AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
From: Greg Conko
> Monsanto DIDN'T call that particular technology the "terminator." In
> Monsanto didn't call it anything. It's real name -- given to it either by
> the US Department of Agriculture or the Delta and Pine Land Company, which
> were the developers -- is Technology Protection System.
> Terminator was a scary name dreamed up by Hope Shand of RAFI, intended to
> scare people into thinking that the thing must be bad. And that strategy
> worked beyond their wildest dreams. To this day, even biotech supporters
> admit, including me at times) still tend to call it terminator because if
> call it by any other name, no one knows what we're talking about. It's
> become part of the common knowledge that terminator technology was
> by Monsanto, which is also not true.
Terminator has become so accepted that I didn't realize that it wasn't
the original name. Having worked in research I know projects can
take on some rather unflattering name given to them as a joke
and the name sticks.
Sorry about attributing terminator technology to Monsanto. I knew it
From a farmers point of view terminator has some
very positive points. There will be no volunteer. That is at least
5 to 10 dollar a year saving on some crops and it could be very
important in double cropping and crop rotations. I also raised
a lot of seed from time to time and using a crop with terminator
genes as a border would result in purer seed.
From the other sides point of view it would keep the genetics
from spreading to the wild races.
The seed saving argument is a pretty poor one because it
is no different than hybrid seed that is no good for planting
the second year unless you are interested in genetics as
Hanging the terminator name on it was a very good move
by the other side. They even have use using it.