Nexus - 0221 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

conservation groups, liberals and intellectuals, for their far-reach- ing economic and ecological implications. Canadian/US lobby group Rural Advancement Foundation Intemational has launched a formal challenge to the soyabean conservation groups, liberals and intellectuals, for their far-reach- "It is nothing short of bio-piracy by big corporations and gov- ing economic and ecological implications. ernments—the consequences are frightening," said Hindmarsh, Canadian/US lobby group Rural Advancement Foundation _who has written a series of authoritative articles on transgenics International has launched a formal challenge to the soyabean _and the seed monopolies. patent. "Control of the world's food supplies—in fact, the future of the Although US Congress is yet to ratify the 1991 UPOV _ Earth itself—is to be handed over to the multinationals. Convention, bills are pending to amend the plant variety protec- "It's not surprising most of the big players in the seeds monopo- tion laws to bring them into line with other UPOV countries. Yet, _ lies are chemical companies: they wish to genetically manipulate corporations large and small have been able to take advantage of _ crops to be tolerant to their herbicides." the sweeping powers already available under US patent laws. Monsanto is working with DeKalb to develop a wheat strain tol- Earlier plant variety acts offered some protection to farmers and _erant to its herbicide glyphosate (Roundup); Calgene is collaborat- other seed-users. The new Plant Breeders’ Rights bills and _ ing with Rhéne-Poulenc to find a strain of corn tolerant to its her- strengthened patent rights offer no such protection: the once _ bicide, bromoxynil. inalienable right of farmers to save seed is under threat, with the The agenda is clear: the chemical companies will win all big corporations holding all the aces. ways—by owning the seed companies and by producing trans- At the time of going to press, the Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill genic seeds resistant to their products. Aerial spraying of broad- was still before the Australian Scmate. a emmmmmmmmens specttum herbicides will intensify theuse To voice your concern on PBR, plant of agricultural chemicals. patenting and transgenics, contact your i . - Organic and biodynamic farmers local Member of Parliament or any of The agenda is clear: the already have difficulty obtaining good the groups listed at the end of this arti- . : ° * * seeds and making them grow successful- cle. chemical companies will win all ly, because most commercial seed is ways—by owning the seed grown with chemical fertilisers and bred . d b : d * for artificial fertiliser absorption. companies and by producing Hindmarsh said the dangers of integrat- “Elimination of farmers’ rights to transgenic seeds resistant to ing the plant-breeding and seeds sectors save and sell limited quantities of seed 8 : ed : into the stables of the petrochemical cor- FARMERS' RIGHTS IN JEOPARDY is a threat to global conservation and their pr ‘oducts. porations were great. enhancement of plant biodiversity,” "Stock of open-pollinated seed will be maintains Hope Shand of Rural further eroded with the wide-scale appli- Advancement Foundation cation of transgenic seed. Genetic diver- International. sity will diminish as monoculture intensifies and expands. "The revised UPOV Convention opens the door for a future ban “Seeds genetically altered to tolerate biopesticides and herbi- on all farm-saved seed. Farmers’ rights to save seed has been cides threaten also to degrade ecosystems; significantly, the pri- made optional; this is a time-honoured, inalienable right. mary research area of the bio-barons is to make crops—and there "Although the seed industry claims it would be impossible to are 27 already being worked on—tolerant to broad-spectrum her- enforce such a ban on farm-saved seed, it should be noted that US- _bicides like Roundup and 2,4-D.” based seed corporations have already brought suit against more Questioned on why Australia was so eagerly jumping on the than 20 soyabean farmers for alleged abuses," PBR bandwagon, Richard Hindmarsh had no hesitation: "It's all Shand believes the danger is that intellectual property rights _ part of the economic rationalists incorporating Australia into the (patenting), without reciprocal benefits for developing nations, _ corporate world economy at the expense of national sovereignty, could set up formidable barriers to accessing the world's genetic our ecological and genetic diversity, and the disempowerment of resources. She claims there is a far greater understanding of the local communities especially rural-based ones." ramifications of GATT and plant-breeders’ rights in Third World He was also keen to see people take affirmative action in the countries than in the industrialised world. face of the onslaught of plant breeders’ rights. "Consider, for example, the non-violent protests of over one "Increased commitment to seed-savers' networks globally and million Indian farmers in recent months, who object to the plant _locally is needed, as well as pressure on governments to contain intellectual property provisions in the GATT accord. These farm- _ the bio-revolution. Otherwise we are threatened with a genetical- ers are angry because they don't want to pay royalties on seeds and _ly-engineered future that will draw its resources increasingly from other products that they believe were developed using their own _ the corporate-state proprietary-owned gene banks." genetic resources and knowledge." Bob Phelps is co-ordinator of the Gen-Ethics Network, a group According to Shand, the UPOV proposals to extend proprietary —_ attached to the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the coun- protection to harvested materials of patented or protected varieties, _ try's leading opponent of PBR and genetic engineering. also have major implications. All grain grown from protected Originally funded for its first three years by rock band Midnight seeds come under Plant Breeders’ Rights; this gives the plant- Oil (led by environmental activist Peter Garrett) as a forum for breeder the power to restrict imports and exports of protected vari- discussion on genetic engineering, funding was taken over by the etics and products if produced without authority. Seed companies Australian government in 1991. could restrict entry into a UPOV-governed country of farm prod- "Plant-breeders' rights have overridden our basic right to sur- ucts coming from non-UPOV countries; they could also prevent vival—to feed, clothe and provide shelter for our families," said food aid shipments of protected seeds from going to a Third Phelps. World country that doesn't recognise plant-breeders' rights. “The 1994 Bill gives plant variety owners much wider and Genetic engineering expert, ecoscientist Richard Hindmarsh of _ longer-lasting monopoly control over plants, algae, fungi and their Griffith University in Queensland, goes much further in his con- NEXUS¢17 Continued on page 74 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 1994