RAFI Communiqué
January/February 2001
Issue # 68

2001: A Seed Odyssey
RAFI's Annual Update on Terminator and Traitor Technology
Suicide Seeds: Not Dead Yet!

Issue: Syngenta, the world's largest agrochemical corporation (created last
year with the merger of Novartis and AstraZeneca) won its newest Terminator
patent in November 2000. US-based Delta & Pine Land Co. vows to
commercialize suicide seeds. Ironically, with increasing evidence of genetic
pollution (that is, the escape of engineered genes from genetically modified
(GM) crops via pollen), the US government, the biotech industry and some
scientific bodies are promoting Terminator technology as a technical 'fix'
for gene escape from GM crops. Promotion of suicide seeds as a tool for
'biosafety' is an illogical and unacceptable argument to justify
commercialization of Terminator and Traitor technology.

Impact: If commercialized, Terminator and Traitor seeds will destroy
national seed sovereignty and threaten global food security, especially for
the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seeds and local plant
breeding. If the Gene Giants are allowed to develop a new generation of GM
plants whose traits can be switched on or off with the application of
proprietary chemicals, bioserfdom is the inevitable outcome. New patents
describing genetically modified plants with weakened immune systems that
would ultimately depend on the application of a chemical to regain their
natural defenses against pests and disease are the most troubling examples
of Traitor technology to date.

Who is developing Terminator and Traitor technology? A moving target.
Terminator patent portfolios are changing hands because the Gene Giants are
consolidating, spinning off, and selling agbiotech interests. Syngenta,
Delta & Pine Land and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pharmacia
(Monsanto), BASF and DuPont hold Terminator patents; virtually all of the
Gene Giants and many public sector institutions have interests in genetic
trait control technology.

Policy Action: Unless governments take action to ban these technologies,
Terminator and Traitor seeds will be commercialized. Governments will have
important opportunities to reject Terminator at the World Food Summit Five
Years Later in November 2001; at the Biodiversity Conventions' 6th
Conference of Parties in April 2002; and at UNCED's Rio+10 in South Africa,
in mid- 2002. As potential biological weapons, the use of Terminator/Traitor
should also be banned by governments at the 5th Review Conference of the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in Geneva, November 2001.


Background
Terminator technology, the genetic modification (GM) of plants to produce
sterile seeds, has been widely condemned by civil society, scientific bodies
and many governments as an immoral application of agbiotech. If
commercialized, Terminator would prevent farmers from re-using seed from
their harvest, forcing them to return to the commercial seed market.
Fertility is just one of many genetic traits that corporate scientists can
switch 'on or off' with the application of an external chemical. 'Traitor'
refers to genetic trait control technologies that could impose chemical
dependencies in agriculture with grim implications for farmers, food
security and the environment.

When Terminator technology came to public light in March 1998, 'suicide
seeds' shattered the myth that commercial biotechnology aims to feed hungry
people. Terminator became synonymous with corporate greed, and blatantly
exposed the industry's goal of maximizing profits by destroying Farmers'
Rights and seed sovereignty. In 1999, in the wake of widespread public
protest, Monsanto and AstraZeneca vowed not to commercialize Terminator
technology.

Today, three years after Terminator's public debut, many would argue that
the GM landscape has changed radically. After all, Bob Shapiro, Monsanto's
former CEO and fearless biotech booster, is looking for a new job. (Shapiro
didn't last even one year on the board of Pharmacia - the drug company giant
that acquired Monsanto in March, 2000.)(1) From Manila to Mexico City, Tokyo
to Toronto, Auckland to Porto Alegre, the controversy over GM crops and food
rages. 'Golden Rice,' 'StarLink maize' and 'Terminator' are words that
ignite strong reactions, both pro and con, over the future of GM technology.

Unfortunately, one thing has not changed. Though many have been lulled into
thinking that the Terminator threat has diminished, the technology is moving
closer to commercial reality. This issue of the RAFI Communique provides an
update on Terminator and Traitor technology. What has happened since RAFI's
last update in March 2000? Who holds Terminator patents? What are the key
policy fora where Terminator will be debated in 2001-2002?

