--------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:50:07 -0400
From: Mukul Ranjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A Seedy Business
Dear List Members,
I came across this story in Mother Jones and thouhgt it might be of
interest to the list. The text is also available at:
http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/broydo.html
Mukul Ranjan, Ph.D.
National Insitutes of Health
_____________________________________________________
A Seedy Business
A new "terminator" technology will make crops sterile and force farmers to
buy seeds more often-so why did the USDA invent it? Plus: USDA Inc.: When
public research goes corporate
by Leora Broydo
April 7, 1998 Mother Jones
It's a practice as old as farming itself: As sure as the rooster crows at
dawn, farmers save seeds from one growing season and plant them in the
next. In South America, poor farmers use knowledge passed down over
centuries to select seeds best suited to the local climate and soil. Across
the equator their counterparts in South Dakota do it too; 80 to 90 percent
of wheat farmers there save seeds from harvests. Those seeds are carefully
cleaned and conditioned and then planted. They've been doing it for
generations, year after year.
But the practice of seed saving may soon go the way of the steam tractor,
and farmers have little say in the matter. A new genetic technology,
patented in March, will make it possible for companies to sell seeds that
will only work for one growing season, so farmers have to buy each time
they plant. Crops will grow as usual, but their seeds in turn will be duds,
unable to germinate. Seeds of this kind are expected to come to market by
2004.
Who will challenge this affront to the age-old practice of seed saving?
Surely the U.S. Department of Agriculture, long the champion of the
American farmer, will stand up to this plot to pad corporate profits and
proclaim, "Not on American soil, bucko!" Unlikely. USDA is the inventor.
Using taxpayer money, about $229,000, USDA created the new "technology
protection system" with Delta and Pine Land Company, the nation's largest
producer of cotton seeds with a 73 percent market share. Together they hold
the patent. Public-private partnerships are not at all unusual at USDA-two
recent USDA inventions, a spray to prevent salmonella in chickens and a
feed that will reduce water-polluting phosphorous content in animal waste,
were both developed using private funds-but this one stands out because it
was not done to improve food safety, the environment, crop viability, or
consumer choice. The research was done, according to the USDA inventor
himself, to improve the bottom lines of American corporations.
Why Terminate Seeds? How does USDA, a public agency which says its
scientific mission is to do research that is "good for the public," justify
developing this new biotechnology?
Seed saving may be good for farmers, but it's not good for the chemical
and seed companies who are spending billions to develop genetically
engineered seed varieties. Although a 1970 law permits U.S. farmers to save
proprietary seeds for use on their own farms, companies selling genetically
engineered varieties now say that farmers must not reuse their patented
varieties at all. They say they can't make ends meet unless farmers pay
each and every season.
Biotech seed companies have managed to control the "problem" of seed
saving in this country by policing farmers. Monsanto requires that buyers
of its Roundup Ready seeds agree to use them only once, and hires Pinkerton
investigators to root out violators. However, companies have been unable to
do the same in developing countries, where they have little or no patent
protection and enforcement is a real headache. How can these companies
continue spending millions to develop new high-tech seeds if they can't
reach the millions of farmers in the untapped markets of China, India,
Pakistan, South America?
USDA to the rescue. "The need was there to come up with a system that
allowed you to self-police your technology, other than trying to put on
laws and legal barriers to farmers saving seed, and to try and stop foreign
interests from stealing the technology," says USDA scientist Melvin Oliver,
the primary inventor of the new patent-protecting technique. Oliver says
the invention is a way to put "billions of dollars spent on research back
into the system."
When the MoJo Wire called back to ask exactly whose billions will be
recouped by USDA's invention, Oliver said he had been instructed not to
speak to the press any further. USDA refused to say whose idea the new
technology was, but Delta and Pine president Murray Robinson was more
forthcoming: He told us it was the company's idea.
USDA would not provide a copy of its contract with Delta and Pine, but
under the public-private research program, USDA receives licensing fees and
royalty payments when its inventions come to market-and USDA scientists
personally get a cut of royalties as well.
New Markets for Biotech The sheer scope of the invention is remarkable:
The patent covers all seeds, both transgenic and everyday conventional
varieties. Though it's only been tested on cotton and tobacco thus far, the
inventors believe it could work on all major crops. In the past, seed
companies have been reluctant to invest in wheat, oat, and rice seed
markets, for example, because those crops are self-pollinating, i.e. can't
be controlled reproductively; thus farmers can save the seeds, returning to
the commercial market to replenish every five years or so. With the new
gene technology, those farmers could be forced to buy every year, making
bundles for companies in those markets.
