London (14.11.05) – Early in the development of transgenic crops and agricultural biotechnology, the idea arose of developing ways to stop the new GM plants propagating, perhaps by a genetic construct rendering their seeds unable to germinate unless they were stimulated by the application of a specific chemical. This technology was called “Genetic Use Restriction Technology", or “GURT” for short.

In order to recoup their enormous investments in developing the technology, the producers had introduced a technology fee as part of the sales of the new GM seeds; if a farmer wished to buy them, he would sign an agreement not to save seeds from the crops to plant the following year but would buy a fresh supply from the seed producer.

There was, of course, no compulsion; farmers were free to buy and use what they liked. If they wanted to save seeds, the conventional varieties were on the shelves. But if they thought the returns were more attractive, they could to pay the technology fee. In North America they had no doubt: GM soya is now more than 80% of the total crop, GM maize is used overwhelmingly in regions of high insect pest pressure while GM canola (oilseed rape) is preponderant in Canada.

The idea of controlled germination clearly had merit. Farmers and others who wished to avoid all possibility of cross-pollination from GM into non-GM crops might have welcomed the proposal; it would have prevented any commingling of the two sorts.

However, the anti-GM campaigners and their commercial allies recognised the propaganda value of designating the concept “terminator” (an evocative, if meaningless term) and opposing it tooth and nail. They were not (and are not) interested in any form of coexistence; their political and commercial agendas are based on totally defeating transgenic technology, thereby gaining political advantage from “having saved humanity” and the commercial benefit of avoiding competition with a product not only superior in quality but beneficial for “the environment”. That they could not stomach and for several years their combined efforts scared off those who might have developed the “terminator” technology.

But, it seems, not entirely. Just recently there have been reports (1) of a patent having been issued followed, without delay, by those special interest pressure groups again voicing their objections (2, 3). Their arguments, missing the point as ever, have not changed: “Plants created using Terminator technology will produce sterile seeds, creating a monopoly and unnatural control of the seeds. Farmers will not be able to use seeds from such plants for the following season's cultivation…..If this technology is introduced in crops such as soya, wheat, canola and cotton it will force farmers to buy new seeds every year from the same company.”

Farmers (and not only those in America) knew all that years ago; they have responded, year after year, by planting more and more GM crops on ever increasing acreages.

Sources:

1. Sean Pratt. Terminator system patent Oked. The Western Producer (2.11.05) (http://www.producer.com/subscriber/articles/2005/1103/news/20051103news02.html)

2. Sharon Hill. Farm group renews call for banning 'suicide seeds': Canada recently granted patent to U.S. firm. The Standard (St. Catharines, Ontario)

3. Suicide seeds: Corporates gain control over nature's seeds as the Terminator patent is granted – Ban Terminator Campaign. Omega-News (25.10.05) (http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1091040)

<<<back