Chat with Hope Shand of the Rural Advancement Foundation International for a well-informed look at Monsanto's recent decision not to produce "Terminator" seeds and what it means to the genetically-modified-foods controversy. On Oct. 7 from 2-3 pm EDT join the ENN.com community for this timely discussion.

Administrator: As all of you know, Monsanto recently announced their decision not to produce terminator seeds. Hope, how do you see this decision affecting those you work with?

Hope Shand: it's a positive sign. But Terminator is not dead in the water. Many other companies are pursuing the same goal, as well as genetic trait control, which is also very scary. And the USDA is still promoting terminator.

Administrator: Do you think this decision might effect USDA's thinking?

Hope Shand: We are going to continue putting a lot of pressure on USDA. So far, they say they are still involved -and we think they are ignoring their farm constituency and the over 10,000 people who have sent letters of protest.

Terri: what about the seeds Monsanto has already produced?

Administrator: Hi Bob — Welcome to ENN's Chat

Hope Shand: Not sure what you mean...Terminator has NOT been commercialized. Monsanto is the largest seller of genetically modified seeds, however.

Administrator: Hi Jeff — Welcome to ENN's Chat

Terri: I thought Monsanto had already sold some of the terminator seeds, but maybe I was misinformed.

Hope Shand: No, Terminator seeds have not been commercialized. Industry says it's 4 to 5 years down the road.

Terri: the seeds they sell now, they are still genetically modified, are they the Roundup Ready seeds?

Hope Shand: Yes, among others. Monsanto is the world's 2nd largest seed corporation. They have spent over 8 billion dollars acquiring seed and biotech companies over the past 4 years.

Terri: that's pretty scary

Administrator: Who is the world's largest seed corporation — and have they shown any signs of emulating Monsanto?

Hope Shand: Consolidation in the seed industry is a very dangerous trend. Today, the top 10 seed companies control 30% of the global seed market, and that's why Terminator seeds are particularly scary.

Administrator: Hi Tim — Welcome to ENN's Chat

Tim Weiskel: Hello, sorry I'm late.

Terri: Have they said anything about stopping genetically modified seeds or is that something that they believe is still 'healthy' for us?

Administrator: Not a problem — Hope was just illustrating market consolidation in the ag business

Hope Shand: The world's largest is DuPont, after they purchased Pioneer Hi-bred earlier this year. They are also working on Terminator and trait control. No, I don't believe Monsanto is ready to back down from GM seeds — it's too much a part of their overall goal.

Terri: with all the info against GM seeds why do companies keep trying to push these products on people?

Tim Weiskel: On some level, the whole notion of manipulating genetic information of other species for human convenience or short-term profit may be called into question.

Hope Shand: The bottom line is CONTROL. These are patented products, and the seed is the delivery system for a package of patented technologies. That's why giant corporations have been buying up seed companies all over the world.

Administrator: Are there any indications of what the longer-term effects of these new species may be on the environment?

Hope Shand: that's a big question — to some extent, we just don't know, and that's because there haven't been rigorous, long-term ecological studies of the potential ecological impacts. That's a huge reason hwy there is such opposition to GM seeds.

Tim Weiskel: There is a fairly simple reason whey agri-business firms get into promoting genetically modified versions of plants. Either they feel particular features of the plants are more "favorable" or plants can be engineered to suit the mechanical and agro-chemical production schemes.

Administrator: Hi Labeulah — Welcome to ENN's chat.

Hope Shand: Yes, that's true. The primary goals have been to satisfy the needs of agribusiness, not to solve problems of world hunger or address the needs of small farmers.

Administrator: Hi Calestous — Welcome to ENN's Chat

Terri: some of the stories I've read about gm seeds seem that they don't help crop yields, it seems they are just trying to monopolize and make sure that farmers rely on them instead of saving seeds

Hope Shand: there have been some new studies indicating, in fact, that some GM crops have a yield drag.

