Corporations Grab Climate Genes (depressing warning)

[Guest guest]

Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus

Corporations Grab Climate Genes

by Hope Shand

First the biotech industry promised that its genetically engineered

seeds would clean up the environment. Then they told us biotech crops

would feed the world. Neither came to pass. Soon we’ll hear that

genetically engineered climate-hardy seeds are the essential

adaptation strategy for crops to withstand drought, heat, cold, saline

soils and more.

 

After failing to convince an unwilling public to accept genetically

engineered foods, biotech companies see a silver lining in climate

change. They are now asserting that farmers cannot win the war against

climate change without genetic engineering. According to a new report

from ETC Group, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations

such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow — along with

biotech partners such as Mendel, Ceres, and Evogene — are stockpiling

hundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related to

environmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world.

They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532

patents and patent applications.

 

In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the

Gene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselves

as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and

reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential

adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity. In the words

of Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-

profit organization, “GM foods are exactly the technology that may be

necessary to counter the effects of global warming.†But rather than

an effective way to confront climate change, these so-called “climate-

ready†crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a

proprietary biotech platform.

 

Climate Change and Food Crisis

 

Human-induced climate change is triggering climate shocks in all

ecosystems. It will profoundly affect crops, livestock, fisheries and

forests and the billions of people whose livelihoods depend on them.

Agriculture and food systems in the South, especially in South Asia

and southern Africa, will be the first and most negatively affected.

Extreme climate events (especially hotter, drier conditions in semi-

arid regions) are likely to slash yields for maize, wheat, rice, and

other primary food crops.

 

For instance, Asian rice yields will decrease dramatically due to

higher night-time temperatures. With warmer conditions, photosynthesis

slows or ceases, pollination is prevented, and dehydration sets in. A

study by the International Rice Research Institute reports that rice

yields are declining by 10% for every degree Celsius increase in night-

time temperatures. South Asia’s prime wheat-growing land — the vast

Indo-Gangetic plain that produces about 15% of the world’s wheat crop

— will shrink 51% by 2050 due to hotter, drier weather and diminished

yields, a loss that will place at least 200 million people at greater

risk of hunger.

 

For the world’s largest agrochemical and seed corporations, genetic

engineering is the technofix of choice for combating climate change.

It is a proprietary approach that seeks to expand an industrial model

of agriculture — one which is largely divorced from on-the-ground

social and environmental realities. (It is also an approach that fails

to learn from history. Many of the problems with saline soils and soil

degradation, for example, have been exacerbated by the use of

intensive production systems.) The Gene Giants are now focusing on the

identification and patenting of climate-proof genetic traits (genes

associated with abiotic stresses), especially related to drought and

extreme temperatures. “Abiotic†stresses refer to environmental

stresses encountered by plants such as drought, temperature extremes,

saline soils, low nitrogen, etc.

 

The Game of Monopoly

 

Monopoly control of crop genes is a bad idea under any circumstances.

But in the midst of a global food crisis with climate change looming,

such control is unacceptable and must be challenged. Patented gene

technologies will concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit

independent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers to

save and exchange seeds. Globally, the top 10 seed corporations

already control 57% of commercial seed sales. A handful of

transnational seed and agrochemical companies are positioned to

determine who gets access to patented genes and what price they must

pay.

 

Many of these patent claims are unprecedented in scope because a

single patent may claim several different environmental — or abiotic —

stress traits. In addition, some patent claims extend not just to

abiotic stress tolerance in a single engineered plant species — but

also to a substantially similar genetic sequence in virtually all

engineered food crops. The corporate grab extends beyond the United

States and Europe. Patent offices in major food producing countries

such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico, and South

Africa are also swamped with patent filings. Monsanto (the world’s

largest seed company) and BASF (the world’s largest chemical firm)

have entered into a colossal $1.5 billion partnership to engineer

stress-tolerant plants. Together the two companies account for nearly

half of the patent families related to engineered stress tolerance.

 

Farming communities in the developing world — those who have

contributed least to global greenhouse emissions — are among the most

threatened by climate chaos created by the world’s richest countries.

Will farming communities now be stampeded by climate profiteering? The

focus on genetically engineered, so-called ‘climate-ready’ crops will

divert resources from affordable, farmer-based strategies for climate

change survival and adaptation.

 

Misguided Philanthropy

 

In a bid to win moral legitimacy for their controversial GM seeds, the

Gene Giants are also teaming up with philanthro-capitalists to

introduce climate-tolerant traits in the developing world. Monsanto

and BASF, for instance, are working with the International Maize and

Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and national agricultural research

programs in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa to develop

drought-tolerant corn. The program is supported by a $47 million grant

from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In March 2008 the African

Agricultural Technology Foundation announced that Monsanto and BASF

have agreed to donate royalty-free drought-tolerant transgenes to the

African researchers.

