Las empresas que desarrollaron esta aberrante tecnología la llamaron Sistema de Protección de la Tecnología, porque es para promover dependencia e impedir que se usen semillas sin pagarles regalías por patentes. En sus primeros folletos de propaganda, aseguraban también que es para que los agricultores del tercer mundo dejen de usar sus semillas obsoletas. En ese momento, mostraban claramente sus intenciones: terminar con las semillas campesinas y el irritante hecho de que la mayoría de los agricultores del mundo (campesinos, indígenas, agricultores familiares) usan sus propias semillas en lugar de comprárselas a ellas.

La tecnología suscitó un rechazo enorme e inmediato por parte de los movimientos campesinos y organizaciones sociales, y declaraciones de oposición de instituciones públicas de investigación y del entonces director de la FAO, el senegalés Jacques Diouf, que afirmaron que es una tecnología indeseable. En el 2000, el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica de Naciones Unidas (CDB), adoptó una moratoria global contra la experimentación y uso de la tecnología Terminator, que sigue vigente. Posteriormente, varios países comenzaron a discutir legislaciones nacionales para asegurar el cumplimiento de la moratoria. Brasil e India, prohibieron en sus leyes nacionales el uso de la tecnología Terminator.

Pero Terminator es uno de los sueños más preciados de las trasnacionales semilleras y no han renunciado a él. Les daría una gran ventaja para aumentar sus monopolios y la dependencia de los agricultores. Poco después de la prohibición en Brasil, los grandes latifundistas de ese país, clientes y compadres de Monsanto, Syngenta y demás trasnacionales de transgénicos, presentaron una propuesta legislativa para eliminar la prohibición, rechazada en varias comisiones, pero aún en trámite.

Además, las trasnacionales de transgénicos se movieron agresivamente para terminar la moratoria de Naciones Unidas contra Terminator, proponiendo a través de gobiernos amigos como Canadá, un párrafo para evaluar la tecnologíaTerminator caso por caso, que daría fin a la moratoria en la octava Conferencia del CBD en Curitiba, Brasil, en 2006.

En la sesión de CDB en 2006, México apoyó terminar la moratoria, irónicamente a través de un representante de la Comisión Nacional de Biodiversidad. Casualmente, es la misma persona que ahora desde la Comisión Nacional Forestal promueve proyectos REDD, también con un efecto devastador para las comunidades. Fue aislado por el resto de países de todo el Sur global.

En 2006 en el CDB en Curitiba, la Vía Campesina y organizaciones de todo el mundo se levantaron y protestaron masivamente para defender la moratoria internacional. En particular, las acciones de las mujeres de la Vía Campesina, que interrumpieron las sesiones de la ONU en una conmovedora acción pacífica en defensa de las semillas, determinó que el CDB mantuviera y reforzara la moratoria contra la tecnología Terminator.

No obstante, las trasnacionales siguen atacando y disfrazan sus razones, vías y representantes. Ahora afirman que Terminator es para la bioseguridad, una falsedad.

En la decima Conferencia del CBD en octubre 2010 en Nagoya, Japón, nuevamente el gobierno de México intentó eliminar la moratoria global contraTerminator, ahora como si fuera un tema administrativo, de decisiones que ya no tenían vigencia. No lo logró porque muchos otros países lo impidieron, pero mostró sus intenciones y a quién le es fiel.

En Brasil, a la propuesta de los latifundistas se sumó la del diputado Cándido Vaccarezza del partido gobernante (PT), para eliminar la prohibición deTerminator. La propuesta de Vaccarezza fue redactada por una abogada que trabaja para Monsanto, según denunció con pruebas fehacientes la Campaña por un Brasil Libre de Transgénicos, noticia difundida por el Movimiento de los Sin Tierra de Brasil en diciembre 2010. La propia abogada tuvo que reconocerlo. La propuesta está actualmente en discusión en una comisión del Congreso, creada especialmente para agilizar su discusión.

Los movimientos y organizaciones están alertas. En junio 2011, en la 10ª. Jornada de Agroecología de la Vía Campesina, en Paraná, Brasil, los más de 4000 participantes de todo el país, expresaron su rechazo a esta propuestas. Una semana después, se presentaron y rechazaron estos intentos de legalizar Terminator, en las reuniones internacionales de preparación de los movimientos sociales y sociedad civil hacia la conferencia mundial Río+20, en Río de Janeiro, con cientos de delegados participantes.