Tim Weiskel: As Garrett Hardin was fond of pointing out, "you can never do just one thing in an ecosystem." The results are that plants with altered genetic make up are not fully predictable as they grow, compete for resources and replicate in complex ecosystems. Hence, we don't know much about the "down stream," long-term environmental impact of newly engineered species. We probably never will know enough about them.

Administrator: This is really a very incredible technology — real God stuff. Could it be that we write off its potential too quickly?

Hope Shand: For RAFI, the primary concern is not the technology itself, but who controls it.

Terri: with the public outcry at least in Europe, companies aren't even trying to stop the GM seeds

Tim Weiskel: Curious about what you mean with the phrase "real God stuff"? Is that a typo for "real good stuff?

Hope Shand: The opposition is now spreading to the US to some extent. I think many US farmers are angry and resentful that they have been guinea pigs for new products — and now nobody wants to buy of eat.

Calestous Juma: Hi there folks

Administrator: No, just it is something that might, in another time (or in Kansas) be attributed to God. Manipulating the fabric of being. It is a god-like power.

Terri: is there anything we can do, petitions etc. that we can do here in the states to make people more aware?

Tim Weiskel: Hello Calestous! Set us straight on some of the priorities of Third World farmers. What kinds of GM crops could be of use there?

Hope Shand: Yes, there are growing networks of anti-GM foods, check out www.purefood.com, for example

Terri: I mean, being on a college campus i feel a need to make people aware especially young people who know nothing about this going on, that the food they eat every day is GM

Calestous Juma: Many developing countries have formulated their own priorities regarding GM, including some of the poorest ones in Africa. There are a little under pressure now from those who think they know what they should have and those who think they know what they should not have.

Tim Weiskel: Full information about our food supplies is not a bad idea. Try it on any campus, however, and you often encounter walls of mystification, obfuscation and just plain confusion.

Hope Shand: Hi Calestous, could you give some specific examples of some of the priorities in developing countries,

Hope Shand: and obstacles to achieving them?

Administrator: Hi Steven — Welcome to ENN's chat

Tim Weiskel: Calestous, in the past, as you know, colonial ecosystems were manipulated at will by foreign powers. Can GM crops be developed/used in such a way as to re-autonomize production in former colonial regions?

Administrator: Hi Panida — Welcome to ENN's chat

Calestous Juma: There are many classes of biotech activities that have been identified and they include tissue culture propagation, genetic markers, genetic engineering, etc. Traits like drought resistance, salt tolerance, yield improvement, disease control, are the subject of extensive research now. GE offers the opportunity to shorten breeding period in light of the declining research budgets.

Administrator: Where does RAFI enter into this, Hope?

Calestous Juma: Tim, interesting question. We are working on a paper entitled "Chemical Bonds" and it looks at the role of new agricultural systems in political freedom. You must be familiar with "Technology as Freedom" which is the same theme.

Tim Weiskel: Pat Mooney, at the World Seed Conference which just ended in England, issued the warning that we are likely to see more consolidation in the seed, production and processing firms. He predicted that in the next few years companies like Archer Daniels Midland would be acquiring the seed companies. This would give them the potential to design crops genetically with their packaged products in mind. More efficient, perhaps, but desirable?

Hope Shand: Again, RAFI does not have a blanket condemnation of biotech or genetic engineering. The real question is, who will control these technologies, and who will benefit from them? Intellectual property (patents) have been a real obstacle, in some cases, to t These technologies are firmly in the hands of the private sector, really just 5 major Gene Giants and their priorities are not going to be the same as small farmers in the developing world — or anywhere else. They are driven by profit motive.

Calestous Juma: I agree with Hope, the issues are largely about governance. When the King of England issues the "Declaration for the Suppression of Coffee" in the 1670s, the issues were about control and governance as they are today. Current calls for a moratorium on GM crops remind me of those heady days when coffee was "attacked" all over Europe for competing with tea, beer (in Germany) and wine (in France)

Administrator: Hi GMD — Welcome to ENN's chat

GMD: Brad Dean

Hope Shand: Yes, but I do think people feel somewhat desperate. And that's why we're seeing calls for moratoriums. In the US, decisions were made about biotech and the regulatory framework without any public participation.

