Coming to a field near you: Zombie and Exorcist seeds

A new crop of genetic engineering technologies are being promoted as a solution to the unwanted spread of transgenes from genetically-modified (GM) plants. In practice, these technologies will allow the transnationals to tighten their grip on proprietary seeds and further restrict the rights of farmers. The European Union is pushing one project forward, despite opposition from its own parliament and other groups who reject what is known as ‘terminator’ technology. These are seeds developed by biotech corporations that have built-in destruction after one application. The ETC Group, which promotes agricultural diversity and human rights, is warning in a new report Terminator: the Sequel about the implications of the EU’s “transcontainer” project. This is aimed at developing GM crops and trees for Europe that could be "biologically contained" through "reversible transgenic sterility." ETC’s Hope Shand says: “We've always known that terminator technology is simply too lucrative for the seed industry to abandon but it's outrageous that the European Union is using public funds to develop genetic seed sterilisation." ETC rejects the claim that the transcontainer project’s aim is not to restrict seed use but to contain transgenes, and that the technology under development differs from terminator because the seeds' sterility will be "reversible"- most likely through the application of a chemical. ETC Group dubs these “Zombie seeds” which would create a scenario in which farmers would have to pay for a chemical to restore seed viability.

If you thought “zombie seeds” were bad news, you haven’t heard of new research on gene excision technologies. Molecular methods are used to snip out transgenes at some point in a plant's life. Dubbed Exorcist by ETC, the excision process can be triggered by an external environmental or chemical stimulus, or it can be designed to occur automatically at a particular stage in the plant's life. ETC’s Kathy Jo Wetter explains: "In its current state, Exorcist is far from a failsafe biocontainment strategy - it won't work 100% of the time - but even if Exorcist can't fully contain transgenes, it could still function as a biological method to enforce patents by restricting access to proprietary traits." And there are "extreme" biocontainment methods - molecular methods involving "conditionally lethal genes" capable of terminating plants and their transgenic DNA in the event that other containment strategies fail.

The strategy of the biotech corporations like Monsanto is clear. They want to convince governments and the public that biological containment of genetically-modified organisms is possible using one of these new techniques - or a combination of them. It would then open the floodgates to new markets for biotech plants, particularly GM crops and trees grown for biofuels. The result will be a drastically increased risk of transgenic contamination. What the ETC investigation demonstrates is that as soon as one door is closed on the corporations, another one opens, facilitated by the actions of the EU and other pro-market states. The ETC advocates better regulation and governance as a way of halting this process. This is a laudable but, quite frankly, hopeless ambition. The corporations rule the planet and only a massive social transformation of capitalist society is going to put an end to that.

Paul Feldman, communications editor

Corporate threat to farm-saved seeds

The handful of corporations that dominate the world seed industry are gearing up to remove remaining loopholes in the plant variety protection system, which was the alternative to patenting that they set up in the 1960s. European-based firms want to get rid of farmers’ limited entitlement to save seed. The Americans want to restrict the exemption by which breeders have the free use of each other’s commercial varieties for research purposes. In both cases, the point is to reduce competition and boost profits, according to GRAIN, which campaigns for biodiversity based on people's control over genetic resources and local knowledge. Despite pressure from the transnational corporations, at least two-thirds of the global crop area is currently planted with farm-saved seed every year. In many developing countries, it represents 80-90% of all seed used. GRAIN warns that If farmers were legally forced to plant all of this area with commercial seed, it could easily mean a doubling of seed industry turnover, that is, an "extra $20 billion annually - all taken out of farmers' pockets and delivered to giants such as DuPont, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto".

In many countries, seed laws already require farmers to use only certified seed of government-approved varieties. That seed is often available only from commercial seed companies. A rapidly increasing number of governments also grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety protection (PVP). Some developing countries have been persuaded to join the international PVP system. But this gives seed companies a monopoly on only the commercial multiplication and the marketing of seeds. Farmers have remained free to save seed from their own harvest to plant in the following year. Now the seed manufacturers want the monopoly that biotech firms like Monsanto have enjoyed through industrial patents on plants bred with genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques. These prevent farmers from saving seeds.

Another key industry demand will be to restrict or eliminate the freedom to use PVP-protected varieties for breeding. Says Grain: "The purpose is simply to block competition. If nobody else is allowed to improve on a variety until after the term of protection - 20 years or so - a seed company will be able to sell the unimproved variety for a much longer period, and postpone the cost of new research. The net effect: increased profits for the PVP owner, higher seed prices and fewer new varieties for farmers." GRAIN points out that monopolisation leads to fewer and fewer products of value to farmers. Major advance in yield and resistance improvement were made early in the 20th century, before any monopoly rights were available on seeds, it points out. Those improvements came mainly from selecting and crossing thousands of farmer varieties developed over centuries, not from any industry-sponsored research. The emergence of capitalism in the 18th century was marked by the enclosure of common land and clearances, by which people were driven out of the countryside into the towns. The growing corporate stranglehold over food systems that is revealed by organisations like GRAIN amounts to the enclosure of the global commons.

Paul Feldman, communications editor

GM is now a global battlefield

The struggle between the biotechnology companies who try to ram genetically-modified (GM) crops and food down the throats of farmers and consumers is now being fought out on a global scale. And biotech corporations like Monsanto are not having it all their way own way. A summary of global reaction against GM in 2006, released by Greenpeace International, provides evidence of growing resistance in many countries. "There is irrefutable evidence that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognise that genetic engineering is unreliable, unviable or downright dangerous," said Jeremy Tager of Greenpeace International. Some countries are banning GM altogether. Rumania, for instance, which had 85,000 hectares planted with GM soy in 2005, will drop to zero this year, in keeping with a new government policy banning its cultivation. Farmers in India, France and the Philippines have led the way with protests, uprooting crops and holding demonstrations. There is even a backlash in the United States, where most GM crops are concentrated, following the Bayer LL601 rice contamination scandal. Californian rice producers and a major rice mill in the state, Sunwest Foods, have called for a ban on any cultivation of GM rice, including field trials. Producers and traders lost out massively when the contamination was exposed. Meanwhile, in 2006, the number of regions in the EU declaring themselves GM-free zones went up to 172 and 4,500 local authorities say they want to avoid using GM products.

Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to survive the application of a powerful herbicide that would kill a non-engineered crop, making it easier for farmers to use more herbicide to control nearby weeds. Or so the claim goes. The reality is different. Studies by independent scientists demonstrate that GM crop yields are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties. Reduced yields have in particular been found with Roundup Ready (RR) soy. An independent study of US government statistics shows that the three major GM crops have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. Until the widespread adoption of RR crops, there were just two confirmed cases of glyphosate-resistant weeds. But by 2005, many different weeds had become resistant in the United States. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA), an industry-funded body, ignores all this and paints a rosy picture of inevitable success. In its January 2006 report, ISAAA claimed that "the continuing rapid adoption of biotech crops reflects the substantial and consistent improvements in productivity, the environment, economics, and social benefits realised by both large and small farmers, consumers and society". This kind of nonsense is par for the course and is constantly exposed by organisations like GM Watch. This organisation reveals how the biotech industry funds spurious "scientific" research and underhand lobbying to promote GM as absolutely safe and the answer to world hunger (GM Watch also includes a revealing dossier on the dubious ex-Living Marxism group, whose members have with amazing ease penetrated top levels in the media to promote right-wing, libertarian views that often coincide with those of the biotech corporations). Curiously enough, The GM Watch site has been down recently and its staff think it might have been the victim of a malicious attack. Working out a list of suspects shouldn’t take too long. Send your suggestions to info@gmwatch.org.


Paul Feldman, communications editor