Updates: Terminator Patent Shuffle

BASF: In March 2000 German agrochemical firm BASF announced that it would
invest $680 million in agricultural biotechnology. In December 2000 BASF
acquired US plant biotech firm, ExSeed Genetics, the co-owner (with Iowa
State University) of a controversial patent, WO9907211, which is explicit in
describing a method for preventing farmers from using saved seed for
re-planting. RAFI has written to Hans Kast, President and CEO of BASF to ask
if the company will abandon its newly acquired Terminator patent. Last year,
Kim Kuebler of ExSeed Genetics insisted that his company 'is NOT developing
so-called 'terminator' technology as some kind of third world protectionism,
nor do we have any plans to do so.'(2) Will BASF make a similar pledge by
agreeing to abandon its new Terminator patent?

Delta & Pine Land (D&PL) and US Department of Agriculture: In a telephone
interview earlier this year, Delta & Pine Land's Vice-President for
Technology Transfer, Harry Collins, told RAFI that the company is moving
ahead with plans to commercialize its 'technology protection system'
(Terminator). D&PL, the world's largest cotton seed company, jointly owns
three patents on Terminator with the US Department of Agriculture. Despite
mounting opposition from national governments, United Nations' agencies,
farmers, scientists and CSOs around the world, USDA has signaled that it
will not abandon its patents nor condemn the technology.(3) Paralyzed by an
avalanche of public protest, however, USDA has so far failed to conclude a
licensing agreement with D&PL. USDA's partnership with the seed industry on
Terminator is an egregious use of taxpayer money, and demonstrates the
agency's commitment to private gain over public good and the rights of
farmers. With a new administration in Washington no change is likely.

According to Harry Collins, the licensing agreement with USDA is
'irrelevant' for D&PL because it does not prevent the company from
commercializing the technology. Collins told RAFI that D&PL is still
conducting research on Terminator in greenhouses, involving both cotton and
tobacco. The company does not plan to conduct field tests in 2001.(4)

Syngenta, the world's largest agribusiness firm, was formed on 13 November
2000 with the merger of AstraZeneca and Novartis. The next day the company
won its newest Terminator patent, US Patent 6,147,282, 'Method of
controlling the fertility of a plant.' (The patent was issued to Novartis -
but the company's intellectual property goes to Syngenta.) With pro forma
1999 sales of US $7 billion, Syngenta is the world's largest agrochemical
enterprise, and the third largest seed corporation.

US Patent 6,147,282 is the latest in a series of Terminator patents won by
Novartis. This patent carries the same abstract and main text as US patent
5,880,333, identified by RAFI last year.(5) The patent describes a complex
system for chemical control of a plant's fertility. The application of a
chemical inducer can be used to either abolish or restore a plant's
fertility. RAFI has written to David Evans of Syngenta to request that the
company make a public pledge to abandon its patents on Terminator, and to
disavow all further research on the technology.

Monsanto - Pharmacia announced that it would acquire Monsanto in November
1999 just weeks after Monsanto's CEO pledged that his company would not
commercialize Terminator seeds. Would the new company (with a new CEO) honor
Monsanto's pledge? In July 2000 the New York Times reported that Monsanto
was collaborating with Scotts Co. to develop GM turf grass and that the
companies would employ Terminator technology to prevent gene flow. RAFI
contacted Monsanto's Director of Public Policy, Kate Fish, who responded:
'We stand by our announcement of last October...To reiterate, neither
Monsanto, nor any of our technology licensing partners - including Scotts -
are working on sterile seed technology in their application of Monsanto's
biotechnology traits.'(6)

Table: Who Owns Terminator Patents?
Company/Institution (followed by name of original assignee), Patent no., and
Date of Issue

