|
Protests against Terminator technology came to a head yesterday as discussions opened at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Farmers and activists from around the world pleaded with governments to preserve and strengthen the international moratorium against sterile GM seed technology.
Over a hundred demonstrators greeted delegates as they entered the conference yesterday, chanting their opposition to Terminator. On the same day, the UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology delivered a last-minute plea to the Canadian High Commissioner and the UK's Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to recognise the risks and change their position, which up to now has been in favour of weakening the moratorium.
ETC Group has calculated the potential costs to poor farmers around the world should Terminator enter agriculture and replace the cultures of seed saving upon which rural populations rely. The cost to farmers could amount to billions of dollars - money which poor, seed-saving farmers do not have, and which may end up pushing rural populations out of agriculture if they can no longer save seed or afford to buy it.
While Terminator proponents may claim that using GM or Terminator can remain a choice for farmers, and that nobody will be forced to use the technology, many fear that the spread of Terminator will be inevitable if permitted in GM crops. We already observe that in countries where GM is commercialised, non-GM varieties are becoming increasingly difficult to buy from seed companies. And if GM Terminator crops are planted alongside non-GM crops, they may cross-pollinate, affecting yields in native varieties and causing farmers to transfer to store-bought seeds (which might be Terminator.) Farmers in North America have already found that the way to avoid being sued by Monsanto for "patent infringement" from accidental cross-pollination by GM crops, is to buy Monsanto's GM seeds from the outset.
It is therefore possible to imagine a worst-case scenario where populations that have traditionally relied on farm-saved seed, find themselves being forced to shift to buying GM Terminator seed instead. The ETC Group report shows how this will make agriculture prohibitively expensive for the world's rural poor and leave them with nothing - not even their own seeds.
***********************************************
1. Don't Sell "Suicide Seeds", Activists Warn
Article from Inter Press Service. Date: 21 March 2006
Haider Rizvi
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32582
2. Terminator Seeds – Poor Farmers Could Face Billions of Dollars in Extra Seed Bills
Press Release from UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology.
Date: 22nd March 2006
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=294&iType=
3. Canadian Government Told "Drop Support for Terminator Technology"
Press Release form UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology.
Date: 20 March 2006
4. Southern farmers confront challenge of Terminator II
Article from Panos. Date: 13 March 2006
Ebenezer T. Bifubyeka
http://www.panos.org.uk/newsfeatures/featuredetails.asp?id=1230
5. Trouble Cooking Over Potatoes
Article from Inter Press Service. Date: 22 March 2006
Sanjay Suri
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32592
************************************************
1. Don't Sell "Suicide Seeds", Activists Warn
Article from Inter Press Service. Date: 21 March 2006
Haider Rizvi
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32582
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 21 (IPS) - As officials from around the world gather here to discuss an international agreement to protect biodiversity, battle lines are being drawn on the question of whether governments should allow the use and sale of genetically modified "Terminator seeds".
On Tuesday morning, as delegates arrived at the conference venue, they faced more than 100 peasant and indigenous rights activists at the main gates staging a demonstration in support of a complete ban on the sale and use of Terminator seeds, officially known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology.
"These seeds are killed seeds," the crowd shouted as they watched delegates arrive in cars and buses.
"Terminate the Terminator", the activists chanted in unison, while demanding tough laws against field testing and sale of so-called "Terminator" technology, which refers to plants that have had their genes altered so that they render sterile seeds at harvest. Because of this trait, some activists call Terminator products "suicide seeds".
The U.N. Convention on Biodiversity had adopted a moratorium on field testing and commercialisation of Terminator technology in 2000. But opponents fear that such seeds are likely to be marketed soon unless governments impose a blanket ban.
Currently, the product is being tested in greenhouses throughout the United States. Developed by multinational agribusiness firms and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Terminator has the potential to keep small-scale farmers from saving or replanting seeds from one growing season to another, activists say.
"Somebody is trying to befool me as a farmer," said Clement Chipokolo of the African Biodiversity Network, who came here all the way from Zambia. "In my culture we don't buy seeds. We save them. But now somebody is trying to bring agricultural slavery for us."
The industry claims that it will enhance biodiversity and its high cost is more than compensated for by improved crop yield and quality. But opponents argue that Terminator would not only undermine traditional knowledge and innovation, but would add to the economic burden of poor peasants who depend on saved seeds.
"It's the neutron bomb of biotechnology," said Hope Shand of the Canada-based Action Group for Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC), about Terminator. "It is designed to maximise profits for the biotech industry because farmers will be forced to buy seeds every year."
Currently, the number of small farmers around the world is estimated to be over one billion.
The biotech industry's interest in promoting Terminator is not hard to understand because each year the global commercial seed market brings in about 23 billion dollars in revenue, according to independent trade experts who estimate that if farmers were forced to buy new seeds at each planting, the global market would be worth over 45 billion dollars.