Brasil presidirá el próximo año la Río+20, una conferencia mundial de ONU que debe revisar los compromisos ambientales, a 20 años de la Cumbre de la Tierra en 1992. Además, Graziano de Silva, que viene del gobierno brasilero, acaba de asumir la dirección de la Organización para la Agricultura y la Alimentación de Naciones Unidas (FAO). Lo menos que puede hacer Brasil para ser responsable con ambos cargos, es mantener la prohibición contra Terminator a nivel nacional e internacional, por ser una de las mayores amenazas a la soberanía alimentaria y a la biodiversidad. Cualquier otra cosa, sería un suicidio.

*Investigadora del grupo ETC

Publicado en La Jornada, México, 2 de julio 2011

–

Tiquipaya, Bolivia. Más de 35 mil personas respondieron a la convocatoria que lanzó Bolivia a la Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos sobre Cambio Climático y Derechos de la Madre Tierra (CMPCC), en Cochabamba, del 19 al 22 de abril. La tercera parte vino de 142 países en cinco continentes. La mayoría de los participantes fueron movimientos sociales, campesinos, indígenas, organizaciones de mujeres, ambientalistas, pescadores. También acudieron representantes de gobierno de 47 naciones, académicos, intelectuales, activistas, artistas, músicos. Se debatió intensamente en 17 grupos de trabajo convocados por los organizadores y 127 talleres autorganizados.

Además, una de las grandes federaciones indígenas de Bolivia: el Consejo Nacional de Ayllus y Markas del Qullasuyu (Conamaq), llamó con otras agrupaciones a la “Mesa 18″ para tratar temas que no veían reflejados en la agenda de la conferencia, como la crítica a proyectos mineros, de gas y petróleo.

La convocatoria a esta cumbre rebasó todas las expectativas, tanto en número como en contenido, convirtiéndose en un hito histórico en el debate internacional sobre la crisis climática. Ante las maniobras de los gobiernos poderosos en Copenhague, Bolivia convocó a las bases de las sociedades del mundo a manifestar sus posiciones y plantearlas a los gobiernos. Ambas cosas sucedieron en forma contudente. También se afirmaron las redes e interacciones entre los movimientos, con una sana distancia de las propuestas de crear nuevas redes globales, ahora sobre crisis climática. Esto quedó para discutir entre los movimientos: la mayoría no considera que se necesita una nueva estructura, sino más interacción y complementación.

Se creó sí, una base común para la compresión, el análisis crítico y las estrategias frente a la crisis climática, enriquecida por diversas perspectivas desde muchas culturas, pueblos, organizaciones temáticas y sectoriales del continente y el mundo. El Acuerdo de los Pueblos en Cochabamba refleja esto (www.cmpcc.org) .

Hubo rechazo enérgico y repetido al “Entendimiento de Copenhague” que quiso imponer una veintena de países –los mayores responsables de la crisis climática– en diciembre pasado. Los cínicos “compromisos” que allí se firman significarían un aumento de la temperatura hasta de cuatro grados, una catástrofe anunciada para los pueblos del Sur. La CMPCC exige detener el calentamiento “descolonizando la atmósfera”, con una reducción de 50 por ciento de las emisiones de gases de los países industrializados en su fuente, no mediante mecanismos de mercados de carbono, a los cuales se opone en todas sus variantes. Rechaza también los mecanismos llamados REDD, que bajo el título de reducir la deforestación, en realidad la aumentarán y provocarán la alienación del manejo de los bosques por las comunidades y pueblos, además de promover los monocultivos de árboles, que no son bosques, sino agravantes de las crisis.

Enmarcando todo esto, se plantea una denuncia de las causas reales de la crisis climática planetaria. “Confrontamos la crisis terminal del modelo civilizatorio patriarcal basado en el sometimiento y destrucción de seres humanos y naturaleza, que se aceleró con la revolución industrial. El sistema capitalista nos ha impuesto una lógica de competencia, progreso y crecimiento ilimitado. Este régimen de producción y consumo busca la ganancia sin límites, separando al ser humano de la naturaleza, estableciendo una lógica de dominación sobre ésta, convirtiendo todo en mercancía: el agua, la tierra, el genoma humano, las culturas ancestrales, la biodiversidad, la justicia, la ética, los derechos de los pueblos, la muerte y la vida misma”, expresa el Acuerdo de los Pueblos.

Condena la agricultura industrial y las corporaciones de los agronegocios –directamente responsables de cerca de la mitad de las emisiones que causan la crisis climática–, así como los mecanismos y propuestas que apoyan el avance de las trasnacionales y la devastación de la Madre Tierra, como los tratados de libre comercio y la introducción de nuevas y riesgosas tecnologías, como transgénicos, tecnología terminator, nanotecnología, geoingeniería y agrocombustibles.