Syngenta (Novartis) US 6,147,282
14 Nov. 2000

Syngenta (Novartis) US 5,880,333
9 March 1999

Syngenta (Zeneca) US 5,808,034
15 Sept. 1998

Syngenta (Zeneca) WO9738106A
16 Oct. 1997

Syngenta (Zeneca) WO9735983A2
2 Oct. 1997

Syngenta (Zeneca) WO9403619A2 and A3
17 Feb. 1994

Delta & Pine Land/USDA US 5,723,765
3 March 1998

Delta & Pine Land/USDA US 5,925,808
20 July 1999

Delta & Pine Land/USDA US 5,977,441
2 Nov. 1999

BASF (ExSeed Genetics, L.L.C./Iowa State University) WO9907211
18 Feb. 1999

DuPont (Pioneer Hi-Bred) US 5,859,341
12 Jan. 1999

Pharmacia (Monsanto) WO9744465
27 Nov. 1997

Cornell Research Foundation US 5,859,328
12 Jan. 1999

Purdue Research Foundation (with support from USDA) WO9911807
11 March 1999

The Green Gene Defense: Apologists for Terminator
Proponents of Terminator argue that engineered sterility could play a
valuable role in controlling the escape of engineered genes from GM crops to
related plants and wild relatives. Engineered sterility offers a built-in
safety feature, they claim, because if genes from a Terminator crop escape
into the wild, the seed produced from unwanted pollination will not
germinate.(7) The argument is not new. Ironically, in the face of increasing
evidence of cross-pollination from GM crops, the 'Green Gene' defense of
Terminator is gaining ground. Several recent reports issued by scientific
bodies make the dangerous suggestion that there are environmentally friendly
and acceptable uses for Terminator because it could be used to prevent
unwanted gene flow in GM crops. Not very long ago, scientists downplayed the
potential problem of escape of engineered genes from GM crops. Today we are
being asked to accept engineered sterility as a biosafety bandage for GM
crops with leaky genes. Apologists for Terminator include, for example:

* In April 2000 the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy
of Sciences (USA) released a report entitled, 'Genetically Modified Pest
Protected Plants: Science and Regulation.' The report refers to Terminator
technology as '...a more effective method of confining gene flow,'
particularly when it relates to reducing wild species invasion. The report
notes that if Terminator technology were pursued on a commercial scale 'it
could reduce the need to regulate transgenic crops based on weedy relative
consideration.' The NRC report concedes that the technology is 'highly
controversial' and also recognizes that 'because of concerns raised about
using chemicals to turn on genes in the environment, it is unclear whether
or not such a technology will be acceptable.'

* The United Kingdom's, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
(ACRE) advises the government on risks of genetically modified organisms.
ACRE's annual report, published in March 2001, reviews a number of possible
strategies to ameliorate risk of GMOs, including the Terminator technology,
which it describes as 'a promising technique for genetic isolation.'(8) The
report notes that 'it is beyond the scope of this guidance to consider the
socio-economic and ethical debate raised by this capability [genetic seed
sterility].'

* In July 2000 seven science academies from the South and North released
'Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture,' prepared under the auspices of
the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian
National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third
World Academy of Sciences.(9) The report candidly outlines many of the
failures of commercial biotechnology to address the needs of the South's
resource-poor farmers before concluding, 'it is critical that the potential
benefits of GM technology become available to developing countries.' In
RAFI's opinion, the report takes a kamikaze nose-dive when discussing GURTs,
or genetic use restriction technology, another name for Terminator and
Traitor technology:

'GURTs potentially have beneficial applications for consumers, growers, and
the environment that should not be overlooked in debates over intellectual
property rights. For example, GURTs could be used to prevent transgenes from
spreading to closely related wild plants by preventing germination of any
crossbred seeds. Furthermore, this technology could potentially eliminate
the problems of 'volunteer' plants that appear from seed left in the field
after harvest. Volunteer plants must be eliminated before the next crop is
planted because they are hosts for pests and pathogens and can nullify the
benefits of crop rotation.' -- Excerpt on GURTs from 'Transgenic Plants and
World Agriculture'