"If commercially viable, the new technology could mean huge profits in
entirely new sectors of the seed industry," says Hope Shand of the Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), an international
public-interest group which dubs the new technology the "terminator" seed.
"For farmers, the patented technology will undoubtedly mean greater
dependence on the commercial seed market."
The USDA and Delta and Pine plan to license the new technology widely to
seed companies, both American and foreign. "We will make this as readily
available to our direct competitors as we would to people working in crops
that we have no interest in," says Murray Robinson, president of Delta and
Pine. "In the spirit of trying to help everyone we will certainly be open
to companies in other countries protecting their technology or their
proprietary developments."
While it may seem counterintuitive to share such a coveted technology with
our neighbors overseas-especially since it was created to protect American
corporate interests-it's really in Delta and Pine's, and USDA's, financial
interests to spread it around. Selling licenses to the technology won't
increase competition for Delta and Pine one bit.
"Seed companies compete on the quality of their seeds," explains Mark
Wiltamuth, an agribusiness analyst with investment bank Furman Selz. "This
[technology] doesn't add any quality." What it does, says Wiltamuth, is
expand long-term growth and licensing opportunities for Delta and Pine.
How much does Delta and Pine stand to make? Because the technology hasn't
been commercialized yet, it's hard to say, but previous USDA-private
inventions give some idea. In 1994, a patent was filed for a new genetic
engineering technique developed with USDA and private funds. Since then, 90
percent of the world's seed companies have taken a license in that
technology, including Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and Novartis; it is
expected to generate $2 million a year in royalty revenues. Given the same
return on the new Delta and Pine/USDA invention, it would be $229,000 well
spent.
The Future of Food? The potential impact of the "terminator" seed is
magnified by the continuing consolidation of the seed industry. With its
continuing buyouts and multi-company deals to share research and
distribution networks, the industry is getting mighty tight. Globally,
according to RAFI, just 10 seed companies already control about 40 percent
of the commercial seed market.
Critics of the new technology worry about the effect its widespread use
would have, particularly in developing countries. They see it as a threat
to millions of resource-poor farmers who depend on saving seeds, and
exchanging seeds with neighbors, for their livelihood. Since the technology
will enable multinational seed companies to enter second- and third-world
markets, there is also the fear that greater amounts of identical crops
will be grown worldwide, increasing monocropping and further eroding
agricultural biodiversity. Some even see it as threat to world food security.
"If this were to take place, it would mean every single person in this
country, and perhaps all the countries in the world where these seeds were
in widespread use, would become dependent on the stability of the
international seed supply industry," says Lawrence Busch, a sociology
professor at Michigan State University. "The fact is that wars and civil
disturbances and catastrophes of a natural variety occur. Those are the
kinds of things that can wipe out seed supplies. If farmers can't plant the
stuff that they harvest, and become totally dependent on this, you are
really raising the ante on the possibility of mass starvation."
Industry sees an entirely different world. It's a place where companies
can develop ever-improved seeds and expect farmers to pony up a return on
their investment. They say seeds that yield more, require fewer harsh
chemicals, and resist what the world has to throw at them-pests, disease,
drought-may be our only hope for a withering environment and growing world
population. These technologies, they say, may be our only way of averting
mass starvation.
"If you're going to be in the game, you've got to go out and be
proactive," says Delta and Pine's Robinson. "We have to go and work
proactively even with the most disadvantaged countries to say, 'How can we
help make you more productive?'"
Will the invention help make farmers more productive? What will it do for
agriculture and ecosystems? In USDA's words, "We have no way of knowing at
this point." What is clear is that the technology will provide impenetrable
patent protection for the products of seed companies like Delta and Pine.
It's understandable why any company, in any industry, would want that sort
of protection; it's a stroke of brilliance from a business standpoint. The
real question is, is this the sort of research that the USDA, an agency
which regulates the seed business, should be doing?
As federal research budgets shrink, USDA, like other agencies, looks to
the private sector for help. Its public-private partnerships have been an
effective way to commercialize the extraordinary discoveries made by USDA
scientists, a way to create a revolving fund for future agriculture
research. But the private sector, understandably, is only interested in
cooperating if the resulting innovations benefit their business; the result
is a research environment that is more product-driven. Where does this
leave traditional USDA research that serves farmers and consumers, but that
promises no new profits for industry?
"The USDA patent on 'terminator' seeds puts us in a quandary, on the line
that divides corporate greed and public interest," says Neth Daņo of the
Southeast Asian Regional Institute for Community Education, a
Philippines-based group that works with resource-poor farmers. "Where does
the USDA's interest really lie?"
When the sun sets on the 2004 growing season, it's a question many
farmers, from Southeast Asia to South Dakota, may be asking themselves.
