Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980416150402.006c1918@helix.nih.gov> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:04:02 -0400 From: Mukul Ranjan <mailto:ranjan@HELIX.NIH.GOV> Subject: Re: A Seedy Business To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Jon,I agree with you in that the issue has subtleties that are not brought out in the article. However, I reread the article and did not get the impression that it suggests people reuse HYBRID seeds. As you point out, there would not be much point in reusing hybrid seeds. In fact if the problem were merely the reuse of hybrids (many of which will not produce seeds at all), there wouldn't be any need for this new technology, or any need to oppose it. I think the larger concern here is that it will replace traditional varieties used in large parts of the world and in the US, by that people who currently reuse (non-hybrid or traditional) seeds.
This is an excerpt from a RAFI article on the same issue which clearly address this issue:
[Corporate breeders argue that the new technology simply does for hard-to-hybridize crops what the hybrid technique did for maize. Hybrid seed is either sterile or fails to reproduce the same quality characteristics in the next generation. Thus, most maize farmers buy seed every year. "Poor farmers can't afford hybrids either;" Montecinos points out, "but there's a key difference. The theory behind hybridization is that it allows breeders to make crosses that couldn't be made otherwise and that are supposed to give the plant higher yields and vigor. The results are often disappointing but that's the rationale. In the case of Terminator Technology, there's absolutely no agronomic benefit for farmers. The sole purpose is to facilitate monopoly control and the sole beneficiary is agribusiness."]
I thought the MJ article was interesting for a couple of reasons:
One, it brings up the issue of selling these seeds around the world to areas that don't use hybrid seeds. If the seed companies are able to replace the cultivation of traditional varieties, they could dramatically expand the areas that are under mono-culture and worse still, have crops growing around the world that cannot be used more than once. This could have catastrophic consequences in case the annual supply of these seeds was interrupted. Incidentally there was a recent article in the NY Times (April 9, 1998; Plant Survey Reveals Many Species Threatened With Extinction) that pointed out that the rapidity with which plant varieties are dying out, and encouraging the use of single crop varieties would only worsen the situation.
Two, the Mother Jones article makes a valid point in stating that a public agency was involved in developing a technology that can only translate into larger corporate sales. In contrast technologies that lead to the improvement of crops, for example, potentially benefit everyone, companies and the general public
Mukul