Leaky GM Genes and Biotech Bailouts
The StarLink maize debacle in the United States (and beyond) demonstrates
increasing evidence of unintended gene flow, and the inability of regulatory
systems to contain genetic pollution from GM crops. StarLink is the brand
name for Aventis' GM insect-resistant maize that illegally entered the food
supply; the GM crop was approved by the US government only for livestock
feed because of concerns that its toxic protein (Cry9C) could trigger
allergic reactions in some people. When traces of StarLink were discovered
in the food supply, it resulted in massive recalls of over 300 maize-based
food products. After StarLink maize appeared in grain shipments destined for
export, grain markets were disrupted, prices tumbled and US farmers lost
valuable markets. As a result, unsold stockpiles of US maize are at their
highest level in eight years.(10)

In March 2001 the US Department of Agriculture announced that it would spend
$20 million in taxpayer money to bail out the seed and biotech industry, by
purchasing 300,000 to 400,000 bags of maize seed contaminated by gene flow
from Aventis' StarLink genes.(11) StarLink maize was planted on less than
0.02 percent of all US maize cropland in 2000, but cross-pollination with
other maize varieties resulted in maize seed contaminated with StarLink
genes. The federal bailout is using government funds that would normally go
to disaster relief for farmers.

John Wichtrich, general manager for Aventis CropScience admits that
StarLink's leaky genes cannot be contained. At a speech to North American
Millers Association in March 2001 Wichtrich asked his audience, 'I know you
are wondering: 'Will there ever be an end to this?' Unfortunately, as of
right now, the answer is no - there will never be an end as long as there is
a zero tolerance for Cry9C in food.'(12)

Unacceptable Trade-Off: Biosafety for Bioserdom
Instead of admitting the biosafety risks of GM crops and the inability of
current regulatory programs to contain them, the Gene Giants, allied
scientific bodies and government regulators are seizing the opportunity to
promote the use of Terminator as a biosafety tool for minimizing the
unintended spread of transgenes. Genetic seed sterility offers a method to
contain unwanted gene flow, they argue, and it will also bring added
agronomic benefits, such as preventing pre-harvest crops from sprouting
prematurely. The USDA, which jointly holds three patents on Terminator
technology, champions the use of Terminator to prevent gene flow in GM
crops.(13) The agency, of course, has a blatant conflict of interest as both
developer and regulator of GM technology.

In RAFI's opinion, the logic is flawed and dangerous. The ultimate goal of
genetic seed sterility is neither biosafety nor agronomic benefits, but
bioserfdom. No matter what rationale is used by the Gene Giants to engineer
social acceptance of genetic seed sterility, the technology is unacceptable
because it will ultimately be used to maximize seed industry profits by
forcing farmers to rely on commercial seed stock. Terminator will threaten
biodiversity, and jeopardize food security for the world's poor. In
September 2000 the FAO's Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and
Agriculture concluded that Terminator was 'unethical.'

'The panel unanimously stated that the 'terminator seeds' generally are
unethical, finding it unacceptable to market seeds, the offspring of which a
farmer cannot use again because the seeds could not germinate. Genetic Use
Restriction Technologies are not inherent in genetic engineering. While
corporations are entitled to make profits, farmers should not have to become
dependent on new seeds from the supplier every season.' -- FAO's Panel of
Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture (14)

Chloroplast Engineering: New Technology To Topple 'Green' Apologists for
Terminator?
New breakthroughs in 'chloroplast engineering' may foil industry attempts to
promote Terminator as a unique biosafety tool for containing unwanted gene
flow in GM plants. A chloroplast is an organelle found in the green tissues
of plants (chloroplasts give plant tissues their green colour). Chloroplasts
contain their own genetic material (genome). Up to 50,000 plastid genomes
can be present in a given plant cell.

