Sometimes, when your country is doing something very unpalatable, you just have to root against it. And Canada's efforts in trying to overturn the international ban on terminator seeds fall into this category. Let's start with a little background.
Terminator seeds are bioengineered to produce sterile seeds, forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each season, in essence stripping from them their historic ability to renew crops from seeds retained from their own stocks. There is a worldwide ban on the use of terminator seeds, but Canada, to our shame, is part of a three-government coalition - the other members are Australia and New Zealand - that is working to get the ban overturned. If they are successful, much of the world's food supply would be controlled by a handful of multinational corporations, who would eventually own the patent on the world's most important crops.
Fortunately, this coalition just suffered another defeat at the hands of the international community. This loss for Canada represents a significant victory for 1.4 billion farmers throughout the world.
The victory took place at a meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Curitiba, Brazil [on March 24, 2006]. The Brazilian government, chairing the meeting, announced that the 188 member governments of the CBD agreed to reject language that would have undermined the six year old moratorium on terminator. Promoters, including Canada, have called for a "case by case risk assessment" of terminator seeds, with the intention of allowing the technology to be approved through existing legislation for genetically modified crops.Canada's loss is a huge victory for the approximately 1.4 billion farmers and peasants worldwide who depend for their livelihoods on using seeds kept from the previous harvest. If the winners are legion the losers are small in number; the so-called "Terminator Trio" -- the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The US also wants the moratorium lifted, but has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. Many terminator critics accuse Canada of doing the US's dirty work in hope of some return favour.
The extent to which out-of-control ideology drives this technology is revealed by the fact that the three largest seed multinationals -- Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred (DuPont) and Syngenta -- have all given up the fight in the face of global opposition. They have all pledged not to pursue the technology. At this point, only one major company, Delta and Pine Land (D&PL), joint owner of three US patents on terminator, has declared its intention of commercializing the technology.
Canada's quixotic pursuit of this technology is puzzling. The sole beneficiaries of terminator seeds would be the multinationals that hold the patents. Famrers would see their costs rise dramatically, and consumers throughout the world would see food prices skyrocket as production costs are passed on to them.
That Canada would continue to pursue the commercialization of terminator technology is inexplicable from any practical standpoint. Not a single company in Canada has a stated interest in using this technology and virtually every farm organization in the country opposes it. The impact of the terminator, also called "suicide seeds", has been calculated to be in the hundreds of millions in lost annual income for Third World farmers.According to the ETC Group, which monitors the issue "Brazilian soybean farmers would see their seed costs increase by approximately $515 million each year. Argentina's soybean farmers would pay an extra US$276 million. Wheat farmers in Pakistan would face a price rise of US$191 million. Rice farmers in the Philippines will pay another US$172 million."
And it is not just farmers of the Global South who would suffer. Terminator wheat, if it were ever commercialized, would cost Canadian farmers an additional US$85 million dollars per year, according to ETC.
The global fight against the ravages of neo-liberalism and corporate globalization is nowhere more fierce or determined than it is against this perverse technology. Nearly 500 organizations worldwide - from farmers' groups and international civil society organizations, to unions and churches - have called for a permanent ban. The fight is led by the international peasant movement, Via Campesina, which speaks for millions of farmers around the globe. The popularity of this movement and its influence on governments was clear at the Brazil meeting. When the decision maintaining the moratorium was announced, it was met by cheering and a standing ovation -- highly unusual for a UN gathering. Only three small pockets of delegates from the "Terminator Trio" remained in their seats.
In Canada, not a single major farm group supports terminator technology. Those actively opposed include the Union des Producteurs Agricoles (UPA), representing 44,000 Québec farmers, the National Farmers Union, as well as Canadian Organic Growers. In early March, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the largest farmer-based group in Canada, (membership 200,000) passed a critical resolution requesting an assessment of terminator's impacts on farmers.
None of this opposition has had any impact on the free trade and liberalization zealots who now determine Canada's foreign policy. It does not seem to matter what international issue is being discussed, the Canadian delegation always includes these free market promoters and if an international treaty or accord in any way violates the principle of liberalized markets, it is almost automatically opposed.
Canada sent a huge delegation to the Brazil meeting: 48 people (most countries of the south manage two or three, if they're fortunate). But the more interesting aspect is that while Environment Canada was supposed to be the lead department in Canada's delegation, it was officials from industry, trade and agriculture who dominated and ensured that Canada's position was to allow for case-by-case testing.
This is indefensible technology that represents the corporatization of the world's food supply, with little if any benefits to producers or consumers. Our continued pursuit of this technolgoy is a stain on our national reputation and on the Liberal government that lent it at least tacit approval. Stephen Harper can send a positive message to the prairie farmers in Canada who support his government but staunchly oppose this movement by ending Canada's crusade on behalf of terminator seeds.
(We at Pogge have done a lot of work in highlighting Canada's support of terminator seeds. For other posts on this topic, check out this and this. The latter post also provides a number of external links on this issue.)
Update: Accidental Deliberations weighs in on this topic as well.
Wow, first I heard about these.
That is evil.
Evil sums it up nicely, Rob. Our government's role in this area is not one of our shining moments.
I'm so deeply ashamed.
Who is the minister responsible, I have some spare time this month to spew forth a few emails.
From our friends at Wikipedia:
Possible Advantages of GURT technology
"1. An Incentive to the Development of New Plant Varieties
Where effective intellectual property protection systems don't exist or are not enforced, GURTs could be an alternative to stimulate plant developing activities by biotech firms.
