Terminator Seeds and its Effects on the Agrarian World

Terminator Seeds and its Effects on the Agrarian World
Zeena Tutunji
210801215
SOCI2030: Social Structure and Social Change
Professor: Dr. Sylvia Bawa
TA: Adam King

Introduction In 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Delta and Pine Land Company announced that they have received a patent on a new bio-agricultural technology that was later dubbed the Terminator (Caplan, 2007). The goal of this biologically modified seed is to grow crops by giving higher yields while at the end of the harvest leaving the seed sterile (Shand, 1999). That being said farmers are forced to go back to the market every year to buy new seeds, while large seed companies such as Monsanto are left making more profit every year. Terminator seeds have no agronomic benefit to farmers, and no tests have been conducted to confirm that they are safe for human consumption (Guidetti, 1998). It is also suspected that sterile seeds could release toxins into the soil which could affect the neighboring crops and turn them sterile as well (Shand, 1999). Massive protests have been held to ban the use of Terminator seeds, one example is the India’s agricultural minister who claimed that he will ban the Terminator because of the potential harm to Indian agriculture (Shand, 1999). In this article I will explain the genetic modification of these seeds, and how the application of this could be detrimental to the agricultural environment, the lives of Third World farmers, as well as the public health.
Theoretical Framework This article uses the world system theory framework in order to analyze the effects of Terminator technology on the agrarian world. The key element of world systems theory divides the world into three categories: the core, semi-periphery, and periphery (Robinson, 2008). The core constitutes of the industrialized, high-income, and powerful countries of the world who control most of the world economy and trade which include Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The semi-periphery involve the states that were previously in the core but have moved down the hierarchal lines, or those that were in the periphery and are moving up; they usually have high GDPs with low per capita income. These countries include China, Mexico, Malaysia, and India. The final region is the periphery which consist of the developing and low income countries. They are usually former colonies of some core countries, and are the primary suppliers of raw materials. World systems theory states that the world is economically and politically dominated by core countries that are continuously in competition amongst themselves (Robinson, 2008). From an agrarian perspective, large seed companies, such as Monsanto, are primarily located in core countries and sell to the periphery or semi-periphery. The target market for the Terminator is the South’s farmers who produce 15 to 20 percent of the world’s food supply, and “the top 10 seed corporations control 30 percent of the seed market worldwide” (Shand, 1999). Seed companies such as Monsanto have explicitly suggested that farmers in countries like India, China, and Pakistan are a priority market (Steinbrecher & Mooney, 1998). In Argentina and Brazil, Monsanto covers 70% soybean fields and 50% of soybean seed market, consecutively (Steinbrecher & Mooney, 1998). Seed sterility in the world’s food market is the goal for these companies because three-quarters of the world’s farmers save seed for harvest, and this is very damaging since they do not get repeat sales every year (Steinbrecher & Mooney, 1998).
Annotated Bibliography
1- Caplan, R. (2007). The ongoing debate over terminator technology. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 19(4). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/225503081/5964DA7923A64B79PQ/2?accountid=15182 This article emphasizes the ways in which hybrid seeds can cause harm to the environment and public health, while at the same time pointing out how these seeds are developed solely for the purpose of profit. Intellectual property rights should be taken into consideration since it is the main reason that was used in order to patent their products and forcefully implement them by seed companies. Caplan demonstrates that the future of seed companies relies on the investment of biotechnology. Farmers who save and replant their seeds put a high risk on the future availability of biotechnology for the company. Caplan concludes by stating that the commercialization of Terminator seeds would result in a significant impact on the agricultural system, the public, and the environment.
2- Guidetti, G. (June 5, 1998). Seed terminator and mega-merger threaten food and freedom. Synthesis/Regeneration, 42. Retrieved from http://www.arkinstitute.com/SeedTerminator.html In this article, Guidetti stresses the impact of the multinational seed companies, such as Monsanto, on farmers and their farm lands. She claims that the development of these seeds will rid the natural right of people to freely grow and produce for themselves and others, by calling it a plan to control the life and food supply for all humans on the planet. She shows this by stating that the seed no longer belongs to the people, but rather to the seed company. Seed companies guard their interest through patents, intellectual property laws, and lawsuits against farming families. Terminator seeds guarantee that farmers keep coming back to these companies every year to buy more seeds, which in turn makes dependent on these companies.
3- Shand, H. (November, 1998). Terminator seeds: Monsanto moves to tighten its grip on global agriculture. Multinational Monitor, 19(11). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208880062/F4E8039CBF8A4FCAPQ/8?accountid=15182 Shand’s article examines the argument behind the Terminator technology by emphasizing corporate need to patent the seed, and moves on to explain the impact this technology has on the ecosystem. She argues that this patent will allow seed companies to introduce their product into large agricultural markets such as China, India, and Pakistan. Shand explains that hybrid seeds are only made to ensure seed industry profit while having little or no agronomic benefit to farmers. She explains that poor farmers rely on their environment to survive, and when hybrid seeds die they can release toxins into the soil which in turn sterilizes the surrounding seeds as well. Shand as well argues that there is no real evidence of food safety or ecological testing done on these seeds, and it is unknown whether they are safe for human consumption and the environment.
4- Steinbrecher, R.A., & Mooney, P.R. (September, 1998). Terminator technology: the threat to world food security. Ecologist, 28(5). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/1036517515/42C6DBD6A52A4A20PQ/1?accountid=15182 Steinbrecher & Mooney’s main argument suggests that Terminator is a threat to food security, jeopardizes agricultural biodiversity, and conflicts with public morality. They urge governments to refuse the patent that was brought by USDA and Delta & Pine Land Company. They claim that Terminator Technology could destroy the national agricultural economy as well as threaten national food security by making wars on farming communities. They conclude by stating that Terminator seeds have no agronomic benefit to farmers, and are only intended to insure the seed company profits.
5- Shand, H. (1999). Avalanche of public opposition to Monsanto’s suicide seeds. Synthesis/Regeneration, 19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/docview/59902649/55E7DF0846144FDBPQ/1?accountid=15182 Shand’s article focuses on the backlash of public opinion that was in opposition to Terminator Technology. She argues that these seeds will endanger global food security, and also threaten the environment. She states poor farmers have no choice when it comes to Terminator seeds since they will no longer be able to exchange breeding material with other richer farmers in the valleys. Protests being held claim that any acceptance of bio-engineered crops would lead to the introduction of Terminator seeds. She urges governments, scientists, and organizations to ban the Terminator technology at a national and international level.

References
1- Robinson, W. I. (2008). Theories of Globalization. In Ritzer, G. (Ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/theoriesofglobalization.pdf

References: 1- Robinson, W. I. (2008). Theories of Globalization. In Ritzer, G. (Ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robinson/Assets/pdf/theoriesofglobalization.pdf