ETC researchers estimate that if allowed to sell Terminator seeds, the industry will earn at least an additional 10 billion dollars from farmers in developing countries. They say that Brazilian farmers will have to pay no less than 500 million dollars a year to buy soybean seeds, while the purchase of seeds for wheat and cotton crops will cost peasants in Pakistan more than 120 million dollars a year.
Currently, about 80 percent of farmers in both Brazil and Pakistan grow crops based on saved seeds from previous harvests.
Many governments in the developing world have so far resisted pressure from the U.S. government and industry, but some governments in the industrialised world are trying to influence the outcome of the negotiations in favour of the industry, say activists closely watching the talks here.
Last year, the government of Brazil -- the world's fifth most populous country and a major agricultural producer -- passed a law prohibiting the use, registration, patenting and licensing of modified seeds. India, a predominantly agrarian nation and home to one billion people, has done the same.
Yet indications are that rich countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand will side with the U.S. and the biotech industry during the two weeks of negotiations on the Convention on Biodiversity, which has drawn delegates from 188 countries. The Australian delegation is reportedly trying to introduce language that would undermine efforts to keep the U.N. moratorium on field testing and commercialisation of modified seeds intact.
Last January, when delegates to the Convention on Biodiversity met in Spain, the Australians recommended that Terminator technology be studied on a "case-by-case risk assessment basis", a turning point in negotiations that activists fear has the potential to undermine the U.N. moratorium.
"It is an immoral technology. It's anti-farmer," Shand said. "We don't need any more studies. It must be banned."
Francisco Rodriguez Anamuri of Compesina (a women and indigenous people's group in Chile) added: "It's not about Monsanto. It's about our food security. You don't have food security if you don't have seeds."
Monsanto, the U.S.-based biotech giant, has repeatedly come under attack from environmental and indigenous right groups for its aggressive research and marketing of genetically modified crops. Though it had pledged in the past not to commercialise Terminator, Monsanto says it seeks to study "the risks and benefits of this technology on case-by-case basis".
Some countries have agreed with the industry that genetic modifications can play a significant role in fighting hunger at negligible risk to the environment. But a 100-page study released in January by Friends of the Earth concludes that only a handful of countries have introduced and increased the use of genetically modified crops.
Titled "Who Benefits from GM Crops?", the report says that after 10 years of GM crop cultivation, more than 80 percent of the area sown with biotech crops is still concentrated in only three countries: the United States, Argentina and Canada.
In other countries -- including Brazil and Paraguay -- GM crops were planted illegally, and in Indonesia, they were planted after government officials were bribed, FoE said.
On the debate surrounding the use and sale of Terminator seeds, a senior U.N. official said indications are that delegates might reach a consensus by the end of the meeting next week.
"For six years there has been a deadlock," Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity, told IPS Monday. "I think the decision could likely be taken at this meeting." (END/2006)
***********************************
2. Terminator Seeds – Poor Farmers Could Face Billions of Dollars in Extra Seed Bills
Press Release from UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology.
Date: 22nd March 2006
http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=294&iType=
The first estimates of the costs of GM terminator technology to farmers around the world has been released as the debate about the controversial sterile seed technology intensifies at the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) talks in Brazil today.
The estimates [1], prepared by civil society organisation ETC Group in
cooperation with farm organisations, show that if Terminator was
commercialised and displaced all farm saved seed the extra seed costs for farmers in just seven countries could easily exceed $1.2 billion per year equivalent to 23% of the UK’s £5.3 million aid budget. Examples of the extra costs to replace farm saved seed used for major crops include:
? Soya beans in Brazil 70% of the planted area – additional costs- $407m/year.
? Wheat in Pakistan 88% of the planted area – additional costs $191m/year.
? Rice in the Philippines 59% of the planted area – additional costs $172m/year.
If Terminator technology were applied over time to all the seed lines around the world, the costs to farmers of buying fresh seed annually would be billions of dollars. Even Canadian wheat farmers, whose government is one of the leading proponents of Terminator at the CBD, could be stung with an annual bill of US$85
million dollars.
Biotech companies have made no secret of their plans to maximise their share of the global seed market. The global farm saved seed market is potentially huge and even in the UK it is estimated that between 10 and 40% of oilseed rape seed is saved each year [2]. In Argentina, where 90% of soya is now GM, farmers continued the practice of seed saving when GM soya was introduced and Monsanto has made retrospective attempts through the courts to re-coup its lost sales from European importers [3]. Companies are likely to want to circumvent such GM seed saving with the use of Terminator technology.
The issue of Terminator technology is being negotiated at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), meeting in Curitiba, Brazil this week [4].
Terminator crops (or GURTS - genetic use restriction technologies) are
genetically modified to create sterile seeds at harvest so that farmers must buy new seed every season. Over 500 organisations around the world have joined the Ban Terminator campaign to prevent the current CBD decision[3] which placed a global moratorium on outdoor testing or commercial growing of Terminator crops before global socio-economic assessments had been completed, being weakened at this week’s talks.
