New York Times    October 5, 1999

Concern Remains As Monsanto Drops Gene

LONDON (Reuters) - Monsanto Co.'s
renunciation of the ''terminator'' gene
will do little to silence opposition to the
biotechnology company's powerful
role in seed development, campaigners said
Tuesday. 

A spokesman for aid agency Oxfam said the
terminator gene question raised
the whole problem of patents on food. The
idea of private monopoly rights
over crops was of ``huge concern,'' he said. 

Monsanto Chairman Robert Shapiro said Monday
the company had decided
not to develop the ``terminator'' technology,
which prevents
genetically-modified plants from producing
fertile seeds, forcing farmers to buy
more seed rather than using seed from the
previous year's crop. 

``There's a hugely disturbing thing going on.
The terminator gene is just part
of it,'' said Helena Paul, spokeswoman for
the Gaia Foundation, a group which
promotes cultural and biological diversity. 

Among the loudest voices raised in opposition
have been from groups
concerned that control of seed by Monsanto
would impose a burden on farmers
in poor countries. 

``In itself it doesn't really change
anything,'' a Greenpeace spokesman told
Reuters. ``Monsanto haven't relented on
patent protection.'' 

Thus even without the politically sensitive
terminator gene, the company
would still be in a position to take legal
action against farmers who reused seed,
he said. 

The Greenpeace spokesman underlined the
opposition to genetic technology.
``Monsanto haven't realized their vision is
fatally flawed,'' he said. 

NOT INTRINSICALLY WRONG 

According to Dr Sandy Thomas of the Nuffield
Council on Bioethics there is
no problem with the terminator gene in
itself. 

``It depends how it's used,'' she said. 

The concern had been caused by the idea that
it would give multinational
companies too much power. But that was
exaggerated and the effect was no
different to hybrids already in wide use in
some crops in India, for example. 

As long as farmers had a choice there was no
problem, Thomas said. 

Paul of the Gaia Foundation said there were
other ways for Monsanto to assert
ownership of seed and prevent farmers reusing
it. 

She mentioned in particular ``genetic use
restriction technology,'' where a
chemical had to be applied to a seed to
activate a particular gene. 

Monsanto's move to drop development of the
gene probably had more to do
with the unproven nature of the technology,
rather than any public
opposition, Thomas added. 

St. Louis-based Monsanto does not yet have
the terminator gene technology,
but would gain access to it through its
long-planned acquisition of cotton seed
breeder Delta and Pine Land Co., which is
awaiting regulatory approval.