“Denunciamos cómo el modelo capitalista impone megaproyectos de infraestructura, invade territorios con proyectos extractivistas, privatiza y mercantiliza el agua y militariza los territorios, expulsando a los pueblos indígenas y campesinos de sus tierras, impidiendo la soberanía alimentaria y profundizando la crisis socioambiental”, continúa el Acuerdo de los Pueblos.

La declaración de la “Mesa 18“ enfatiza estos mismos aspectos, criticando políticas extractivistas y proyectos de explotación de hidrocarburos y mineros del gobierno boliviano. Aclara que su iniciativa no fue “una tribuna para desacreditar al gobierno ni para socavar la legitimidad de un cónclave del que nos sentimos parte… (se trata de) formular propuestas que ayuden a enderezar el rumbo del proceso de cambio, asumiendo la responsabilidad de defenderlo y protegerlo, porque ha sido concebido por el movimiento popular boliviano en muchos años de lucha”.

La CMPCC plantea también estrategias y propuestas, como el reclamo de la deuda ambiental, la creación de un tribunal internacional de justicia climática, la Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra. La de más largo alcance sigue siendo implementar la soberanía alimentaria, basada en formas de vida y producción campesinas, indígenas y locales, que es el principal factor que enfría el planeta y el que puede volverlo al equilibrio, además de promover la justicia social y la biodiversidad.

Todo esto y más llegará a Cancún, donde las negociaciones oficiales sobre el clima sesionarán en diciembre. Pero sobre todo, ya está entre los movimientos sociales de todo el mundo.

*Investigadora del Grupo ETC

Publicado en La jornada, México, 24 de abril de 2010

available online at http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=2053

Somebody somewhere has to have a cunning plan to fix our environmental problems and save the world – right? Jim Thomas sorts through the big tech ideas you’ll be reading about this year 

Almost every day sees new technologies being proposed to fix old problems. 2008 witnessed global technology fights over the rapid development of biofuels, protests against ‘clean coal technology’ and GM crops staging a come-back of sorts. In all three cases, ‘solving climate change’ was presented as the excuse for gambling on high-risk technologies. That theme is likely to continue. Here are a selection of technological controversies on the drawing board. See if you can sort through the silver bullets, technofixes and false solutions that are sure to keep cropping up this year… 

‘Solving climate change’ is presented as the excuse for gambling on high-risk technologies.

1) Geo-engineering 

Three years ago, the idea of re-engineering the Earth’s climate was considered politically unacceptable. In 2009 though, geo-engineering, intentional large-scale manipulation of the climate, is poised to enter mainstream climate policy discussions. High-risk projects are now gaining a shocking respectability as panic rises over climate change. They include polluting the upper atmosphere with sulphur nanoparticles to refl ect sunlight back to space or changing the chemistry of the ocean to absorb more carbon dioxide. Former climate change sceptics such as Newt Gingrich and several right wing think tanks have started to promote geo-engineering as a painless quick-fix which would bypass the need for emission reductions. This summer, the UK Royal Society will publish a report purporting to weed out the good geo-engineering schemes from the bad. Unfortunately, it will be written mainly by geo-engineering enthusiasts. Despite a global moratorium on one ocean geo-engineering technique, fertilising the ocean to grow CO2 gobbling plankton, India may launch a pilot scheme this year and private geo-engineering company Climos threatens to take to the seas in 2009 or early 2010. 

2) GM insects 

If the thought of GM pollen spreading on the breeze worries you, then watch out – the latest GM products have wings! In 2009, Oxford based Oxitec intends to become the first company to sell genetically modified insects for large scale release. Oxitec has developed a GM pink bollworm (moth larvae) that it claims will mate with natural bollworms (a cotton pest) and render them sterile. However, Oxitec’s plans don’t stop there. This also looks to be the year when it will proceed with a large scale trial release of genetically modified mosquitos also intended to spread sterility in wild populations. Oxitec, which received a $5m grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, claims the technology will help wipe out dengue fever which is on the rise as climate change bites. The ‘terminator mosquitos’ were due to be released on Pulau Ketam island, which lies off the coast of Malaysia, but local Chinese fishermen raised concerns that they are being used as a test bed. Further experiments of this type have been planned for Mexico and India. Biosafety experts warn that the genes may spread, the sterility plan may fail and the product may contravene a global moratorium on terminator (sterility) technology. 