A small group of industrialised nations, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK
(supported on the sidelines by the US which is not a member of the CBD) promoted "case by case risk assessment" for Terminator Technology. This "case by case" clause would open the door to field testing and eventual commercialisation of sterile seed technology ahead of an understanding of the socio-economic impact on the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm saved seeds for their food security and livelihoods [5]. The ETC data is the first attempt to be published to assess the cumulative impact of hundreds of |terminator seeds lines around the world.
Roberto Requião, the Governor of Brazil's Paraná state, opened the
CBD conference on Monday with a strong condemnation of Terminator.
"Suicide seeds are the next step in the transnational industry's strategy to control the production and commercial use of seeds"
Requião told the opening plenary of 3000 delegates "It is one more step by transnational industry to obtain total control over the production of the grain."
Commenting for the UK Terminator Alliance [4], Pete Riley said:
"No wonder the multinational seed industry is so keen to win 'case by
case' assessment of Terminator. If they can undermine the existing moratorium they will use Terminator as a technology platform for all commercial seeds and
extract billions of extra dollars from farmers. The UK government and others backing the case by case approach need to listen hard to Southern voices on this vital issue and maintain the moratorium”.
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065
1. The Potential Economic Impact of Terminator Seed Technology
Estimates for Selected Crops and Countries
ETC Group ( www.etcgroup.org )
Background: The president of Delta & Pine Land, the world’s largest cotton seed company, predicted in 1998 that Terminator could be used on over 400 million hectares of crops worldwide, and that it would provide seed companies with a safe way to introduce their patented seeds into countries like China, India and Pakistan – especially for crops like rice, wheat, soybeans and cotton.[i] He also speculated that the technology fee would range from a low of 50 cents per acre to $1.50 per acre for high-value crops. (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). Delta & Pine Land is now growing Terminator plants in greenhouses in the United States.
If farmers who now use farm-saved seeds were forced to buy new seeds every time they planted, what economic impact would it have on those countries?
The following case studies were compiled using statistics from national governments, farmers’ organizations, trade groups and universities. These statistics are theoretical – but they illustrate what's at stake if the CBD fails to strengthen the de facto moratorium on Terminator and reject proposed language on “case-by-case risk assessment.” If Terminator seeds are commercialized, the multinational Gene Giants will take total control over the first link in the food chain.
Brazil – Soybeans:
In Brazil, an estimated 70 percent of the 22 million hectare soybean crop is planted in farmer-saved seed. If Terminator seeds were commercialized and used in soybeans, it would cost Brazilian soybean farmers US$407 million per year (Brazilian Real $866 million).[ii]
Argentina - Soybeans
In Argentina, an estimated 70 percent of the 14 million hectare soybean crop comes from farmer-saved seed and purchases of “bolsa blanca” (black market) seeds. If Terminator seeds were commercialized and used in soybean seed, the estimated cost would be US$276 million per annum (BRL$588).[iii]
Pakistan – Wheat:
In Pakistan approximately 88% of the total wheat area is planted in farm-saved seeds. If wheat farmers in Pakistan were forced to rely on Terminator seeds it would cost them an estimated US$191 million per year (BRL $406 million).[iv]
Pakistan – Cotton:
An estimated 40% of Pakistan’s 3.15 million cotton area is planted in farm-saved cotton seed. The estimated cost if cotton farmers in Pakistan were forced to buy seed with Terminator technology: US$33 million per annum (BRL $70 million).[v]
Philippines – Rice:
In the Philippines, 59% of the rice crop is planted with farmer-saved seeds. If these rice farmers were forced to buy new seed every time they planted - they would spend an estimated US$172 million per annum (BRL $366).[vi]
Ethiopia – Wheat
In Ethiopia, approximately 90% of the total wheat area is planted in farm-saved seed. If Terminator seeds were commercialized and Ethiopian wheat farmers were forced to buy new seed every time they planted, it would cost an estimated US$66 million per year. (140 BRL)[vii]
Iran – Rice:
In 2001-2002 more than 600,000 hectares under rice production in Iran, and more than 80% of the total rice area under cultivation was dedicated to local varieties, which implies farmer-saved seeds. If rice farmers in Iran who use farm-saved seed on an estimated 480,000 hectares were forced to buy Terminator rice seed, it would cost approximately US$34 million (BRL$72) [viii]
Canada – Wheat:
If Canadian wheat farmers (who now grow wheat on 8.36 million hectares with farm-saved seed) were forced to buy Terminator wheat seed, the total cost per annum would be US$85 million per annum (BRL$181).
2. Page 38 “GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability” – A report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), November 2003.
3. http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=11826
4 The COP8 of the CBD is being held in Brazil this week. Decisions on Terminator will be Wednesday 22nd March.
5. The global moratorium is CBD Decision V/5 section III agreed in 2000. This decision states that products incorporating Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) should not be approved for field-testing or commercial use until assessment of ecological, socio-economic and cultural impacts.
