National Post | October 6, 1999 | Editorial
In James Cameron's high-tech film noir, The Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger plays, according to this editorial, a cyborg programmed to exterminate the human race. In a similar apocalyptic and imaginary world - the environmentalist movement - "the terminator" refers to a genetically modified crop seed manufactured by Monsanto Company, an evil agribusiness firm allegedly bent on taking over the planet.
This second plot, however, has taken an unexpectedly tame twist.
Monsanto announced on Monday it would no longer market seeds (i.e. "terminators") that produce infertile plant crops. Environmentalists were quick to hail the company's cave-in.
"We think it is a very positive sign that Monsanto recognizes there is overwhelming opposition," said Hope Shand, research director for the Rural Advancement Foundation International, the Canadian activist group that helped spark the furor surrounding genetically modified crops.
Contrary to what Ms. Shand alleges, however, Monsanto's reversal will do nothing for the cause of "rural advancement." Seed sterility is of great potential value to farmers wishing to grow plants with a resistance to insect, fungal and viral pests. It also fosters herbicide-resistance, meaning that weeds can be selectively killed without hurting the standing crop. All of which increases yields, reduces prices and enhances a crop's nutritional value.
Despite these advantages, critics call this technology an attempt by the agribusiness industry to make farmers dependent on them and the chemicals they produce. If the seeds for engineered crops were sterile, they claim, farmers would be forced to buy new seeds every year, rather than simply saving seeds from their crops for replanting the following spring.
Surely, however, it is up to farmers to decide what is in their best interest - whether to use plants that will automatically give them next year's seeds, or to sow sterile seeds that will protect their crops from insect, fungal and viral pests. Why should the Rural Advancement Foundation International know what suits every farmer in Canada?
Its argument, in short, has nothing to do with defending either consumer rights or Mother Nature. It is simply another case of animus toward capitalism. Monsanto should reconsider its decision, play the James Bond villain again, and let the farmers decide what to sow.