3) Synthetic biology 

Every few years a technology platform upgrades itself – handguns become machine guns and VHS becomes DVDs. Right now genetic engineering is in the process of reinventing itself as synthetic biology – an extreme form of genetic engineering that allows the genetic code of organisms to be built entirely from scratch. With more than a dozen synthetic biology companies aiming to put products on the market in the next couple of years and major investment by the likes of BP, Du Pont, Chevron and Goodyear, 2009 may be the year the public notices a multibillion artificial life industry is now well established. In particular, expect front page headlines this year if genome tycoon J Craig Venter succeeds in bringing to life the world’s first entirely synthetic bacterial species, dubbed Synthia. He has already applied for patents on a method that he claims will make millions of such synthetic species every day – a prospect that dwarfs the current trickle of GM organisms and may overwhelm our inadequate GMO laws. 

4) Nano-regulation 

If you received new socks or cosmetics this Christmas, there is a good chance you might already be wearing nanoparticles – tiny engineered lumps of matter with unusual industrial properties. Although nanoparticles have been used unlabelled and untested in hundreds of consumer products for several years now, governments and consumer watchdogs are now finally cottoning on to the new toxicity problems that these novel materials may pose. In September, 70 governments, 12 intergovernmental organizations, and 39 nongovernmental organizations participated in the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety in Dakar, Senegal. They agreed producers should label nanomaterials in consumer products and that countries should have the right to refuse imports of nanoproducts. In November, the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution joined the growing chorus of concern about the lack of nanoregulation and the Austrian government called for a moratorium on food uses of nanotechnology. The coming year is likely to see increased efforts by trade unions and consumer groups to get some oversight of nano-risks. In May, the issue will go to the UN’s International Conference on Chemicals Management. The European Commission already accepts new labelling laws may be needed for nanotechnology products. 

5) Cellulosic biofuels

 After last year’s food price crisis you would be hard pressed to find anyone still arguing the case for turning food crops into ethanol. Instead the new orthodoxy among biofuel advocates is that a ‘second generation’ of biobased fuels (see this month’s cover story) will soon power our cars without affecting food. Using modified microbes or heat, companies such as Mascoma and Koskata are this year commercialising ‘cellulosic biofuels’, turning cellulose sugars (found in the woody part of plants and trees) into vehicle fuel. By switching from food crops towards wood and ‘agricultural waste’ (such as corn stalks) they hope to sidestep the ‘food vs fuel’ debate. If it works, expect to see a massive corporate grab on plant matter and a new debate over biomass. Forest communities will oppose the increased forest destruction associated with cellulose production for fuels. Sustainable agriculture advocates will argue that removing corn stalks from fields will deplete soils and increase fertiliser use and GM campaigners will express alarm at the threat of powerful modified microbes escaping. 

6) Biochar 

Take wood, turn it into charcoal and then bury it in the soil – that’s the basic technique behind  biochar, sometimes referred to as agrichar. Its promoters claim this technology can deliver a triple whammy of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, improving soil fertility and increasing crop yields. In the last three years, a rash of biochar start-up companies has emerged – led by eco businessmen such as organic pioneer Craig Sams of Green & Blacks or carbon offsetting pioneer Dan Morrell of Future Forests. Advocates talk of planting a billion hectares of fast growing plantations to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it in soils, speeding up the carbon cycle and maybe earning carbon credits in the process. Look for opposition from forest activists. They wonder where the research is that shows biochar does actually improve all the different kinds of soils there are, as opposed to the most arid ones, and see the biochar associated rapid expansion of monoculture plantations as a threat to stressed forest ecosystems and to communities. 

7) Spaceflight

Expect to hear a lot about spacecraft in 2009 – not from the boffins at NASA but from the brand new space tourism industry. In early 2010, Virgin Galactic hopes to start the first regular commercial flights to outer space and will be running tests of its Spaceship Two rocket throughout 2009 with celebrity passengers on board. Billionaire Virgin boss Richard Branson is locked in competition with at least two other commercial companies – SpaceX and Rocketplane Global which hope to kick off a multi-billion pound commercial space industry. As publicity ramps up, Virgin Galactic is preparing itself for criticism from the same climate campaigners opposing regular air travel. Virgin Galactic public relations folks claim that a trip to the edge of space is less carbon intensive than a London-New York air flight and they are offering to run atmospheric experiments from their spacecraft to help understand climate change better. An early passenger will be controversial ecologist James Lovelock who sees no problem in blessing the new spaceflight industry just as he has given his approval to the nuclear industry and to geo-engineering. The first flights will run out of the Mojave desert and later Spaceport America in New Mexico but Virgin Galactic is also considering building a Spaceport Scotland at RAF Lossiemouth for flights from 2013. After recent UK campaigns against airport expansion, maybe we’ll soon see spaceport campaigners locked on to launchpads too? 