 

Market-based philanthropy aims to open African markets for high-tech

seeds that will undoubtedly be accompanied by intellectual property

laws, seed regulations, and other products and practices amenable to

agribusiness. To African farmers, this is hardly philanthropic.

 

As the climate crisis deepens, governments may well offer corporate

subsidies by encouraging farmers to adopt prescribed biotech traits

that are deemed essential adaptation measures. The U.S. government’s

Federal Crop Insurance Company announced in October 2007 that it would

begin a pilot program that offers a discount to farmers who plant

Monsanto’s “triple-stack†corn seeds on non-irrigated land —

reportedly because the biotech corn (engineered for herbicide

tolerance and two kinds of insect resistance) provides a lower risk of

reduced yields when compared to conventional hybrids. The decision was

especially controversial because USDA relied on Monsanto’s data to

substantiate this claim.

 

Staying the Corporate Hand

 

In the face of climate chaos and a deepening global food crisis, the

corporate grab on so-called climate-tolerant genes is business as

usual. Governments must respond urgently by:

 

Recognizing, protecting, and strengthening farmer-based breeding and

conservation programs and the development of on-farm genetic diversity

as a priority response for climate change survival and adaptation;

Suspending all patents on climate-related genes and traits and

conducting a full investigation of the potential environmental and

social impacts of transgenic abiotic stress-tolerant seeds;

Adopting policies to facilitate farmers’ access to and exchange of

breeding materials and eliminate current restrictions on access to

seeds and germplasm (especially those driven by intellectual property,

agribusiness-inspired seed laws, trade regimes, and corporate

oligopoly). In the midst of climate crisis, spiraling food prices and

food scarcity, restrictions on access to seeds and germplasm are the

last thing that farmers need in their struggle to adapt to rapidly

changing climatic conditions.

Genetically engineered “climate-tolerant†seeds are a technological

fix that distracts from the root causes of climate change and the

imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reverse consumption

patterns — especially in the North.

 

Hope Shand is the research director of the ETC Group and a contributor

to Foreign Policy In Focus.

 

 

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure

that just ain't so.

- Mark Twain

[Guest guest]

With one comes another. With a name change like that people might think there getting into cloud seeding.--- On Wed, 5/14/08, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

fraggle <EBbrewpunx Corporations Grab Climate Genes (depressing warning)"vegan chat" Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 5:09 PM

 

 

Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by Foreign Policy in FocusCorporations Grab Climate Genesby Hope ShandFirst the biotech industry promised that its genetically engineeredseeds would clean up the environment. Then they told us biotech cropswould feed the world. Neither came to pass. Soon we’ll hear thatgenetically engineered climate-hardy seeds are the essentialadaptation strategy for crops to withstand drought, heat, cold, salinesoils and more.After failing to convince an unwilling public to accept geneticallyengineered foods, biotech companies see a silver lining in climatechange. They are now asserting that farmers cannot win the war againstclimate change without genetic engineering. According to a new reportfrom ETC Group, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporationssuch as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dow — along withbiotech partners such as Mendel,

Ceres, and Evogene — are stockpilinghundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related toenvironmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world.They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532patents and patent applications.In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, theGene Giants are gearing up for a PR offensive to re-brand themselvesas climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments andreluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essentialadaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity. In the wordsof Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-profit organization, “GM foods are exactly the technology that may benecessary to counter the effects of global warming.†But rather thanan effective way to confront climate change, these so-called “climate-ready†crops will be

used to drive farmers and governments onto aproprietary biotech platform.Climate Change and Food CrisisHuman-induced climate change is triggering climate shocks in allecosystems. It will profoundly affect crops, livestock, fisheries andforests and the billions of people whose livelihoods depend on them.Agriculture and food systems in the South, especially in South Asiaand southern Africa, will be the first and most negatively affected.Extreme climate events (especially hotter, drier conditions in semi-arid regions) are likely to slash yields for maize, wheat, rice, andother primary food crops.For instance, Asian rice yields will decrease dramatically due tohigher night-time temperatures. With warmer conditions, photosynthesisslows or ceases, pollination is prevented, and dehydration sets in. Astudy by the International Rice Research Institute reports that riceyields are declining by