2. Improved Farm Management
Non-viable seed produced on V-GURT plants will reduce the propagation of volunteer plants. Volunteer plants can become an economic problem for larger-scale mechnized farming systems that incorporate crop rotation.
3. Improved grain quality
Under warm, wet harvest conditions non V-GURT grain can sprout, which lowers the quality of grain produced. It is speculated that this problem would not occur with the use of V-GURT grain varieties.
4. Biosafety
Use of V-GURT technology could prevent escape of transgenes into wild relatives and prevent any impact on biodiversity. Crops modified to produce non-food products could be armed with GURT technology to prevent accidental transmission of these traits into crops destined for foods.
[edit]
Possible Disadvantages of GURT Technology
1. Transmission of the "Terminator" trait to wild plants, or cultivated plants whose seeds are saved
There is a concern that V-GURT plants could cross-polinate with non-genetically modified plants, either in the wild or on the fields of farmers who do not adopt the technology. Though the V-GURT plants are supposed to produce sterile seeds, there is concern that this trait will not be expressed in the first generation of a small percentage of these plants, but be expressed in later generations. This does not seem to be much of a problem in the wild, as a sterile plant would naturally be selected out of a population within one generation of trait expression. This is however a problem in some farming systems, especially for indigenous groups who save seed rather than purchase it from developers. The loss of the ability for such farmers to save seed may lead to decreased agroecological biodiversity on their farms and decreased yields of affected crops.
2. Safety of Food produced from GURT crops
As with all Genetically Modified crops the food safety of GURT technology would need to be assessed when and if a commercial release of a GURT containing crop was proposed.
3. The inequitable distribution of means; the targeting of vulnerable classes
In addition to potential biological and ecological harms, there is both an economic and normative concern that small farmers, indegenous peoples, and entire rural communities could be made dependent on agro-industry corporations for seed.
4. A presumption of entitlement
As with many other technologies, there is debate as to the role and responsibility implicit in the normative assumptions involved in producing GURTs. The issue is distinct from the conflict surrounding the production of GM foods generally, in that GURT products are specifically designed to affect future generations and potentially have a distinct impact on human and ecological health and livelihoods. Thus, some believe that in making decisions regarding such products, considerations should extend beyond what is legally permissible."
I'm against them; they did have their reasons for developing them, but I think everyone was rightly suspicious of the fact that "huge profits" would happen to be a nifty little ancillary benefit.
The second-generation-sterility technology itself might have non-agricultural or controlled uses that are worth investigating, but obviously it should be regulated to prevent companies from abusing the technology.
Most of those supposed benefits mentioned in the Wikipedia article requires the use of terminator seeds. Better farming practices and improved seed strains have been undertaken by farmers themselves for centuries or, more recently, by government agricultural labs, which then make the improved product widely available. Benefit three is pure speculative bullshit and number four is only an advantage becuase of the difficulties posed by the very existence of genetically modified crops.
The whole idea of terminator seeds is appallingly bad, which is why pretty much the entire world opposes it.
I know; just pointing out that they have pretexts and explanations and don't just steeple their fingers and grin maliciously when asked what the hell kind of evil buggers they are.
I can imagine conservation uses or strictly controlled agricultural utility - if one absolutely had to intervene in an ecosystem with an alien plant, a sufficiently safe terminator gene would give you a way of controlling the consequences. For mechanized agriculture, if seeds aren't already being reused, it might be more convenient to use one-off seeds and avoid volunteer plants.
However, for the most part the technology just enables a huge cash grab, and I'm glad it won't happen.
Unless, of course, some multinational invents some mega-super-grain and refuses to release it without copy-protection, in a time of need. That would be the one way to twist governments' arm.
Unless, of course, some multinational invents some mega-super-grain and refuses to release it without copy-protection, in a time of need. That would be the one way to twist governments' arm.
Yow. That's devious. Good to see you getting into the spirit of things.
All I can say about this is that if the average Grade 5 or 6 heard about these suicide seeds, they would be astonished.
The very idea that life-giving seeds would be subject to corporate vagaries would seem unreal.
I'll make sure it's brought up at the next PAC and School Board meetings.
As if Canadian farmers need worse news. This is just outrageous.
And for myself, I shall start harvesting and hoarding organic seeds at every opportunity. Who knows, one day THEY might come for me, not cuz of weed or bombs, but cuz I have unauthorized wheat, canola, cucumber and tomato seeds O.O
"Unless, of course, some multinational invents some mega-super-grain and refuses to release it without copy-protection, in a time of need."
Well - they don't really need to "invent" anything...apparently they think they can just patent what's already there:
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=34
And if you're not sufficiently creeped out by a patent on rice, how about one on the gene sequence for the flowering of rice and other crops (icluding as-yet undiscovered plants):
http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=502
The second one (aptly named "Daisy Cutter") is a failed, lapsed patent. But if *evil* doesn't come to mind when reading about this...well...
Thanks Tim - great post.
Excellent post Tim. People should remember this example the next time they hear our government spout off about pesticide safety, fish farming, pharmaceuticals, tarsands, etc. The government is in the back pocket of the multi-national corporations.
Thanks for the kudos, folks, but I have to say that Pogge and Mahigan gave me my education on this subject more than a year ago. Like many of you, I was amazed and have since kept a pretty close watch on developments.
From the 'Thank the Goddess For Small Mercies Dept.': http://www.seedsavers.org/