6. The UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology includes UK Food Group, Progressio (formerly CIIR), Friends of the Earth, GM Freeze, GeneWatch UK, The Gaia Foundation, EcoNexus, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Munlochy GM Vigil. Link to www.eco-matters.org for free copies of a leaflet on Terminator Technology.
EDM calling for moratorium on Terminator to be maintained has been signed by 215 MPs from all parties.
The group wrote to Margaret Beckett this week asking that the UK uphold the moratorium.
[i] Bill Freiberg, “Is Delta & Pine Land’s Terminator Gene” a Billion Dollar Discovery?” Seed and Crops Digest, March/April 1998.
[ii] Sources: Central Cooperative for Agricultural Research (Coodetec); Enrique Ortega. FEA, Unicamp, Campinas, Brasil, FAO.
Approximately 22 million hectares of soybeans were under cultivation in 2005/06. According to Central Cooperative for Agricultural Research (Coodetec), certified RR soybean seeds account for 2.5 million hectares of plantings – only 11.4% of the 22 million hectares under cultivation in the 05-06 growing season. We are using a conservative estimate that 70% of the total soybean crop in Brazil is planted in farmer-saved and/or black market seed. According to Enrique Ortega, the cost of certified soybean seed in Brazil per hectare/per year is US$25.20. 15.4 million hectares x $25.20 = $388 million. If Brazilian soybean farmers who are currently using farm-saved seed were forced to buy commercial seed every year they would spend $388 million on seed at current commercial soybean seed prices. If an additional fee of 50 cents per acre were charged ($1.23 per hectare $1.23 per hectare x 15.4 million hectares = $18,942,000. The total estimated cost to Brazilian soybean farmers, if Terminator seeds were commercialized and used in soybeans = $388 million + $19 million = $407 million.
[iii] Sources: Secretaria de Agricultura, Republica Argentina: http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/00/agricultura/otros/granos/soja.php; Walter Pengue, Professor of Agriculture and Ecology, University of Buenos Aires; In Argentina, approximately 70% of the soybean area is planted in farmer-saved seeds and seed purchased on the black market (“bolsa blanca”). Of the 14 million hectares of soybeans harvested in 2005, an estimated 9,800,00 hectares were sown with farm-saved soybean seeds. In Argentina, the cost of soybean seed (RR) is approximately US $27 per hectare. If farmers who are now using farm-saved seed were forced to use Terminator soybean seed, how much would they have to pay? 9,800,000 ha x $27 per ha = $264,600,000; estimated Terminator technology fee (50 cents per acre) = $1.23 per hectare: $1.23 x 9,800,000 = $12,054,000
Total = $264,600,000 + $12,054,000 = $276,654,000.
[iv] Sources: Lok Sanjh Foundation; www.nationalpak.com; FAOSTAT. Pakistan harvested approximately 8.3 million hectares of wheat in 2005. Only 12% of the total wheat area is planted with purchased seed. An estimated 7.3 million hectares of wheat are planted with farm-saved seed. The current price of wheat seed per hectare is approximately US$25.00. 7.3 million hectares x $25 per ha = $182,500,000
Estimated Terminator technology fee: $1.23 per hectare 7.3 million x $1.23 = $8,979,000
$182,500,000 + $8,979,000 = $191,479,000. Total estimated cost if wheat farmers in Pakistan (who are now growing wheat on 7.3 million hectares with farm-saved seed) were forced to buy seed with Terminator technology = $191,479,000.
[v] Sources: Sources: Lok Sanjh Foundation, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. In 2005/06, Pakistan produced 3.15 million hectares of cotton. An estimated 40% of the total cotton area, 1,260,000 hectares, is planted in farm-saved cotton seed. Cost of commercial cotton seed per hectare is approximately US$25. $25 per ha x 1,260,000 hectares = $31,500,000 Terminator technology fee - $1.23 per hectare = $1.23 x 1,260,000 = $1,549,800
$31,500,000 + $1,549,800 = $33,049,800
Total estimated cost if cotton farmers in Pakistan (who are now growing cotton on an estimated 1.26 million hectares with farm-saved seed) were forced to buy seed with Terminator technology = $33,049,800.
[vi] Sources: Philippines Department of Agriculture; SEARICE, FAO.