Scientists recently modified the chloroplast genome of tobacco and potatoes.
The technique is described as a 'milestone' for plant biotechnology because
multiple genes can be engineered through a single transformation event.(15)
And, since chloroplasts do not transfer genes from pollen, some scientists
predict that the new technique will prevent escape of foreign genes through
pollen. According to molecular biologist Henry Daniell of the University of
Central Florida, 'Chloroplast genetic engineering is emerging as an
alternative technology that overcomes many of the environmental concerns of
nuclear genetic engineering.'(16) RAFI does not advocate any GM technique;
chloroplast engineering is cited here because it illustrates that
technologies are evolving rapidly and it is irresponsible to suggest that
agriculture is dependent on genetic seed sterilization as a method for
containing foreign genes.

Traitor Technology
In 1999, RAFI first identified AstraZeneca and Novartis' patents for
'chemically dependent' plants - dubbed Traitor Technology by RAFI.(17) Using
inducible promoter systems, the coding sequence for a protein is under the
control of a chemically inducible promoter. In other words, a plant's
genetic traits can be turned 'on or off' with the application of an external
chemical catalyst. Molecular biologists now have the ability to control a
wide range of traits such as a plant's defenses against insects or diseases,
tolerance to herbicides, or flowering, fruit ripening, flavor, nutritional
qualities, and male or female sterility. Research and development of
inducible promoter technology is now commonplace in biotech laboratories.
For RAFI and other CSOs, the specter of 'negative trait' technology
controlled by a handful of Gene Giants is unacceptable.


If companies are allowed to engineer and commercialize GM seeds that perform
only with the application of a proprietary pesticide or fertilizer, for
example, this technology will reinforce chemical dependencies in agriculture
- and both farmers and food security will be held hostage to the Gene
Giants. This is not, as some would suggest, a reckless conspiracy theory. It
is market logic backed by recent experience. The integration of the
agrochemical and seed industry is well documented by RAFI and others. The
development of herbicide tolerant seeds, i.e. the marketing of proprietary
GM seed technology and companion weed killer, is only the most recent and
well-known example. Worldwide, herbicide tolerant GM seeds accounted for 74%
of the total area devoted to GM crops in 2000.(18) With Traitor technology,
a more frightening scenario unfolds: proprietary seeds will be biologically
bound with company chemicals in such a way that they are completely
dependent on one another. Farmers will have no choice but to use both, and
will depend on a handful of companies for virtually all traits and inputs.

Missing Immunities
Especially alarming are patents describing plants that have weakened immune
systems. Last year, Action Aid, Berne Declaration, GeneWatch and the Swedish
Society for Nature Conservation identified three new Novartis patents of
this type.(19) DuPont holds a more recent patent which involves reducing a
plant's natural disease resistance (see table). In most cases, the inventors
claim that they are developing 'immune-compromised' plants for research
purposes, to test the efficacy of fungicides, to examine plant-pathogen
interactions, or to enhance disease resistance, for example. But some
patents suggest otherwise and the work is not merely theoretical.

To be clear, the stated aim of most of these patents is to modify plants for
enhanced disease resistance. The desired trait, of course, would depend on
the application of an external chemical inducer. (Farmers could be required
to use a proprietary chemical in order to take advantage of the desired
trait.) But the patents also describe the development of plants whose
natural immune system is disabled, and would therefore be highly vulnerable
to pests and disease - unless chemicals are used to restore the plant's
missing immunities.

Table: New Traitor Tech Patents Involving
Immune-Compromised Plants

Owner of Patent, Patent #, Date Issued
Syngenta (Novartis) US Patent 6,091,004
18 July 2000

