A terminator looms over the land

[Guest guest]

Vancouver Sun, Page A11, 28-Mar-2006

A terminator looms over the land

By Eleanor Boyle

 

Many Canadians are wary of genetically engineered (GE) food. So they might be

surprised to learn that our federal government has been quietly lobbying for

biotechnology companies to introduce the most controversial yet of GE

experiments in food production.

 

Representatives from Canada and other countries are now gathered at a United

Nations meeting to discuss the future of so-called terminator seed technology.

Designed to make plants sterile after one harvest, the technology would force

farmers to buy new seeds from the biotech company each year.

 

It sounds incredible that a technology would be considered that would require

farmers to constantly come cap in hand to the multinational seed companies. But

being considered it is. And the Canadian government has been among those working

to undermine a de facto moratorium on the technology.

 

That angers critics who say terminator seeds would give biotech companies money

and power and monopoly control over parts of the food supply, and threaten

cultures, livelihoods and the environment worldwide.

 

The latest round of the debate is occurring in Curitiba, Brazil, where members

of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity are engaged in two intense weeks of

meetings that end Friday. Among issues being discussed is the convention's

standing recommendation that governments deny field-testing of sterile seed

technology pending scientific assessment.

 

Reports from Brazil in the past few days suggest that the recommendation may be

upheld. But terminator opponents know that such victories are often temporary,

and are campaigning for individual countries to ban the technology -- as India

and Brazil already have.

 

The moratorium has been supported by many countries, including in Europe and

Africa, and by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and environmental and civil

society groups. This month's gathering was called " critical " by Lucy Sharratt,

coordinator of the Ottawa-based international Ban Terminator Campaign. " Canada,

Australia, and New Zealand have been working to try to overturn the moratorium, "

she said in an interview. " This is the meeting that will see whether they

succeed. "

 

The United States is not a party to the biodiversity convention. But the U.S.

Department of Agriculture co-holds a key patent on terminator, and wants the

Canadian government to argue its position.

 

Officially, Canada is neutral on terminator and other Genetic Use Restriction

Technologies or GURTs. Robert McLean of Environment Canada, head of this

country's delegation, says decision-makers are " cautious " and just want to see

the science. " Canada neither promotes nor opposes GURT technology, but pursues a

fact-based or an evidence-based approach, " he said in a phone interview before

flying to Brazil. McLean also said federal officials oppose a ban on new

technologies, preferring assessment case-by-case.

 

The case-by-case approach mirrors the position of biotech companies, which

Sharratt calls evidence of " pervasive industry sympathies " among government

regulators who should objectively assess novel technologies. Indeed, the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency website refers prominently to " the potential

benefits of GURTs. " And an internal government document circulated last year

supported " the evaluation of novel varieties, including those with GURTs, for

field-testing and commercial use. "

 

Terminator technology is currently not allowed to be field-tested in Canada,

though a government website lists more than 200 approved field trials for other

genetically modified plants, from canola in Alberta to corn in Ontario.

Field-testing a new product might seem benign, but critics say it will be

impossible to prevent contamination of conventional crops once such GE plants

are in the environment.

 

Although many Canadians support biotechnology in theory, they are nervous about

possible hazards, Ottawa admits on its Biostrategy website. As for genetically

engineered food, " there are strong reservations among significant pockets of the

population about the potential risks involved. "

 

In the debate over terminator, the stakes are high. On one side are

multibillion-dollar corporations such as Syngenta, DuPont, Delta & Pine Land and

Monsanto spending large sums and wanting to protect their investments by being

granted monopolies over seeds, chemicals, and other products. They say new

technologies give farmers more choice, that genetically engineered seeds are

superior, and that terminator seeds will not contaminate the environment because

they can be made sterile.

 

On the other side is a worldwide collection of indigenous people, farmers, NGOs

and advocacy groups. They oppose a technology that would forbid farmers from

saving and re-using seeds, a foundation of human agriculture for almost 10,000

years. They say a system of sterile seeds would undermine small-scale

agriculture and its locally adapted plants. They argue that terminator may still

contaminate other crops because control mechanisms, even on purportedly sterile

seeds, are imperfect. They also point out that, because gene interactions are

complex and scientists do not fully understand them, genetic engineering has

unpredictable consequences.

 

Lastly opponents argue that terminator technology appears designed to enrich

companies and them give them undue control over the necessity of life that is

food.

 

Biotech companies want us to believe that this is a scientific debate, open only

to a qualified few. But whether to promote GE food is not simply a scientific

discussion. It is about values and the kind of society in which we want to live

-- and all of us have a right to take part. To get involved, go to

www.banterminator.org.

 

Eleanor Boyle teaches at Capilano College and has an interest in the

implications of genetic engineering.

 

 

" NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may

have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this

without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor

protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President. "