Approximately 4.12 million hectares of rice were harvested in the Philippines in 2005. According to the Philippines Department of Agriculture, the area planted in certified, registered and hybrid rice for 05/06 targets = 1.68 million hectares. Of the 1.68 million ha, approx. 23% to hybrid rice; 77% to certified commercial rice seed. Approximately 41% total rice area in Philippines planted to purchased seed. An estimated 59% rice area planted to farmer-saved seeds and informal seed exchanges (SEARICE notes this is conservative estimate – in reality the area planted to farmer-saved seed is higher) With government subsidy the current price of hybrid rice is $24 per hectare. For two plantings of rice per year, the total is $48 per hectare/per year. Cost of self-pollinated commercial rice seed: $76.50 per hectare per year (two plantings)
If 389,000 ha planted in hybrid rice, the cost of seed = 389,000 x $48 = $18,672,000 (govt. subsidized price) If 1,291,867 ha planted in certified commercial rice, the estimated cost of seed (two plantings per annum) = 1,292,000 hectares x $76.50 = $98,838,000
What would be the cost if farmers were forced to buy seed for 2,420,000 hectares – the 59% of the total rice area now planted in farm-saved seeds? We calculate that 23% of total area is the cost of hybrid rice: 556,600 hectares x $48.00 = $26,716,800
Estimated additional technology fee of 50 cents per acre = $1.23 per hectare (1 hectare = 2.471 acres). The additional technology fee of $1.23 per hectare x 556,600 hectares = $684,618
$26,716,800 + $684,618 = $27,401,418
If 77% of Terminator rice area (1,863,400) – 77% of the area now devoted to farm-saved rice – was planted at cost of certified commercial (2 plantings per year = $76.50 per hectare) 1,863,400 ha x 76.50 = $142,550,100
1,863,400 ha x $1.23 = $2,291,982
77% of rice area calculated at cost of certified commercial seed + technology fee: Total = $144,842,082
144,842,082 + $27,401,418 = $172,243,500 – the total estimated cost if rice farmers in the Philippines (now growing rice on 2.4 million hectares with farm-saved seed) were forced to buy seed with Terminator technology.
[vii] Sources: FAO; Dr. Regassa Feyissa, former director, Institute of Biodiversity, Addis Ababa. More than 90% of the wheat crop in Ethiopia is planted in farmer-saved seed. The total wheat area harvested in 2005 was 1,200,000 hectares. Approximately 1,000,000 hectares planted in farm-saved seeds. Price of commercial wheat seed in Ethiopia = approximately 525 birr per hectare = US$
1 Ethiopian Birr = 0.12443 US dollar 525 Birr = approximately $65.00 per ha
US$65 per hectare x 1,000,000 hectares = US$65,000,000 Estimated Terminator technology fee = $1.23 per hectare x 1,000,000 = $1,230,000
$65,000,000 + $1,230,000 = $66,000,000 per hectare
Ethiopian wheat farmers were forced to buy commercial wheat seed every time they planted, and if an additional technology fee of $1.23 per hectare were added to the price of commercial wheat seed, they would spend an estimated $66 million per annum.
[viii] Sources: Ministry of Jihad for Agriculture MJA, FAO/TCDC Mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran; N. Shobha Rani. On the Internet: http://www.fao.org/documents/ show_cdr.asp?url_file=//DOCREP/003/W8595T/ w8595t00.htm. According to FAO more than 80% of the rice land under cultivation is dedicated to local varieties, which implies farmer-saved seeds. In 2001-2002 more than 600,000 hectares were under rice production in Iran. In 2001-02 the average cost of commercial rice seed per hectare was 568,560 rials, about $70 US dollars at the exchange rate of the time.
Estimated technology fee = US$1.23 per hectare x 480,000 hectare = US$590,400 480,000 x US$70 = US$33,600,000 US$590,400 + US$33,600,000 = US$34,190,400
***********************************************
3. Canadian Government Told "Drop Support for Terminator Technology"
Press Release form UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology.
Date: 20 March 2006
The Canadian Government is under attack for aggressive lobbying of other delegations to relax the global moratorium on Terminator technology at this week's Convention on Biodiversity's Conference of the Parties in Brazil
Canada strongly supports a switch to a case-by-case approval system across the world for GM Terminator technology and is heavily lobbying other countries to support this position backed by the US government as well as the UK's pro-GM government.
The UK Campaigning Group on Terminator technology [1] will hand in a letter at the Canadian Embassy in London at 11.00 on Tuesday 21st March appealing for a last minute shift in Canada's policy and to urge them to stop pressurising less powerful delegations at the Convention on Biodiversity's (CBD) 8th Conference of the Parties (COP8) [2]. Negotiations are due to be completed in Brazil on 22nd March.
The current CBD Decision (V/5) [3] acknowledges the unique capacity of crop varieties containing the Terminator gene to produce sterile seeds which would not germinate if planted. Parties to the CBD recognised that this could have a disastrous impact on the 1.4 billion farmers who depend on saving seeds for their food security, livelihoods and to protect agricultural genetic diversity. The agreement signed in 2000 and supported by Canada, the UK , Australia and New Zealand, recommends that outdoor testing and commercial growing of Terminator crops should not take place until global socio-economic impact studies have been carried out and assessed (CBD Decision V/5 Is widely accepted as a de facto moratorium on Terminator technology). To date there are no published studies on GURTs.