Syngenta (Novartis) US Patent 6,057,490
2 May 2000

Syngenta (Novartis) US Patent 6,107,544
22 Aug 2000

DuPont (Pioneer) WO 0070059 23 Nov 2000


For example, an earlier Novartis patent (now owned by Syngenta), US Patent
No. 5,804,693, describes genetically modified 'universal disease
susceptible' plants which produce reduced levels of salicylic acid -- a key
mediator of plant resistance to a wide variety of pathogens (bacteria,
fungi, viruses). The inventors subsequently modified a 'disease sensitive'
plant to express the Bt gene for insect resistance, but only when triggered
by a chemical inducer. Such plants would be unusually vulnerable to
bacteria, fungi and viruses, unless immune responses are also re-engineered
back into the plant. Restoration of immune responses would also be subject
to regulation by external chemicals. A series of Novartis patents involve
other components of the plant's immune system, and include the isolation of
strains with weakened immune systems. US Patent 6,057,490, now held by
Syngenta, specifically describes the protection and use of non-immunity
mutants - plants that are modified not to express systemic acquired
resistance genes.(20) Additional Syngenta patents in this series - with
additional claims -- are expected to issue in the near future.

Would agrochemical companies intentionally create weakened plant strains?
They already have. Would they attempt to commercialize 'disease susceptible
plants' that would require chemical spraying to restore missing immunities?
There is nothing to stop them. Control of negative trait technology, and
especially the engineering of immune-deficient plants could readily be
classified as a hostile and non-peaceful use of living organisms, prohibited
under the Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) of 1975. The BTWC,
which outlaws the development and possession of all biological weapons, must
urgently recognize Terminator and Traitor technology as potential biological
weapons.


Building Momentum to Terminate the Terminator
Last year, governments meeting at the 5th Conference of Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi recommended a moratorium on
the field-testing and commercial use of genetic use restriction technologies
(GURTs). They also requested that FAO's Commission on Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture prepare a study on the socio-economic impacts of GURTs,
which is now underway.(21)

Action by national governments around the world will determine the future of
Terminator and Traitor Technology. Intergovernmental organizations have a
critical role to play in raising global awareness and formally banning these
technologies. Key international fora in 2001-2002 include:

World Food Summit Five Years Later: When heads of state meet 9-15 November
2001 in Rome they have the opportunity to re-affirm the recent findings of
FAO's Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics, which concluded that Terminator
seeds are unethical, and recommend that member nations ban the technology.
They will also have the opportunity to draw on the findings of a report now
being produced by FAO's Commission on Genetic Resources for Food &
Agriculture, which will examine the socio-economic impacts of genetic use
restriction technology (GURTs).

The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: The BTWC will hold its
Review Conference in November 2001 for the purpose of reviewing and
strengthening the Convention of 1975, ratified by 143 governments. The BTWC
Convention must recognize Terminator/Traitor technologies as potential
biological weapons and violations of the Treaty.

COP6 - The Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity meets in The Hague, 8-26 April 2002. After numerous studies on
genetic trait control technology, COP6 should be prepared to recommend a ban
on Terminator as an anti-farmer technology that threatens biodiversity and
national seed sovereignty.

UNCED's Rio+10: Over 100 Heads of State meeting in South Africa in mid-2002
(date to be determined) will have the opportunity to call for a ban on
Terminator and Traitor technology as an immoral application of genetic
engineering that threatens biodiversity and development.

