'Terminator' victory a small step in long war

While agricultural scientists work on developing genetically engineered potato plants, activists say it's the profit motive that is driving the development of terminator seed technologies.

October 7, 1999
Web posted at: 12:19 p.m. EDT (1619 GMT)

A firestorm of criticism - and well-organized campaigns by opponents - over the development of plants that are genetically engineered to produce infertile seeds caused Monsanto to announce Monday that it would not pursue the commercial development of so-called terminator technology. Biotech critics say that it's one battle in a long war, though.

Monsanto's decision was revealed in a letter written by Chairman Robert Shapiro to the Rockefeller Foundation, saying the company had decided not to develop the gene after seeking comment from the foundation and other groups.

Public outcry over the production of plants genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds is just the latest in the battle over genetically engineered foods. The agribusiness industry has been battered over the last year by protests, particularly in Europe, over the planting genetically modified crops. There have also been calls for labeling of all products containing genetically modified foods and for stringent government regulations.

A farm advocacy organization in Canada was one of the first and most vocal opponents of the terminator technology. According to Hope Shand, director of research for the Rural Advancement Foundation International, it's not the technology, it's who controls it that is the problem.

Many of the technologies being developed will require that chemicals supplied by the seed companies be sprayed in order to get the desired trait - resistance to a pests or disease, for instance, to work. Opponents see this as an indication that multinational companies will dominate food production.

One battle in a long war

"Monsanto's decision is at least a recognition that it has heard the public outcry and that the public has a role in how the technology develops," says Dr. Jane Rissler, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Rissler has been working on the issues revolving around genetic engineering for more than 11 years. "The biotech industry up to now has been ignoring pubic opinion. It also gives us an opportunity to tell the USDA that their priorities are wrong and that the federal government should not be funding this kind of research."

Rissler feels this is one of the first times in the biotech battle that the wolf in sheep's clothing has been exposed. The industry says it's out to save - or at least feed - the world by modifying plant traits to provide higher yields, greater resistance to pests and disease and increased nutritional value. The reality, says Rissler, is that it's the profit motive that is driving the development of the technologies.

"The fact that terminator technology will work to the disadvantage of the subsistence farmer who depends on harvesting seeds for the next year's crops illustrates the intent of the companies, which is to get the maximum return on their investment," says Rissler. It's not that that's necessarily bad in a capitalistic society, she continues, but it's not saving the world.

Long-term relevance of decision

Concern over the corporatization of agriculture runs through the discussions of genetically modified foods, and the long-term relevance of Monsanto's announcement leaves room for skepticism.

The terminator technology was developed through a cooperative research grant between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Co. The patent for the technology was approved in 1998.

Monsanto is attempting to acquire Delta, although the deal is being reviewed by the Justice Department. Delta says it will continue to work on terminator technology - it would be years before the seeds came to market - and in fact the research is subsidized by the USDA.

Even Monsanto's spokesperson Scarlett L. Foster said Monsanto might use seed-sterility technology internally.

"Monsanto will continue to pursue applications that will give them greater control over how crops are grown, and to get more out of the seeds," says Rissler.

"We are skeptical of the benefits, worried about the risks, feel the technology needs to be more regulated and the public needs to have a voice in the process," Rissler concludes.

Copyright 1999, Environmental News Network, All Rights Reserved

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.