The Canadian government has allied itself to a small group of industrialised countries including Australia, New Zealand and the UK, Influenced by the USA, calling for new wording in the CBD that would allow crop varieties containing Terminator technology to be assessed on a case-by-case and country by country basis. In a statement last month, the UK government announced their support for the case-by-case approach [4].
Critics of the case-by-case approach say that it will fail to assess the cumulative effects of hundreds of Terminator seeds entering the market over a period of years rather like assessing the impact of housing development on a house-by-house basis.
The Group will also make a last minute appeal to the UK government to support Southern nations by rejecting the case-by-case approach.
Commenting for the UK Campaigning Group, Elisabet Lopez, said
"Case-by-case assessment of Terminator technology goes against the interests of Southern countries where Terminator technology could cause serious social and economic damage and undermine the ability of people to provide food for themselves and their communities.. Case-by-case assessment of Terminator technology as advocated by the UK, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand governments could lead to even greater control over seeds by corporations, where currently we have 10 corporations controlling more than 50% of global seed sales. It is hard to understand the rationale for defending case-by-case assessment of Terminator given that there is still no data on the socio-economic impact of Terminator seeds - poor people of the world need the support of richer nations to hold the moratorium and to prevent Terminator seeds creeping into their countries".
NOTES TO EDITORS
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341065
1. PICTURE OPPORTUNITY 09.30 21st March at the Canadian High Commission
Macdonald House, 1 Grosvenor Square, London W1K 4AB
The UK Campaigning Group on Terminator Technology includes UK Food Group, Progressio (formerly CIIR), Friends of the Earth, GM Freeze, GeneWatch UK, The Gaia Foundation, EcoNexus, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Munlochy GM Vigil. Link to www.eco-matters.org for free copies of a leaflet on Terminator Technology.
EDM calling for moratorium on Terminator to be maintained has been signed by 207 MPs from all parties.
Copy of the letter available on request.
2. The COP8 of the CBD is being held in Brazil this week. Decisions on Terminator will be Wednesday 22nd March.
3. The global moratorium is CBD Decision V/5 section III agreed in 2000. This decision states that products incorporating Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) should not be approved for field-testing or commercial use until assessment of ecological, socio-economic and cultural impacts.
4. The UK Government's revised policy supporting case by case assessment of Terminator was published on 21st February 2006. However, Former Environment Minister Michael Meacher MP has confirmed in an article in The Guardian today that there has been a significant change in government policy compared to the policy he signed up to at the Convention on Biodiversity COP5 in Nairobi in 2000. The present policy supports for a case by case approach to approving GURT varieties compared with the previous position which supported the de facto moratorium pending generic socio-economic research into the impact of the GURTs on farmers around the world who are reliant on seed they save that year for sowing
their next crop. Michael Meacher's comment piece in The Guardian can be downloaded from
http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1730692,00.html
************************************************
4. Southern farmers confront challenge of Terminator II
Article from Panos. Date: 13 March 2006
Ebenezer T. Bifubyeka
http://www.panos.org.uk/newsfeatures/featuredetails.asp?id=1230
??Six years after being shoved into cold storage amid fears of multinational companies taking a stranglehold over agriculture, a futuristic technology that causes seeds to auto-destruct after just one harvest is preparing to claw its way back into the farmyards of the world.
[MBARARA, UGANDA – PANOS FEATURES] Unknown perhaps to most farmers, the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand – apparently prompted by Washington – have just been trying to get the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD, to overturn a six-year-old moratorium on the production and use of what have come to be called ‘Terminator Seeds’.
The technology, developed by multinational biotech companies, is controversial because the genetic code that causes seeds to self-destruct after harvesting just once robs farmers of the opportunity to save and sow again season after season – as they have done ever since agriculture began thousands of years ago.
‘Suicide seeds’
Officially known as Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), it is aimed at stopping farmers from freely reproducing seeds developed by large companies who put considerable funds into research and development.
It was jointly developed in the early 1990s by the US government’s Department of Agriculture and the Delta and Pine Land Company. They hold a US patent on the technology, and in October 2005 were granted the first European terminator patent.
The initial bid to introduce these seeds – also called ‘Suicide Seeds’ – in the late 1990s was met by massive public opposition across the world, with campaigners pointing out that 1.4 billion farmers worldwide depend on saved seeds and that the majority of them could not afford to buy new seeds every season.
The outcry led the CBD to agree an international de-facto moratorium on use of Terminator in 2000.
A ‘bewildering’ return
However, at a meeting of the CBD in Granada, Spain, on 23 to 27 January 2006, Australia, Canada and New Zealand successfully argued that the technology could actually increase productivity. Making a case that some anti-GM campaigners called “bewildering”, these countries argued that the new technology causes all crops to ripen at the same time – with minimum losses to storms and pests – which could increase profits for farmers.
New wording added to the CBD by these countries at the working group meeting in Granada threatens to overturn the moratorium, advocating instead “a case-by-case risk assessment basis with respect to different categories of GURTs technology”.