8) Data centres

If you think reaching outer space increases carbon emissions, consider the climate costs of accessing virtual space. According to one set of calculations, every search query carried out on the internet uses 11 watt hours of energy – the equivalent of releasing seven grams of carbon. Behind the seemingly weightless world of websites and social networking, huge data processing warehouses suck up energy to run rows of computer servers and whirring cooling fans. Such datacentres are proliferating fast. Management consultancy McKinsey estimates that by 2050, data centres will be responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the airline industry, as the digitalisation of medical records, libraries and genomic databases swells the global need for switched on servers. Some data centre users are stepping up to the energy challenge. Google aims to be powering their so-called ‘googlefarms’ with renewable energy and is investing accordingly but there may be other problems to tackle. Like e-waste. As the global data centre boom gets underway, the need for cheap, upgradable server equipment – chips, boards and plastic casings – will become a major new source of electronic waste, releasing toxic chemicals in both assembly and disposal. In the past three years, environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition have had major successes forcing home PC makers to green their products. In 2009 it may be time to take on Google, Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo and Facebook too. 

9) Obama’s chief technology officer

With the advent of a new commander in chief, the United States is also being promised a new czar for all matters technological – a ‘chief technology officer’. Who the geek-in-chief might be has set the technology press alight with speculation. Will it be Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google? (Apparently not.) Might it be Bill Gates recently retired from Microsoft? (We certainly hope not.) How about software hero Bill Joy, famous for raising concerns about nanotech, genetic engineering and robotics? (That would be interesting). Why this matters is that it signals that Obama intends to put the interests of the technology sector at the heart of his new administration complete with a corporate inspired job title. For those hoping this administration might bring back the much missed Office of Technology Assessment or bring some participatory democracy to technology policy, there is likely to be disappointment. The new chief geek may carry out some socially useful tasks such as fending off the monopolisation of the internet and reforming patent law to make room for open source systems. On the fundamentals of who controls and assesses new technologies however, all signs are that corporations and the military will hand over none of that power. Expect howls of protest when whoever it is cashes in their personal technology stock options tax-free under a little-known loophole and further howls when the fearless new geek leader turns out to hold patents, maintains corporate ties or other conflicts of interest. 

Este jueves fue desestimado por la Comisión de Medio Ambiente de la Cámara de Diputados, por 15 votos a 4, el Proyecto de Ley 268/2007 —redactado por el diputado federal Eduardo Sciarra (DEM – PR)— que busca modificar la Ley de Bioseguridad para liberar los transgénicos que utilizan Tecnologías Genéticas de Uso Restringido (TRUG), más conocidas como semillas Terminator (semillas estériles.)
El proyecto pretendía liberar la investigación y patentamiento de estas semillas estériles. Esta propuesta, defendida por las grandes empresas de biotecnología, es fuertemente rechazada por los movimientos sociales campesinos y por las redes de agroecología. De acuerdo con uno de los articuladores de la campaña Terminar Terminator, Julián Pérez, “una posible flexibilización de la Ley de Bioseguridad en esta cuestión supone aumentar la vulnerabilidad de los sistemas agrícolas, cuando ya hay una tendencia a la uniformización genética de los cultivos; profundizar la dependencia de los agricultores y del país y profundizar el control de las empresas extranjeras sobre las semillas”.
La tecnología Terminator produce una modificación genética que da una especie de plazo de validez para las semillas. Una vez sembradas, estas semillas, que serían vendidas y protegidas mediante registros, se vuelven estériles después de un tiempo. Esta tecnología impide, por ejemplo, la práctica campesina de seleccionar y guardar semillas en sus predios de una cosecha para la siguiente.
“Las posibilidades reales de contaminación de cultivos orgánicos y convencionales por semillas con GURT acarrearían pérdidas económicas y diferencias de precio. La liberación de los GURT, en cualquier circunstancia y condición, representa una grave amenaza para la seguridad alimentaria, para las comunidades campesinas y para la nación”, explica Pérez
Los terminator no están permitidos en ningún país del mundo, ni se ha experimentado en campo con ellos. .El Convenio de Diversidad Biológica de la ONU (CDB), que actualmente preside Brasil, recomienda incluso que los países parte “no aprueben productos que contengan dichas tecnologías con fines experimentales ni comerciales” .

One multinational seed company that vowed to commercialize the technology predicted that its suicide seeds would be used on millions of acres of cropland worldwide, providing a safe avenue to introduce commercial seeds in the developing world[i] where an estimated 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seed. The revelation made a mockery of the biotech industry’s promise to feed hungry people in the developing world.

