Monsanto’s decision to back away from the terminator gene technology drew a lukewarm response from the National Farmers Union last week .
“It’s welcome news in a very small sort of way,” said NFU president Cory Ollikka.
In an Oct. 4 letter to the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto said it would not develop the so-called terminator gene for commercial use.
Crops with the terminator gene would produce sterile seed, preventing farmers from using that seed for planting the following year.
Ollikka said Monsanto kept the door open on other ways to protect propietorship over seed that it produces using gene technology.
Read Also
First annual Ag in Motion Junior Cattle Show kicks off with a bang
Ag in Motion 2025 had its first annual junior cattle show on July 15. The show hosted more than 20…
In its letter to the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto said it holds patents on other technology that would discourage farmers from using seed from a previous crop. But that technology would not make the seeds sterile, the letter said.
Ollikka said genetically modified organisms must be regulated according to whether they benefit the public good. He believes any benefit to farmers from the terminator gene would be outweighed by its ability to further curtail farmers’ control of seed stocks.
Hank Riese, a farmer at Lockport, Man., had mixed feelings about Monsanto’s announcement.
Riese said producers in his area had concerns about a company like Monsanto having the terminator technology. They worried that the technology, once commercialized, would make farmers more reliant on large corporations for seed.
“In the past, we’ve been using our own seed,” Riese said. “We don’t want to be relying on big companies.”
But Riese said research by companies like Monsanto is also important to farmers. That research costs money, he said, and he understands why Monsanto would want to control seed stocks produced using its technologies. Monsanto’s seeds are altered to resist certain crop pests or to withstand certain herbicides.
“The research is important and they have to protect themselves,” Riese said.
Positive side
Canola Council of Canada president Dale Adolphe said the terminator gene was the target of criticism. Media coverage concentrated on the perceived drawbacks of the technology rather than its potential merits.
“There’s no doubt that Monsanto and the terminator gene got a lot of bad press. I think a lot of it is misunderstanding of how the terminator gene would be used or could be used,” said Adolphe.
A benefit of the technology, he said, is that it would prevent a crop with the terminator gene from returning as a volunteer the following year.
Adolphe noted hybrid crops that bring much the same result are already grown in Canada.
“There was no regard or recognition for the beneficial use of the terminator gene. I think it does have potential good uses for the preservation of certain traits.”