In tandem, Monsanto, one of the largest biotech companies in the world, appears to have reversed a pledge made in 1999 not to commercialise Terminator technology in food crops.
Monsanto’s new policy says that although the company continues to “stand by that commitment today”, it “does not rule out the potential development and use of one of these [GURTs] technologies in the future. The company will continue to study the risks and benefits of this technology on a case-by-case basis”.
[Editor's update: Monsanto has issued a response to this article saying, "Research on this technology remains incomplete, as it was in 1999 and any development still does not involve us; likewise, its potential future commercialisation is not part of our plans either." Monsanto's position on this issue can be viewed on their website]
The new text from Granada is to be placed before a high-level meeting of the CBD at Curitiba in Brazil in March. Campaigners say the stand taken by the European Union at Curitiba will be key to the fate of the moratorium. Although the EU itself takes a ‘case-by-case’ approach to GMOs, whether or not it will want to harmonise CBD provisions with its domestic regulations remains unclear.
In the meantime, just as in the 1990s, farmers’ groups from around the world – particularly Africa – are up in arms.
Ugandan challenge
The situation in Uganda captures the challenges facing farmers across the developing world – not only is knowledge about this technology scant, but governments do not have the expertise and technologies needed to assess the health and environmental risks posed by it.
Food Rights Network (FORINET), an alliance of farmers’ organisations, community-based organisations and civil society organisations based in Eastern Uganda, wrote to the CBD’s scientific advisory body last year saying there was little knowledge about the potential health and environmental risks of using Terminator technology.
“Uganda has no systems in place to monitor any negative impacts of the new GMO technology called GURTS or ‘Terminator’,” FLORINET said.
Individual farmers, once informed about the technology, have also expressed concern.
A farmer in Bushenyi district in western Uganda said on condition of anonymity that if farmers are forced to buy seeds every season, they will become dependent on multinational companies controlling the production and sale of these seeds.
“Farmers in poor countries will lose their seed saving practices and seed heritage thus losing ownership, sovereignty, independence, and dignity. We shall also lose export markets in countries that have rejected GM foods,” she added.
Cross-pollination fears
One of the main fears farmers have is over the environmental effects of Terminator seeds – that they may cross-pollinate with non-GM plants in neighbouring fields and make the indigenous crops sterile too.
“If the indigenous crops are contaminated with GMOs or Terminator through cross-pollination, it will destroy the local seed biodiversity and it will be difficult for the affected farmers to claim for compensation from the seed companies because it’s not easy to provide scientific proof,” said Christopher Benon Kababi, a bean and maize corn farmer at Mbarara in south-western Uganda.
“Besides, poor farmers won’t be able to pay for expensive legal action,” he added.
While most Ugandan farmers that Panos spoke to were strongly opposed to terminator seeds, a small minority saw in them an opportunity to increase profits.
Mbarara farmer Elkad Bakeihahoki, who harvests 100 bags of indigenous maize corn each season said: “I have never grown the GM crops or Terminator seeds. But I like improved varieties, so if Terminator seeds are commercialised and they yield well, I would buy and plant them.”
But Jeconious Musingwire, south-western zonal officer for the government’s National Environmental Management Authority urged caution. “Terminator and other GM varieties may have a disastrous impact on the environment, and communities have the right to say ‘no’,” he said.
“Governments should ask seed manufacturing corporations to carry out independent social, environmental and economic impact analysis and report this to the affected communities.”
‘No GM seeds for planting’ - minister
Minister for agriculture, fisheries and animal husbandry, Mary Mugyenyi was categorical that the Uganda government has not accepted GM seeds, including Terminator seeds, for planting.
“We don’t accept GM seeds for planting at all. We only accept modified [GM] food like maize flour but not seeds for planting,” Mugyenyi told Panos.
The government’s position was articulated forcefully at the Granada CBD meeting where the Ugandan representative spoke on behalf of all African countries.
“Perhaps the impacts of GURTs would not be felt more than on the African continent, where 90 per cent of all seed planted is from farm-saved sources; and where most of the farmers are small-scale subsistence farmers, predominantly local and indigenous communities,” David Hafashimana told the meeting.
“The basis of survival of biological diversity lies in the ability of all living organisms not only to live and die, but to replace themselves before they die,” he added.
Campaigners, scientists unite
African campaigners are also worried that further liberalisation of international trading rules – being negotiated at the UN World Trade Organisation – may ease the entry of Terminator and other GMOs into countries such as Uganda, where the use of GM seeds and plants is banned.
The forum also heard the CBD’s own scientific advisors advocate caution, and African NGOs slam the move to overturn the moratorium.
The CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) was clear in its assessment: “In the current absence of reliable data on GURTs, without which there is inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by parties for field testing” until further tests had been carried out and their results made known to farmers.