10% for every degree Celsius increase in night-time temperatures. South Asia’s prime wheat-growing land — the vastIndo-Gangetic plain that produces about 15% of the world’s wheat crop— will shrink 51% by 2050 due to hotter, drier weather and diminishedyields, a loss that will place at least 200 million people at greaterrisk of hunger.For the world’s largest agrochemical and seed corporations, geneticengineering is the technofix of choice for combating climate change.It is a proprietary approach that seeks to expand an industrial modelof agriculture — one which is largely divorced from on-the-groundsocial and environmental realities. (It is also an approach that failsto learn from history. Many of the problems with saline soils and soildegradation, for example, have been exacerbated by the use ofintensive production systems.) The Gene Giants are now focusing on theidentification and

patenting of climate-proof genetic traits (genesassociated with abiotic stresses), especially related to drought andextreme temperatures. “Abiotic†stresses refer to environmentalstresses encountered by plants such as drought, temperature extremes,saline soils, low nitrogen, etc.The Game of MonopolyMonopoly control of crop genes is a bad idea under any circumstances.But in the midst of a global food crisis with climate change looming,such control is unacceptable and must be challenged. Patented genetechnologies will concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibitindependent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers tosave and exchange seeds. Globally, the top 10 seed corporationsalready control 57% of commercial seed sales. A handful oftransnational seed and agrochemical companies are positioned todetermine who gets access to patented genes and what price they

mustpay.Many of these patent claims are unprecedented in scope because asingle patent may claim several different environmental — or abiotic —stress traits. In addition, some patent claims extend not just toabiotic stress tolerance in a single engineered plant species — butalso to a substantially similar genetic sequence in virtually allengineered food crops. The corporate grab extends beyond the UnitedStates and Europe. Patent offices in major food producing countriessuch as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico, and SouthAfrica are also swamped with patent filings. Monsanto (the world’slargest seed company) and BASF (the world’s largest chemical firm)have entered into a colossal $1.5 billion partnership to engineerstress-tolerant plants. Together the two companies account for nearlyhalf of the patent families related to engineered stress tolerance.Farming

communities in the developing world — those who havecontributed least to global greenhouse emissions — are among the mostthreatened by climate chaos created by the world’s richest countries.Will farming communities now be stampeded by climate profiteering? Thefocus on genetically engineered, so-called ‘climate-ready’ crops willdivert resources from affordable, farmer-based strategies for climatechange survival and adaptation.Misguided PhilanthropyIn a bid to win moral legitimacy for their controversial GM seeds, theGene Giants are also teaming up with philanthro-capitali sts tointroduce climate-tolerant traits in the developing world. Monsantoand BASF, for instance, are working with the International Maize andWheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and national agricultural researchprograms in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa to developdrought-tolerant corn. The program is

supported by a $47 million grantfrom the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In March 2008 the AfricanAgricultural Technology Foundation announced that Monsanto and BASFhave agreed to donate royalty-free drought-tolerant transgenes to theAfrican researchers.Market-based philanthropy aims to open African markets for high-techseeds that will undoubtedly be accompanied by intellectual propertylaws, seed regulations, and other products and practices amenable toagribusiness. To African farmers, this is hardly philanthropic.As the climate crisis deepens, governments may well offer corporatesubsidies by encouraging farmers to adopt prescribed biotech traitsthat are deemed essential adaptation measures. The U.S. government’sFederal Crop Insurance Company announced in October 2007 that it wouldbegin a pilot program that offers a discount to farmers who plantMonsanto’s “triple-stack†corn

seeds on non-irrigated land —reportedly because the biotech corn (engineered for herbicidetolerance and two kinds of insect resistance) provides a lower risk ofreduced yields when compared to conventional hybrids. The decision wasespecially controversial because USDA relied on Monsanto’s data tosubstantiate this claim.Staying the Corporate HandIn the face of climate chaos and a deepening global food crisis, thecorporate grab on so-called climate-tolerant genes is business asusual. Governments must respond urgently by:Recognizing, protecting, and strengthening farmer-based breeding andconservation programs and the development of on-farm genetic diversityas a priority response for climate change survival and adaptation;Suspending all patents on climate-related genes and traits andconducting a full investigation of the potential environmental andsocial impacts of transgenic abiotic

stress-tolerant seeds;Adopting policies to facilitate farmers’ access to and exchange ofbreeding materials and eliminate current restrictions on access toseeds and germplasm (especially those driven by intellectual property,agribusiness- inspired seed laws, trade regimes, and corporateoligopoly). In the midst of climate crisis, spiraling food prices andfood scarcity, restrictions on access to seeds and germplasm are thelast thing that farmers need in their struggle to adapt to rapidlychanging climatic conditions.Genetically engineered “climate-tolerant†seeds are a technologicalfix that distracts from the root causes of climate change and theimperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reverse consumptionpatterns — especially in the North.Hope Shand is the research director of the ETC Group and a contributorto Foreign Policy In Focus.What gets us into trouble is not what we

don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.- Mark Twain