Administrator: Hi chattoo — Welcome to ENN's chat

Tim Weiskel: Isn't the point about crops, however, that they are organisms in an ecosystem. Fictions of ownership (with patents and copyright) are all very well, but controlling a patent is not the same as controlling a plant, with pollen, water demands, dispersal mechanisms, etc. The issues are more extensive (or profound) than simply governance. We are tinkering with ecosystems here... and this implies a new level of moral accountability, don't you think?

Terri: I believe Native Seed Search is playing a major role in the preservation of heirloom seeds at least here in the southwest US...a small nonprofit but they are nonetheless providing a voice in the U.S. against terminator tech etc. Being on a college campus, small community with a healthy local farming population I believe there is great potential for raising awareness even if it is not nationally but more in our area.

Hope Shand: I agree with Tim, and yes, Native Seed Search is a great example of grassroots movements to conserve and utilize genetic diversity. It's a very positive example.

Administrator: Certainly Tim — but moral accountability is much harder to enforce, isn't it?

Calestous Juma: Tim and Hope's points illustrate the need for economic diversity to accompany ecological diversity, which partly why people tend to oppose monopolies of all kinds — it carries risks.

Terri: I agree with Tim as well and believe that there is a call for integrity but I really don't see such companies taking this sort of responsibility esp. when the USDA is supportive of such technology. It seems that grassroots education and organization resulting in consumers putting pressure on these companies resulting in boycotts etc. may be one way to spur more involvement in the US

Tim Weiskel: The whole point about moral accountability is that it cannot be "enforced" from outside or above. Moral accountability involves "self-imposed, self-restraint." We need to develop what Aldo Leopold called for in 1949 — a "land ethic" — whereby we learn our proper role as a species in a complex ecosystem and cease to play with it, manipulate it, exploit it for our fun and profit.

Hope Shand: we are encouraged by Monsanto's announcement to pull the plug (sort of) on Terminator. We need to put the same pressure on USDA — it's disgraceful that they continue to support Terminator — and they are ignoring their farm constituency.

Calestous Juma: Tim, is there such a thing as "epistemological risk" arising from seeming threats to the way we understand the world. If yes, how do you capture such non-tangible risks?

Tim Weiskel: Calestous, you try to avoid such risks with the generous application of the "precautionary principle."

Calestous Juma: A generous application of the precautionary principle is a tautology.

Terri: Because I live in the SW and there are indigenous communities who also participate in large scale farming operations I have a good amount of faith in the merging of interests such as ethics, intellectual property rights and sustainable profit. I feel that networking with farmers is a possibility

Tim Weiskel: One of the truths we can state with near certainty is that we don't know all there is to know in the complex ecosystem we have come to inhabit. When we know we don't know, we should proceed cautiously, that's all.

Calestous Juma: Hope, what argument, apart from moral outrage, can be used against using "terminator" in field trials (not in commercial use).

Hope Shand: For one thing, why are so many gifted scientists pursuing this end, when there are many others needs that should be addressed. It's partly the opportunity cost.

Calestous Juma: The human soul yearns for novelty I guess, even where such novelty includes opposing the new

Hope Shand: Also, I think many companies ARE pursuing genetic trait control and terminator-like technology.

Calestous Juma: What do we say to those who argue that terminator is for genetics what containment is for chemistry

Tim Weiskel: What do you think, Hope and Calestous, about the GM research devoted to "herbicide resistance?" Is this in the same category as "terminator technology?" What about its ecological implications?

Administrator: Hi dustin — Welcome to ENN's chat

Hope Shand: I think it's in a different category — but, in my mind, it's a pollution-enhancing technology, designed primarily to increase sales of chemical herbicides. A very logical goal for companies in the business of selling seeds and agrochemicals.

