RSS Feed |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seed technology damaging to farmers? Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Age, it seems technology has done a lot to help ease the difficult workload of the world's farmers. Be it increased crop production or tools developed that led to easier farm maintenance, farmers have come a long way since the days of Eli Whitney and his famed cotton gin. However, not all technological advancements have proven beneficial to farmers, as today's current debate over the latest seed technology can attest to. At the core of that debate is Genetic Use Restriction Technology, or "Terminator Technology," as it is referred to by many farmers. While GURT is not currently in use, that's not for a lack of trying by those who have a lot to gain from its potential introduction to the market. Nor does its current dormant status mean it will remain so forever, a fact that Monsanto, one of a handful of companies that holds a patent on GURT technology, readily admits. Many farmers fear GURT technology because it produces so-called "Terminator" seeds, or plants that are genetically engineered to render sterile seeds. This means the second generation seeds many farmers rely on will be rendered useless. Should GURT ever be put to use, farmers' dependency on the commercial seed market will increase dramatically, an increase many farmers, in particular smaller farmers, cannot afford. Such a development could put many small farmers out of business and out on the street. Monsanto estimates that roughly one-third of the seed farmers use is farmersaved seed. That estimation, however, is just an average. High-intensity farmers, those that produce mass amounts of products, do not rely nearly as much on farmer-saved seed as low-intensity farmers, many of whom reside in developing countries and already suffer from nearly crippling poverty. If sterile seeds they cannot reuse are incorporated into their already difficult economic condition, these lowintensity farmers likely won't stand a chance. In a 2001 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations submitted at the Convention on Biological Diversity, a bleak future for the world's low-intensity farmers was forecast. "GURTs - like other modern technologies - may support a shift from medium-intensity farming to high-intensity, marketoriented systems," the report said. The report goes on to add, "The introduction of GURTs, in the absence of substantial additional public investment in crop and livestock breeding for low- and medium intensity, resourcepoor farming systems, could widen the income gap between resource-poor and commercial farmers." That essentially means the farming industry will begin to reflect much of the rest of industry in general, where only the powerful corporations can afford to keep pace, while the smaller businesses, in this instance small farmers, will inevitably fall by the wayside. Another potential pitfall of GURTs, though an unlikely one, concerns seed supply. The introduction of GURTs has the potential to produce monopolies, a side effect of a farming industry that will rely more heavily on high-intensity farming. Only companies with the wherewithal to provide the large amounts of seed necessary for such farming will be able to survive, making the farming industry as a whole almost universally reliant on a handful of companies with those capabilities. Should one of those suppliers collapse, farmers could be left without seed, a problem that would not occur if seeds without the "Terminator Technology" were still being produced. Though an absolute collapse would be an extreme case and somewhat unlikely, should it ever happen, the farmers who rely on that company would be faced with dire circumstances. Regardless of the negative impact on farmers, GURTs figure to be a central part of the farming industry within the next decade. While this appears to be potentially devastating to small farmers, the FAO report might have said it best when it said the introduction of GURTs "... implies a shifting in benefits from seed consumers (i.e., farmers) to the producers (i.e., seed suppliers)." That incentive figures to be too good to ignore for many of the world's largest seed suppliers.
Small farmers hoping to put a stop to the introduction of GURTs do have steps they can take, albeit difficult ones. Interestingly enough, the United States Department of Agriculture holds a patent on GURT technology, which can make a national or grassroots campaign, at least in the United States, challenging. The ETC Group, arguably the most outspoken opponent of GURT technology, works primarily on an international level, yet is a valuable resource for those looking to learn more about GURTs and their potential impact on the farming industry. Their Web site is located at www.etcgroup. org.
|
for larger version       |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