The good news is that nearly a decade of popular protest has prevented Terminator from coming to market. The threat of Terminator sparked massive opposition – from farmers, civil society, indigenous peoples, scientific bodies and some governments. In 1999, battered by bad publicity, even Monsanto, and then AstraZeneca (now Syngenta), publicly pledged not to commercialize Terminator seeds. In 2000, governments meeting at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recommended a moratorium on the field-testing and commercialization of Terminator. Although the biotech industry and a handful of governments lobbied aggressively to overturn the moratorium, the CBD unanimously re-affirmed and strengthened the moratorium on Terminator seeds in March 2006. In May 2006 the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches called on churches and ecumenical partners to take action to stop genetic seed sterilization.

The bad news is that Terminator seeds are making a comeback. Our new report reveals that public and private sector researchers are developing a new generation of suicide seeds using chemically induced ‘switches’ that turn a genetically modified (GM) plant’s fertility on or off. New research on Terminator is ostensibly being conducted for the purpose of preventing contamination of conventional or organic crops with DNA from GM crops. There’s no question that GM contamination through the spread of pollen and seeds is a huge concern – the problem is that the molecular technology being developed to address GM contamination operates on a seed sterility platform. What’s more, the technology cannot promise fail-safe containment of leaky genes, but it will allow the multinational seed industry to tighten its grasp on proprietary germplasm, restrict the rights of farmers and dictate the conditions under which seeds and plants are viable.

Despite the fact that European consumers have overwhelmingly rejected GM foods, the European Union’s 3-year Transcontainer Project is investing over 5 million euros of public money to promote molecular containment of genetically modified plants and trees so that GM crops and non-GM crops can, theoretically, ‘coexist.’

GM contamination is the Achilles Heel of agricultural biotech. Gene flow from some genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to non-GMO plants and wild relatives has the potential to harm ecosystems or threaten the food supply. Neither industry nor government regulators have been able to contain or control GMOs. The stakes are higher today because commercial firms are conducting open-air field-tests of GM plants engineered to produce drugs or industrial chemicals in food and field crops. The economic costs of even one contamination incident can be staggering. For example, even seven years after the StarLink ‘taco debacle’ in 2000, the biotech and food industries are still testing for the presence of StarLink contamination. The total estimated cost for StarLink testing and product loss has exceeded $600 million.[ii] (StarLink refers to a GM maize variety sold by Aventis – now owned by Bayer – that entered the food supply although it had never been authorized for human consumption.)

Specifically, the Transcontainer Project is developing ‘reversible transgenic sterility’ – dubbed -zombie seeds- by ETC Group. These are sterile seeds that the farmer could bring ‘back to life’ by (buying) and applying a chemical. In other words, the seeds behave like classic Terminator seeds, except farmers would pay for the privilege of restoring seed fertility every year – a new form of perpetual monopoly for the seed industry.

Why would farmers ever choose to buy Terminator or Zombie sterile-seed technology? Because seed companies, with the aim of reducing competition and increasing market share, will do whatever they can to get farmers on the sterile-seed platform. Keep in mind that, after three decades of mergers and acquisitions, the commercial seed industry is controlled by a handful of multinational companies. Just four companies – Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and Groupe Limagrain – control half of the world’s proprietary seed market. Gene Giants will coerce farmers to choose sterile seed by ensuring that the latest technology (i.e., genetic traits) is available only on that platform, and, perhaps, by keeping prices low – initially. As a selling point, the companies will readily acknowledge the problem of GM contamination and the need to contain gene flow. Sterile seed platforms will be promoted (and in some cases required) as safer, more responsible seed technology. Once farmers are on the platform and the competition has been destroyed, companies will start pricing the seed (in the case of Terminator) or pricing the chemical that restores seed viability (in the case of Zombie) as high as they want. Zombie will also allow the Gene Giants to cut costs, because it will be cheaper for them to sell farmers a proprietary chemical for bringing seeds ‘back to life’ (rather than pay the seed-multiplication, warehousing and distribution costs required to sell new seed every planting season). Ironically, the Gene Giants will argue that availability of Terminator and Zombie sterile-seed platforms offers more ‘choice’ to farmers!