Endnotes
(1) Anonymous, 'Shapiro to Step down from Board,' AgBiotech Reporter,
February 2001, p.30.
(2) Letter from Kim Kuebler, Director of Marketing, Ex Seed Genetics, to
Alex Wijeratna, Action Aid, 23 June 2000. The letter appears on ExSeed
Genetics' web site: http//www.exseed.com/nws62300.html. RAFI made repeated
attempts to reach Kuebler by phone to inquire about the current status of
the company's Terminator patent, but our calls were not returned.
(3) For further background, see: 'USDA Refuses to Abandon Terminator
Technology,' RAFI News Release, 28 July 2000.
(4) Personal communication with Harry Collins, Vice-President for Technology
Transfer, Delta & Pine Land, February 2001.
(5) For detailed background information, see: 'Terminator Two Years Later:
RAFI Update on Terminator/Traitor Technology - A Report Prepared in
Preparation for the Fifth Conference of Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity,' May, 2000. Available on RAFI's web site.
http://www.rafi.org
(6) For further background, see: 'Snakes in the GM Grass,' RAFI News
Release, 26 July 2000, http://www.rafi.org
(7) Collins, H. 'New Technology and Modernizing World Agriculture.'
Unpublished paper distributed by Dr. Collins at the June 1998 meeting of the
FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Rome. See
also, USDA's document, 'Fact Sheet: Why the USDA's Technology Protection
System (a.k.a. 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture,' available on the
internet: http://www.ars.usda.gov/misc/fact.htm
(8) 'Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment: Sub-group on Best
Practice in GM Crop Design Guidance on Principles of Best Practice in the
Design of Genetically Modified Plants,' available on the internet:
http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/bestprac/guidance/index.htm
(9) 'Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture' is available on the internet:
http://bob.nap.edu/html/transgenic/index.html
(10) Anonymous, 'StarLink Confuses Markets, Sparks Lawsuits,' AgBiotech
Reporter, March 2001, p. 1.
(11) Kaufman, Marc. 'Going Backwards: U.S. Will Buy Back Corn Seed; Firms to
Be Compensated for Batches Mixed With Biotech Variety,' Washington Post, 8
March 2001.
(12) Bickley, Rah. Knight Ridder/Tribune, 'Biotech Firm Executive Says
Genetically Engineered Corn Is Here to Stay,' 20 March 2001.
(13) US Department of Agriculture, 'Fact Sheet: Why the USDA's Technology
Protection System (a.k.a. 'Terminator') Benefits Agriculture,' available on
the internet: http://www.ars.usda.gov/misc/fact.htm
(14) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Panel of
Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture, First Session, Rome,
26-28 September 2000, unpublished report.
(15) De Cosa, et al. 'Overexpression of the Bt cry2Aa2 operon in
chloroplasts leads to formation of insecticidal crystals,' Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 19, January 2001, p. 71.
(16) Daniell, Henry. 'Engineering Multiple Genes in a Single Transformation
Event: Another Milestone in Plant Biotechnology, Information Systems for
Biotechnology News Report, 1 March 2001. See also,
(17) For detailed background information, see RAFI Communique, 'Traitor
Tech: The Terminator's Wider Implications,' January/February 1999. Available
on RAFI's web site: http://www.rafi.org
(18) James, Clives. 'Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops:
2000,' ISAAA Briefs No. 21: Preview. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
(19) Warwick, Hugh. Syngenta: Switching off farmers' rights?, published
jointly by Berne Declaration, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation,
GeneWatch UK, Action Aid, October, 2000. While this publication identifies
many additional patents, some initially identified by RAFI, we categorize
only three of the new Novartis patents as 'traitor' technologies. These
include: US 6,057,490, US 6,091,004, US 6,107,544. (RAFI makes a distinction
between those patents that involve primarily male sterility to facilitate
making F1 hybrids. In addition, RAFI does not include patents that we
classify as more 'generic' inducible promoter patents.
(20) For further analysis of this patent, see: Warwick, Hugh. Syngenta:
Switching off farmers' rights?, published jointly by Berne Declaration,
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, GeneWatch UK, Action Aid, October,
2000.
(21) For additional background on COP5 and Terminator, see: RAFI News
Release, 'COP5 Cops Out,' 16 June 2000. The final text on GURTs at the COP 5
recommends: e) Recommend that, in the current absence of reliable data on
genetic use restriction technologies without which there is an inadequate
basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the
precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not
be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data
can justify such testing, and for commercial use until appropriate,
authorized and strictly controlled scientific assessments with regard to
inter alia, their ecological and socio-economic impact and any adverse
effects for biological diversity, food security and human health have been
carried out in a transparent manner and the conditions for their safe and
beneficial use validated.

RAFI is an international civil society organization based in Canada. We are
dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and to
the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural
societies. RAFI's work depends on grants to support our research.
Information in this RAFI Communique may be freely used or re-printed, we ask
only that RAFI is cited as the source. All RAFI's publications are available
on our web site: http://www.rafi.org