Additionally, a coalition of African NGOs told the meeting:
“We find bewildering the insistence by industry, and the countries that are promoting the use of GURTS (Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand), that this technology will lead to food security and improved yields. We can only shake our heads in wonder at the logic. To us it is obvious. There can be no food security if there are sterile seeds,” they said.
“Perhaps it is harder for those from developed countries to appreciate what seed means to us. But let us assure you that when we have described this technology to farmers, their response is one of disbelief, fear and outrage.”
Ebenezer T Bifubyeka is a reporter with The New Vision newspaper in Uganda and founder of the Mbarara Environmental Advocates Link (MEAL), which seeks to create environmental awareness among local leaders, politicians, academics and the general public.
His coverage of GM issues has won him a Panos fellowship to report on the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005 and from the CBD meeting in Brazil in March 2006.
This feature is published by Panos Features and can be reproduced free of charge. Please credit the author and Panos Features and send a copy to MAC, Panos Institute, 9 White Lion St, London N1 9PD, UK. Email: media@panos.org.uk
?
??
*************************************************
5. Trouble Cooking Over Potatoes
Article from Inter Press Service. Date: 22 March 2006
Sanjay Suri
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32592
LONDON, Mar 22 (IPS) - Trouble is cooking over the move by Syngenta International to introduce a genetically modified form of potato.
The new strain has been dubbed the 'terminator' because it puts at risk more than 3,000 naturally grown varieties of potato.
Indigenous farmers in Peru, the birthplace of the potato, have pleaded with Syngenta to publicly abandon its patent on 'terminator' technology to control sprouting potatoes. This technology could be used to prevent the sprouting of potatoes unless they are treated with chemicals supplied by the patent owner.
More than 40 indigenous leaders from potato producing communities in the Andean region of Peru came together last weekend in the Sacred Valley in Cusco to sign a strongly-worded letter to the company to protest introduction of the new strain.
The indigenous leaders gathered at a meeting called by the Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature and Sustainable Development in Peru and the International Institute for Environment & Development (IIED) in London. The Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development (ANDES) is governed by a general assembly which is largely composed of indigenous people from Andean villages.
The call to the Swiss-based company came as government officials met in Brazil this week for a United Nations biodiversity conference where terminator technology came up for heated debate.
''Most of the world's farmers who grow potatoes save potato tubers at harvest time to use as 'seed' for the following years' crop,'' Dr Michel Pimbert, programme director for agriculture and biodiversity at IIED told IPS.
''Terminator technology applied to potatoes is designed to make this impossible. Farmers integrated in markets, for example in Europe and the USA, would have to go back to the owners of these GMO (genetically modified organisms) potatoes each year and buy new potato seed.''
But farmers elsewhere who choose not to go for 'terminator' potatoes are also at risk, he said. ''For small-scale farmers living in the Andes where potatoes originate, or for organic potato producers in other parts of the world, the risk is that terminator type potatoes will release small amounts of pollen that can genetically contaminate their non-GMO potatoes.''
This would hugely increase corporate control over the global food system. Indigenous people fear that it would destroy the sharing of seeds, a centuries-old tradition, and with it their cultural and social way of life.
''Potatoes are like rice is to The Philippines or Thailand for Peruvian farmers and other small farmers living in the Andes countries like Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile,'' Pimbert told IPS. ''They are a hugely important crop for local and national economies.'' Potato is also a major crop in countries like The Netherlands, France and Britain.
Farmers growing natural varieties can consider a legal challenge to genetically modified and patented potatoes, Pimbert said.
''A legal challenge could be contemplated by farming communities that developed the original potato germplasm used and patented by biotech companies -- on the grounds that this is a form of institutionalised theft of their knowledge and innovations.''
Similarly, he said, ''organic or other farmers in Europe or elsewhere whose potato crops are contaminated by gene flow from the terminator potato can decide to sue the corporation.''
Pimbert acknowledged, however, that ''the playing field is uneven -- with corporations much better endowed with lawyers and legal expertise and funds than farmers -- and the financial costs of prolonged legal battles so high that many farmers and their organizations would have a tough time winning court cases. This is why it is absolutely vital that the moratorium on terminator is upheld.''
As a result of biosafety and other concerns, an international moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity has stopped the field testing and commercial use of terminator technology since 2000, the IIED said in a statement.
Some governments want to relax the United Nations' biosafety regulation, but the main biotech companies have accepted that public concern and environmental risk is too great to press ahead.
Alejandro Argumedo, associate director of the Quechua-Aymara Association for Nature and Sustainable Development, said in a statement: ''We want the big companies like Syngenta to show corporate social and environmental responsibility. The irresponsible attempt by some governments to bust the moratorium is motivated by power and greed at the expense of people, the environment and poverty reduction. Syngenta could prove that they are on the right side by abandoning their patent on the terminator potato.''
The Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP8) is taking place in Curitiba in Brazil, from March 20 to 31. (END/2006)
|