Calestous Juma: I would like to see herbicide resistance which is substantial equivalent to other ecologically-sound approaches. In the absence of such technical criteria, Hope's point stands

Terri: herbicide resistance seeds forces farmers to buy them or else they could live down wind from a farmer who uses GM seeds and his crops are fine but the farmer who uses saved seeds loses his crops

Hope Shand: I'm not a scientist, but many scientists have warned of the possibility of horizontal gene transfer, from herbicide tolerant crops to related species nearby — the threat of a super-weed that will ultimately require more chemicals.

Terri: also herbicide resistant seeds kill everything around except the crop, which over time will destroy or at least totally alter agriculture

Administrator: Was the terminator modification, at least initially, a defense against such a "horizontal" scenario?

Calestous Juma: Gene flow can be managed but it will take more research and development of familiarity, which is where I think terminator technology can be used as a research tool.

Hope Shand: I don't think so, initially. But now industry is arguing that genetic seed sterility is an added protection against gene transfer. We don't buy it. Biosafety at the expense of food security is no solution!

Calestous Juma: I would, for example, not rule out the use of terminator technology if I am trying to grow colored cotton, for example.

Administrator: Why is that?

Terri: there is natural species of cotton that already grow different colors, why would you need terminator tech?

Calestous Juma: Because I would not want my blue cotton, for example, being contaminated by my neighbor's mauve cotton.

Terri: Okay, aren't we talking about ethics? Or do we just want to manipulate every plant as long as it is for convenience?

Calestous Juma: Precisely, terminator in industrial crops would serve a quality control function, which I would certainly like to distinguish from a property rights control.

Hope Shand: Again, the bottom line is, who will control this technology? It seems like a mighty slippery slope.

GMD: So, as the end of this chat draws to a conclusion, what's the bottom line? What action can be/needs to be taken?

Calestous Juma: The promise of biotechnology was that it could be more widely available than previous agrochemical technologies. This is issue is central to the debate over biotech.

Hope Shand: We want to encourage all the other companies who are working on Terminator to take the same pledge — no commercialization of Terminator. Also, more pressure on USDA to adopt a policy saying no taxpayer $ for genetic seed sterilizations.

Tim Weiskel: Isn't the problem one of a misplaced focus on the "plant" in isolation? It strikes me that gm technology appeals to those who are "silver bullet" searchers. It is all as if we can patch up an ailing farming economy and a disastrous pattern of farm ecosystems (loss of topsoil, water, crop variety, soil tilth, etc) with some hi-tech, "capital improvements" in new "silver bullet" seeds. Sure they look good at first — until predator pressure catches up with them. Then they are no better than the old varieties and in fact end up costing (with all the inputs) much more.

Dustin: The world food supply is not in need of technological development. There is plenty of food available. There is a need for the restructuring of the political landscape and the Bretton woods institutions that inhibit development.

Calestous Juma: I would like to see greater investment in research of relevance to the developing countries and greater efforts at technological cooperation

Hope Shand: I agree with all of the above!

Terri: I cannot speak for everyone but what we are doing in my community is grassroots activism, working with local growers, businesses (i.e. people who control or bring food into our community) and raising awareness so we have a voice in what foods we eat.

Calestous Juma: Dustin, your statement is certainly false; a lot of food in Iowa will not help my cousins on the shores of Lake Victoria

Dustin: Very good. It all starts from the bottom up …

Terri: Perhaps not but if widespread technology affect crops in Iowa, certainly they will affect crops where we all live.

Calestous Juma: I have to sign off, thanks for the lively chat everyone and hope we can do it again. Tim, thanks for introducing me to this one too.

GMD: I like terri's comment... I think the grassroots level of getting local growers informed and involved is the first step. i.e. dustin … from the bottom up!

Administrator: See ya Calestous — thanks for coming

Hope Shand: Many thanks, everyone. Enjoyed it. So long.

Tim Weiskel: See you all. You may want to check out resources at: http://ecoethics.net/bib/titles/bio-titl.htm

Dustin: If there was no need for Haiti and Ethiopia to export all resources in the name of financing debt they would not be starving countries. bye!!!

Administrator: You can access that site from the transcript.

GMD: bye

Administrator: Thank you all for joining us today — very lively conversation.