Environmental groups claim 154 countries attending the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity have rejected a proposal to allow for the science-based assessment of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, or GURTS.
They said a proposal tabled by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, calling for case-by-case risk assessment of GURTS, was dropped in the face of fierce opposition by the other countries attending the convention.
The decision paves the way for what they claim is a continuation of a global moratorium on terminator gene technology, which creates seeds that don’t reproduce.
Read Also
Short rapeseed crop may put China in a bind
Industry thinks China’s rapeseed crop is way smaller than the official government estimate. The country’s canola imports will also be down, so there will be a lot of unmet demand.
“This is a momentous day for the 1.4 billion poor people worldwide who depend on farmer-saved seeds,” said Francisca Rodriguez, of Via Campesina, an organization that co-ordinates the peasant farmer movement.
“Terminator seeds are a weapon of mass destruction and an assault on our food sovereignty.”
Greenpeace International was also thrilled with the outcome of the meeting in Brazil that attracted more than 3,000 delegates.
“Common sense has prevailed. Lifting the moratorium on the terminator seeds would have been suicidal, literally,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Benedikt Haerlin, making reference to suicide seeds, a derogatory term for the technology.
Denise Dewar, spokesperson for CropLife Canada, said environmental groups have been too hasty in celebrating because the official position of the conference won’t be adopted until the end of this week.
“I think it is a bit too early to be claiming victory of any kind.”
She balked at the assertion that there is a global moratorium on GURTS, defying the anti-terminator crowd to point to where such language exists in the text of the convention.
She said calls for a ban of the technology are irresponsible. It would lead to an elimination of choice for farmers and consumers.
“How do we assess the benefits and risks if we can’t even do the research? In our view there is huge potential benefit here,” said Dewar.
Anti-GURTS groups argue the opposite is true.
Last week the Ban Terminator Campaign, a coalition of 500 organizations, released a report showing that if GURTS were commercialized, it would lead to $1.2 billion US in extra annual seed costs globally, assuming that producers who now use farm-saved seed were forced to buy new seeds every time they planted.
The calculation included $85 million in extra costs for Canadian wheat farmers.
Cam Dahl, government relations and policy development officer with Agricore United, said such claims are outrageous.
He noted there is no GM wheat grown in Canada. And if a GM wheat variety containing the GURTS technology was ever introduced, it would not be forced down the throats of farmers.
“For organizations to suggest that choice for producers would be eliminated is absurd,” said Dahl.
“No one is ever contemplating forcing farmers to do anything.”
He noted that GURTS could offer substantial benefits to producers by producing drought tolerant crops or paving the way for the production of high-value industrial or pharmaceutical crops by eliminating concerns associated with outcrossing.
Dahl said this technology should be subject to the same science and risk-based evaluation as any other technology.
“Countries like Canada are looking for a little bit more scientific approach to this issue and a little less political approach to the issue.”
