Monsanto
m (→Terminator technology) |
m (→Terminator technology) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Monsanto has patented Genetic Use Restriction Technology, branded "terminator technology" by environmental groups. This exists in two flavors: the first one, which received a lion's share of publicity, is called "variety GURT" or V-GURT; it is a process which makes the second generation seed of GM crops sterile. This means that GM traits cannot spread in the environment and has a few other potential benefits, such as preventing sprouting in warm and wet conditions, but also that seed from the harvest cannot be saved for the next year.<ref>http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html</ref> It would also represent a method of enforcing the legal agreement signed by all customers of Monsanto's GM seeds, which states that farmers are not allowed to save seed. The second flavor is called "trait GURT" or T-GURT. It involves inhibiting the genetically engineered traits in a plant unless an activator compound is applied. This would mean that farmers can save seed, but to benefit from GM traits, they must spray their fields each year with the activator bought from the seed company.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/wcs/b50.html Nature World Conference on Science: Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology]</ref> Effectively, GURT is a form of "plant [[Digital Rights Management|DRM]]." | Monsanto has patented Genetic Use Restriction Technology, branded "terminator technology" by environmental groups. This exists in two flavors: the first one, which received a lion's share of publicity, is called "variety GURT" or V-GURT; it is a process which makes the second generation seed of GM crops sterile. This means that GM traits cannot spread in the environment and has a few other potential benefits, such as preventing sprouting in warm and wet conditions, but also that seed from the harvest cannot be saved for the next year.<ref>http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html</ref> It would also represent a method of enforcing the legal agreement signed by all customers of Monsanto's GM seeds, which states that farmers are not allowed to save seed. The second flavor is called "trait GURT" or T-GURT. It involves inhibiting the genetically engineered traits in a plant unless an activator compound is applied. This would mean that farmers can save seed, but to benefit from GM traits, they must spray their fields each year with the activator bought from the seed company.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/wcs/b50.html Nature World Conference on Science: Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology]</ref> Effectively, GURT is a form of "plant [[Digital Rights Management|DRM]]." | ||
| − | If introduced, the issues posed by these GM seeds would not be new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, used since 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation and have to be bought from seed growers each year | + | If introduced, the issues posed by these GM seeds would not be new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, used since 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation and have to be bought from seed growers each year — otherwise there is a sharp reduction in yield.<ref>[http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/archives/parsons/vegetables/seed.html Hybrid varieties and saving seed]</ref> |
In the end, due to public backlash, neither variant of the terminator technology was commercialized.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2 The Guardian: World braced for terminator 2]</ref> | In the end, due to public backlash, neither variant of the terminator technology was commercialized.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2 The Guardian: World braced for terminator 2]</ref> | ||
Revision as of 03:32, 15 January 2013
The Monsanto Company is a multinational biotechnology corporation. It is the inventor and primary producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as Roundup, and the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seeds (65% of the market).[1]
Contents |
Controversial actions
Terminator technology
Monsanto has patented Genetic Use Restriction Technology, branded "terminator technology" by environmental groups. This exists in two flavors: the first one, which received a lion's share of publicity, is called "variety GURT" or V-GURT; it is a process which makes the second generation seed of GM crops sterile. This means that GM traits cannot spread in the environment and has a few other potential benefits, such as preventing sprouting in warm and wet conditions, but also that seed from the harvest cannot be saved for the next year.[2] It would also represent a method of enforcing the legal agreement signed by all customers of Monsanto's GM seeds, which states that farmers are not allowed to save seed. The second flavor is called "trait GURT" or T-GURT. It involves inhibiting the genetically engineered traits in a plant unless an activator compound is applied. This would mean that farmers can save seed, but to benefit from GM traits, they must spray their fields each year with the activator bought from the seed company.[3] Effectively, GURT is a form of "plant DRM."
If introduced, the issues posed by these GM seeds would not be new. Plants grown from traditional hybrid seed, used since 1920s, do not produce true copies in the second generation and have to be bought from seed growers each year — otherwise there is a sharp reduction in yield.[4]
In the end, due to public backlash, neither variant of the terminator technology was commercialized.[5]
Aggressive enforcement of patents
Monsanto is eager to assert the patents on its crops. Farmers who collect and save seeds to use for the following year's crop have been sued.[6] Monsanto usually wins those cases, because before being supplied with seed, the farmer has to sign a contract that explicitly forbids saving seed.[7][8]
Another example is suing of farmers who grew non-GM canola near GM fields, then selected for the GM traits.[9]
Waste dumping
The company has also been involved in environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama. A Monsanto factory dumped mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl waste into local creeks for over forty years, including areas used in the local water supply. The company has also buried waste in the surrounding area. In 2003, Monsanto paid $700 million to settle claims by Anniston residents of contamination.
In a similar case, Monsanto was found to be have been illegally dumping toxic waste in UK landfill sites between 1965 and 1972, causing widespread pollution of the groundwater and atmosphere.
Appeal to Monsanto
Monsanto is often portrayed by anti-GMO activists as a faceless evil corporation that is responsible for all harms supposedly caused by GM crops. The belief in the malevolent meddling of the company in all areas of science and politics is so strong that it is used as an escape hatch - an "appeal to Monsanto".[10] Any information that challenges the views held by anti-GMO activists can be disregarded by claiming that the source was bribed by the corporation.[11]
There is a mountain of evidence that GM seeds, Monsanto's primary product, aren't any more harmful to animal health than traditional seeds.[12] When faced with this fact, many anti-GMO campaigners will claim that they are not protesting against the GM food itself, but against the "business practices" of Monsanto.
Ironically, it seems that Monsanto gained a near monopoly position in the GM seed market because of onerous regulation of GM crops, which effectively prevents any publicly funded research project or a small startup from successfully navigating a product through the bureaucracy.[13] These regulations were mainly brought about in response to public concern manufactured by anti-GMO groups. Monsanto is therefore a nemesis of their own making.
It's worth noting that although Monsanto is typically portrayed as the super-wealthy bad guy bossing around helpless organic farmers, the organic food industry actually outearns it 5 to 1. Monsanto's total revenue in 2011 was slightly less than $12 billion[14] and worldwide GM seed sales in the same year were $13.3 billion,[1] while worldwide organic food sales in 2010 were slightly less than $60 billion.[15]
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/our-position-gene-use-restriction-technologies.html
- ↑ Nature World Conference on Science: Compromise sought on 'Terminator' seed technology
- ↑ Hybrid varieties and saving seed
- ↑ The Guardian: World braced for terminator 2
- ↑ http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=30496
- ↑ CAFC opinion - Monsanto Company v. Kem L. Ralph
- ↑ GMO Journal: Monsanto's Ironclad Contract - In Fear of The Dotted Line
- ↑ Federal Court (Canada) decision - Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
- ↑ Brian Dunning: Argumentum ad Monsantium
- ↑ Ilumination: Thoughts from a "Shill for Monsanto"
- ↑ A. E. Ricroch et al.: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(3-4), 1134-1148
- ↑ Ingo Potrykus: Lessons from the "Humanitarian Golden Rice" project
- ↑ Monsanto Co. (MON) - Analysis of Revenues
- ↑ Bloomberg: Organic-Product Sales Rise 9.2% to $59.1 Billion, Group Says