<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>BROKEN PROMISE? MONSANTO PROMOTES TERMINATOR SEED TECHNOLOGY<BR>April
23, 2003<BR>ETC group News Release<BR>www.etcgroup.org<BR>At its annual meeting
on Thursday, April 24th, Monsanto's top brass will<BR>greet shareholders with a
dismal financial report, (a 15% drop in annual<BR>sales - $4.7 billion in 2002,
down from $5.5 billion in 2001) and a<BR>shareholder resolution that urges the
company to re-think the safety of<BR>genetically engineered seeds - now the
company's flagship product. But<BR>there's potentially more troubling news - a
little known position paper that<BR>could rattle shareholders, irk investors and
erode public confidence still<BR>further in the biotech behemoth: Despite its
1999 pledge not to<BR>commercialize Terminator technology, Monsanto has recently
adopted a<BR>positive stance on genetic seed sterilization, a technology that
has been<BR>condemned by civil society and some governments as an immoral
application of<BR>genetic engineering.<BR>"If Monsanto is reversing its public
pledge on Terminator, it will be<BR>perceived as a colossal corporate betrayal
of the public good - just one<BR>more example of corporate greed and fickle
governance," explains Hope Shand,<BR>Research Director of ETC Group, "Market
confidence in biotech is already low<BR>- it could evaporate if Monsanto
violates its public pledge on Terminator<BR>seeds." ETC Group, formerly known as
RAFI, is one of hundreds of civil<BR>society, farmers and indigenous peoples
organizations worldwide that has<BR>called for a ban on Terminator as an
anti-farmer, anti-diversity technology<BR>that, if commercialized, would prevent
farmers from saving seed from their<BR>harvest.<BR>Monsanto's new pro-Terminator
position came to public light when the<BR>Lyon-based International Seed
Federation (ISF) released a position paper on<BR>Terminator or GURTs (genetic
use restriction technology - the scientific<BR>name for Terminator) that defends
the potential benefits of genetic seed<BR>sterilization and extols the
theoretical virtues of Terminator for small<BR>farmers and indigenous peoples.
Co-authored by Monsanto's Roger Krueger and<BR>Harry Collins of Delta & Pine
Land (D&PL), the ISF position paper on<BR>Terminator was prepared for a
February 19-21 meeting of an Expert Panel<BR>convened by the United Nations'
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)<BR>that met to discuss the implications
of Terminator technology for small<BR>farmers, indigenous peoples and local
communities.<BR>The full text of ISF's position paper on Terminator is available
here:<BR>http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/collins_kreugerISF.pdf<BR>Both
Krueger and Collins attended the Montreal meeting and served on the<BR>Expert
Panel. (Harry Collins of D&PL represented the International
Seed<BR>Federation at the meeting, and Roger Krueger of Monsanto represented
the<BR>Biotechnology Industry Organization.)<BR>Corporate Amnesia? "It's
not surprising that the International Seed<BR>Federation is coming out in favor
of a technology that is designed to<BR>maximize<BR>seed industry profits," said
Jim Thomas, Programme Officer of ETC Group,<BR>"but<BR>it's alarming that one of
the authors of the paper is an employee of<BR>Monsanto - the multinational
Gene Giant that, in response to overwhelming<BR>public<BR>opposition, pledged in
1999 not to develop genetic seed sterilization."<BR>In October 1999, Gordon
Conway, President of the Rockefeller Foundation<BR>addressed the Monsanto Board
of Directors and urged them to abandon pursuit<BR>of Terminator seeds.