Biofuel Greenwashing: There’s an insidious link between renewed enthusiasm for suicide seeds and the frenzied development of new biofuels. Many civil society organizations have pointed out that the rush to plant energy crops in the developing world will shift marginal land away from food production and adversely affect soil, water, biodiversity, land tenure and the livelihoods of peasant farmers and indigenous peoples. The now-allied energy and agribusiness industries will argue that genetic engineering of crops and trees is necessary to make biofuels economically viable and efficient – but they realize GM plants won’t be acceptable if the threat of GM contamination persists. So, seed sterility platforms will be promoted as a solution for ‘safer’ biofuels. The irony is that society is being asked to foot the bill for a new techno-fix to mitigate the genetic contamination caused by the biotech industry’s defective GM seeds.

If governments can be convinced that biological containment of GMOs is technically possible, it will open the floodgates to new markets for biotech plants: GM crops and trees for biofuels, commercial-scale production of GM pharmaceutical plants (plants engineered to produce drugs), and GM industrial crops (plants engineered to produce chemical compounds for industrial uses).

The Bottom Line: There is no such thing as a safe and acceptable form of Terminator. Public funds should not be used to support research on genetic seed sterilization. The European Commission should discontinue funding for ‘reversible transgenic sterility.’ Rather than support research on coexistence to bail out the agbiotech industry, the EU should instead fund sustainable agricultural research that benefits farmers and the public. National governments should pass legislation to prohibit field-testing and commercial sale of these technologies (India and Brazil have already passed laws and a new bill has just been introduced in Canada. Governments meeting at the CBD’s Ninth meeting in 2008 must strengthen the United Nations moratorium on Terminator by recommending a ban on the technology.

ETC Group’s new report, ‘Terminator: The Sequel‘ examines the EU Transcontainer Project as well as new research on techniques to excise transgenes from GM plants at a specific time in the plant’s development (Exorcist), and methods to kill a plant with ‘conditionally lethal’ genes (pull-the-plug genes)

[i] Bill Freiberg, ‘Is Delta & Pine Land’s Terminator Gene a Billion Dollar Discovery?’ Seed and Crops Digest, March/April 1998.
[ii] According to Jeffrey Barach, Vice-President and Center Director, GMA/Food Products Association. Comments made during Agrifood Nanotechnology Workshop, Michigan State University, April 2, 2007.

Reacting to the takeover approval, John Boyd, president of the US-based National Black Farmers Association, told Reuters:
“This is a sad deal for us. We wanted the DOJ to step up to the plate,” said Boyd. “Now we producers will be faced with astronomical prices on seeds with Monsanto taking control of the whole industry.”

Here’s what ETC Group wrote about the takeover when it was first announced in August 2006.

One sure sign that DOJ’s conditional approval is a mighty good deal for Monsanto is that Dupont (the world’s second largest seed company) is not pleased. According to Reuters, Dupont “may pursue litigation to block the deal.”

ETC Group has been tracking seed industry consolidation for some time, and in April we released our list of the world’s top 10 seed companies, based on 2006 seed revenues.

With the takeover of D&PL, not only is Monsanto the global king of cotton seed, it’s by far the largest seed company in the world — with pro forma revenues $1.6 billion dollars greater than its closest competitor — Dupont (Pioneer Hi-Bred).

With the takeover of D&PL, we estimate that Monsanto will account for about 23% of the proprietary seed market worldwide. (According to Context Network, the 2006 proprietary seed market was valued at $19,600 million)

The astonishing thing is that Monsanto wasn’t even considered a seed company 10 years ago.

And Monsanto’s buying binge continues. Last year, Monsanto created a holding company called International Seed Group Inc. (ISG), in order to purchase regional seed companies around the world. In January, ISG bought a small French seed company, Poloni Semences. Just last month, ISG announced it was buying Western Seed, a Dutch hybrid vegetable seed company.

With Monsanto’s market share rapidly approaching one-quarter of the world’s proprietary seed market, farmers (and ultimately consumers) are already seeing fewer choices and higher prices. Not only for cotton, but for major field crops (i.e. corn and soybeans) as well as vegetables — all seed sectors where Monsanto dominates. Monsanto’s market share should set off alarm bells because seeds are the first link in the food chain. Quite simply, it’s a dangerous proposition to have so much of the world’s commercial seed supply in the hands of a single corporation.

Delta & Pine Land is notorious for its vow to commercialize Terminator seed technology — plants that are genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest — forcing farmers to return to the commercial seed market every year. With the takeover of Delta & Pine Land, Monsanto has acquired a research program devoted to commercializing Terminator seeds, as well as US, European and Canadian patents on genetic seed sterilization technology.

Monsanto’s former CEO, Robert Shapiro, publicly pledged in 1999 that his company would not commercialize sterile-seed technology. But the company’s revised 2005 pledge states that the company will not “commercialise sterile-seed technologies in food crops” (our emphasis) – suggesting that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops. The pledge also states that “Monsanto people constantly reevaluate this stance as technology develops.” The pledge is available here.

