to Patent Sterile Seeds

by Daniel Knight

The "terminator technology," involves the insertion of certain genes into seeds that ensures that resulting plants cannot reproduce seeds of their own.

Seeds that have been genetically altered to produce high yields, or able to resist insects or droughts, cannot be reproduced without the corporation's permission.

Such technology, however, has come under heavy criticism worldwide since small scale farmers, particularly in developing countries, who depend on saving seeds fear the new technique will force them to buy expensive seeds each year.

News of the "terminator" first appeared when the United States granted a patent on the technique to the US Department of Agriculture and the Mississippi-based Delta and Pine Land Co. a seed company being eyed by biotechnology giant Monsanto for possible takeover.

Although not yet commercially available, the technology can be used on wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops.

"The patents reveal that engineered seed sterility is not an isolated research agenda," says Pat Mooney, director of RAFI. "Every major seed and agrochemical enterprise is developing its own version of suicide seeds."

The RAFI report says that the patents show that companies are developing seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical "inducer" -- mixed with patented pesticides or fertilizers produced by the same company.

Early in the new century, farmers may be forced to plant seeds that will produce crops only if sprayed with a carefully prescribed chemical regime that includes a patented pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide, RAFI says.

Zeneca, the British seed giant, for example, has developed a technology that would render its crops from its seeds stunted or impaired if not regularly exposed to certain patented chemicals sold by the company, says Mooney.

US-based Monsanto also has applied for a patent on a technology that would make a seed not germinate unless exposed to a certain chemical, he says. And the Swiss firm, Novartis has received a patent for a technique that regulates a number of developmental processes in plants -- including germination, sprouting, flowering and fruit ripening.

"If the companies can genetically program seeds to perform only with the application of proprietary pesticide or fertilizer, it means they will increase sales of their patented agrochemicals and other inputs," notes Edward Hammond, a researcher at RAFI.

Monsanto spokesman Jay Byrne, however, denies that companies are conspiring to create a cycle of dependency, as suggested by RAFI. But, he admits that corporations are looking into such techniques "as a way to protect their billions of dollars of investment into research on biologically-engineered products."

Monsanto estimates that it takes 10 years and about $300 million to create commercial products -- such as its genetically- altered corn, cotton and potatoes -- that contain a gene from a bacterium that produces the insect-killing toxin called "Bt."

"Any company is going to be looking at ways to protect their investment," says Byrne.

Since terminator and the other technologies are not yet available, Monsanto currently is trying to recoup its huge investments by requiring farmers in the United States and Canada, who plant the genetically-altered seeds, to buy new supplies each year instead of replanting.

U.S. and Canadian farmers, who chose to plant these seeds, must sign an agreement to allow Monsanto researchers to inspect their fields for several years to make sure that the seed has not been replanted without repurchasing the seed. Anyone breaking the agreement is hauled into court.

Monsanto says terminator would provide a technical fix to this problem and would make the company more at ease of selling such seeds in other countries.

When farmers save seed, they pick the most productive or resistant strains to re-plant such that they continue to adapt crops to their unique farming environments.

Concern over the impact of terminator technology on these small farmers has led to the governments of India and the Netherlands condemning the new technique.

Many agriculture and environmental organizations worldwide -- including Greenpeace, the Chilean-based Centre for Education and Technology and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- have called for an outright ban on the terminator.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major international agricultural research network funded by the United Nations and World Bank, has recommended that its 16 member institutes ban the technology in their crop improvement research programs.

Monsanto's Jay Byrne says that the company would not force any farmer to buy its technologies. He says farmers are free to save traditional seeds as they have always done.

Yet small scale farmer advocacy organizations in developing countries worry that these terminator type technologies will become widespread and governments may force small farmers to purchase such seed.

Such fears are increasing as private sector investments in agricultural biotechnology research begins to dominate the agricultural research agenda.

Most of the developing countries are cutting back their financial support for public biotechnology agricultural research programs, says Per Pinstrup- Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute here, who supports the use of bio-technology in agricultural research.

"The assumption is that the private sector will take it over, but the private sector is not going to generate the kind of technology the small farmer needs until that small farmer is up at a certain level and can afford to pay for it," he says.