Then-Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro responded in an open<BR>letter to Rockefeller,
in which the company pledged "not to commercialize<BR>gene protection systems
that render seed sterile."(1) Since Monsanto made<BR>that pledge, the company
was acquired by pharma giant Pharmacia, and then<BR>spun-off again as a separate
company. Shapiro is long gone, Monsanto's new<BR>CEO resigned in December 2002,
and there appears to be a total loss of<BR>corporate memory on
Terminator.<BR>The ETC Group has learned that there were dissenting views
amongst the Gene<BR>Giants regarding the pro-Terminator position taken by the
seed industry<BR>trade group. Apparently some of the Gene Giants thought that
the<BR>pro-Terminator paper, "The Benefits of GURTs," was too risky - but
the<BR>pro-Terminator faction won the day. The International Seed
Federation's<BR>final position paper is unmistakably pro-Terminator:<BR>"The
International Seed Federation (ISF) believes that GURTs have the<BR>potential to
benefit farmers and others in all size, economic and<BR>geographical areas...In
reality, the potential effects of the GURTs may be<BR>beneficial to small
farmers and quite positive for the environment and<BR>biodiversity.(2)<BR>"It is
the strong belief and position of the ISF that GURTs would<BR>potentially
provide more choice, to the farmers, rather than less<BR>choice."(3)<BR>Silvia
Ribeiro responds to the ISF position, "It's difficult to understand<BR>how
Terminator could offer more choice to farmers, especially given the fact<BR>that
Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds already account over 90% of
all<BR>biotech seeds planted worldwide. That's not more choice, that's
oligopoly!"<BR>Testing the Waters? Now that Monsanto is publicly spearheading
the seed<BR>industry's pro-Terminator campaign, will it resurrect a program to
develop<BR>Terminator seeds? Or is Monsanto simply hoping to pave the way for
other<BR>companies to take the first step in commercializing the
controversial,<BR>anti-farmer technology? D&PL, the company that co-authored
the ISF paper<BR>with Monsanto, has publicly vowed to commercialize Terminator
technology,<BR>and jointly owns three Terminator patents with the US Department
of<BR>Agriculture. Is Monsanto testing the waters for a future acquisition
of<BR>Delta & Pine Land? The first attempt was botched at the end of
1998, when<BR>Monsanto pulled out of its announced merger deal with D&PL, in
large part<BR>due to the Terminator seed controversy.<BR>Biotech's Trojan Seeds:
The Gene Giants are hoping that public opinion has<BR>softened because of a
campaign to "greenwash" Terminator as a biosafety<BR>tool. They are
eagerly endorsing Terminator as a technology that will<BR>contain gene flow from
GM plants. According to the ISF paper:<BR>"It is believed that in the improbable
event of transgenes in GURT crop<BR>plants escaping, through pollen, to related
wild species, the resulting seed<BR>from these pollinations will not express the
new trait or will be unable to<BR>form a viable seed, thus preventing the
possibility of undesirable gene<BR>flow."(4)<BR>"If Terminator is commercialized
under the guise of biosafety, we know that<BR>it will be incorporated in all
genetically engineered seeds," explains<BR>Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group, "Seed
sterility is the ultimate monopoly-maker.<BR>With sterile seeds, the Gene Giants
have limitless control over plant<BR>germplasm, with no expiration date, without
patents or lawyers."<BR>Ultimately, Monsanto's position on Terminator is of
paramount importance to<BR>world food security, particularly for over 1.4
billion people who depend on<BR>farm-saved seed. In 2002, Monsanto's
genetically engineered seed traits<BR>were grown on 56 million hectares (138.3
million acres) worldwide.(5)<BR>Mayday for Monsanto? With Monsanto's
annual meeting taking place on April<BR>24th, shareholders should demand
corporate accountability for Monsanto's<BR>public promises. Where does
Monsanto really stand on Terminator? Will<BR>Monsanto's shareholders get the
straight story on the company's position?<BR>Following a frosty reception in the
heartland of the US for Monsanto's<BR>genetically engineered wheat, and a
tough-sell for GM seeds worldwide,<BR>Terminator could be the seed that breaks
the Mammoth's back.<BR>For more information:<BR>Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA)
hope@etcgroup.org<BR>Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org<BR>Silvia
Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org<BR>The Action Group on Erosion,
Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is<BR>an international civil
society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC<BR>group is dedicated to
the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity<BR>and human rights.
www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the<BR>Community
Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC). The<BR>CBDC is
a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society<BR>organizations
and public research institutions in 14 countries. The CBDC is<BR>dedicated
to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen<BR>the
conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The
CBDC<BR>website is www.cbdcprogram.org .<BR>1 Monsanto's open letter to
Rockefeller is available
at:<BR>http://www.biotech-info.net/monsanto_letter.pdf (We were not able
to locate<BR>the open letter on Monsanto's web site.)<BR>2 Harry B. Collins and
Roger W. Krueger, "Potential Impact of GURTs on<BR>Smallholder Farmers,
Indigenous & Local Communities and Farmers Rights: The<BR>Benefits of
GURTs," p. 1. Paper made available to the CBD's Ad Hoc Technical<BR>Expert Group
on the Impact of GURTs on Smallholder Farmers, Indigenous<BR>People and Local
Communities, February 19-21, 2003. The paper is presented<BR>as the official
position paper of the International Seed Federation. 3<BR>Ibid., p.
3.<BR>4 Ibid., p. 3-4.<BR>5 Monsanto web
site:<BR>http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NYS/MON/reports/4Q02Acreage.pdf<BR>For
more recent news and analysis related to Terminator, please see:<BR>ETC
Communique, "Terminator Five Years Later," released April,
2003:<BR>http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=389<BR>ETC Genotype, "Who
Calls the Shots at UPOV? US Govt. and Multinational Seed<BR>Industry Force UPOV
to Abandon Critique of Terminator," 17 April
2003<BR>http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=393</DIV></BODY></HTML>