In February 2006 Diane Herndon, Monsanto’s Director of Public Policy, wrote to the international Ban Terminator Campaign: “We apologize for any confusion caused by the added language “in food crops” that appeared in the discussion of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) in our last Pledge Report. We stand by our commitment to not use genetic engineering methods that result in sterile seeds. Period.” Although Herndon assured us that the company “would remove the confusing language” — we note that it has not been removed to date. The company’s 2005 pledge also makes clear that the company does not rule out future development of the technology and allows the company to change its position at any time. Not-so-reassuring. See correspondence here.

The ambiguity about Monsanto’s role in commercializing Terminator seed is especially relevant because in March 2006 governments meeting at the biennial meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity unanimously reinforced and strengthened the United Nations’ de facto moratorium on Terminator seed technology. Go here for details.

A bill to prohibit field testing and commercialization of Terminator seed technology was introduced in the Canadian Parliament today by the Agriculture critic (ie spokesperson) for the NDP party.

Here’s what some Canadians had to say about it:

“Canada needs to pass this bill into law because genetic seed sterilization is dangerous and blatantly anti-farmer – suicide seeds threaten to intensify corporate control over Canadian agriculture and offers no benefits for farmers,” said Colleen Ross of the National Farmers Union.

“Canada has led a behind-the-scenes push to undermine the United Nations moratorium,” points out Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the Ottawa-based ETC Group, “so it’s time the Canadian Government listened to the people.”

“Researchers are continuing to develop and win patents on Terminator because seed sterility is simply too lucrative for industry to abandon,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. “A national law to prohibit the technology is the only way to insure that Terminator is never commercialized in Canada. The Government of Canada must show its commitment to the international community and not bow to industry pressure,” said Sharratt.

The full text of the Canadian bill will be available here on June 1: www.banterminator.org/canada

ETC has been working on some new analysis of terminator-like projects. Watch this space for news about the latestreturn of terminator….

At 9:30 pm in Brazil, the 8th Conference of the Parties confirmed its decision on Terminator. It is now official.

We see a moratorium on Terminator that is now strengthened.

There is caution, however, as we celebrate since we know that corporations are still developing Terminator, that industry will not stop pursuing Terminator until national governments legislate bans on Terminator, that Canada, Australia and New Zealand will still support industry efforts to end the moratorium and find new ways to try and undermine it, and that the moratorium is not a ban.

The worst of the language that would have undermined the moratorium is gone � and there is an addition that strengthens the recommendation to governments that they not conduct field trials.

The final language from COP8 still holds remnants of continuing efforts to undermine the moratorium but for now these can serve as warnings to us to watch closely and work hard for an outright ban Terminator.

Click here for a little summary of how it happened.

This morning buses were forced to drive through a long corridor of protestors waving red MST flags – or cut across the road – either way the protest was visible and audible.

Many delegates have been affected by the protests, especially those who do not often interact or get so close to street demonstrations. In particular, for some sheltered bureaucrats in the North the demonstrations have had a powerful emotional impact and have communicated the real stakes for people.

On the final day of the meeting this is a critical message and one that government delegates should now take home.

Today Terminator was discussed again at COP8 – and the moratorium still holds! No country dared to challenge the consensus of last week.

Some governments made slight changes to a specific part of the text but this did not relate to the moratorium � it was just enough to make us nervous!

Tomorrow the final plenary of COP8 is expected to approve the text of the moratorium on Terminator. Tonight negotiations will continue on other issues and tomorrow morning all final decisions will be reviewed; it is a last chance for governments to raise issues, though discussion is generally discouraged. Tomorrow afternoon everyone will say long, polite goodbyes – hopefully some governments will say how happy they are that the Terminator moratorium has been strenghtened.

Government delegates are coming up to us now and asking us how we feel. We are all very identifiable with our “Sucide Seeds are Homicide Seeds” t-shirts. They are happy with the outcome and since we so often spend time asking them to take a position and expressing our concerns, I am sure they are hoping we will share some of our happiness with them.

After this morning’s session, a group of us approached Chair Matthew Jebb on the stage to give him a T-shirt since he has been so helpful – even instrumental – to the decision-making. Our gesture made him very happy and he kissed each one of us on the cheek – that was 7 of us at least. Everyone loves a good moratorium – and a ban even more…!

Meanwhile – friends and colleagues are still trying to stop genetically engineered trees here and are in the thick of intense negotiations…