corn grower statement

[geno@zap.a2000.nl]

On 26 Jul 2000, at 0:08, Biotech Activists wrote:

Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)    Posted:
07/25/2000
By  mritchie@iatp.org
=================================================
===========


     American Corn Growers
                Association
     1730 M. Street, NW, Suite 911
     Washington, DC 20036
       (202) 835-0330,  Fax (202) 463-0862



      Comments of    Gary Goldberg     Chief Executive Officer

    American Corn Growers Association  Before the
United States Department of Agriculture Advisory Committee On
Agricultural Biotechnology

July 26 - 27, 2000
The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) appreciates this
opportunity to share our comments before the USDA Advisory
Committee
for Agricultural Biotechnology. The ACGA represents over 14,000
corn
growers from all across the United States. We are the nation's
largest
progressive commodity association that prides itself on our ability to
represent the voices of the nation's corn producers. We will express
our concerns and reservations over the so-called Terminator
technology
and also continue to express our disappointment in the involvement
and
investment of the United States Department of Agriculture in this
technology and point out the inappropriateness of such
investments.

To the ACGA, the question that needs to be addressed before USDA moves
forward on research and technology is - Is it good and beneficial for
U.S. farmers? We have found no area in this technology that we can say
would be good or beneficial to American farmers. The ability for
farmers to retain seed for the next growing season has been a
fundamental right passed on for hundreds of years. This ability has
allowed farmers to save money while guaranteeing the availability of
seed for the next year.

While corn does not fit into the mix of seeds that can be retained,
every member of the ACGA plants an additional crop, usually soybeans,
cotton, wheat or rice. For these crops, seed can be retained and
should be allowed to do so. However, the "terminator" technology or
GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) takes seed retention
options away.

Why would the USDA invest taxpayer dollars in such a technology?
That's a question the ACGA has asked from day one. Sterile seeds hold
no advantage to production agriculture but certainly hold advantages
for agribusiness entities. After all, the sole purpose for the
development of terminator was an economic one, whereas seed companies
can force farmers to purchase new seed every year. Is it appropriate
for USDA to use public dollars to help the economic well-being of
seed, chemical or biotechnology companies at the expense of production
agriculture? The answer is a simple and resounding NO.

While there is a legitimate debate going on within many agricultural
associations about the benefits versus risks of genetically modified
crops and the uncertainty over marketability. segregation and legal
liability, there is mostly unanimity among these same groups over
their opposition to the Terminator. The motives of the biotechnology
companies are transparent when it comes to GURTs, with economics being
the only motive involved with no benefit for the American farmer or
the rest of the world.

Research dollars must be used in a wise fashion. They must show a
genuine public good that will result. It is clear that Terminator/GURT
technology doesn't hold that same high standard of what is in the
public's best interest. Therefore, the American Corn Growers
Association strongly recommends the following measures that should be
undertaken immediately. · The USDA should abandon all research on
genetic seed sterilization, including research grants to University
scientists. · USDA should adopt a strict policy of prohibiting the use
of taxpayer dollars to support genetic seed sterilization. · USDA
should use public research dollars to re-invigorate public plant
breeding for family farmers and sustainable agriculture. · USDA should
insure that farmers and citizens are involved in determining research
priorities.

Allowing a small handful of biotechnology companies to control the
production and distribution of seed makes farmers hostage to the
economic exploitation by this industry. We will lose the ability to
choose the seeds we want to plant and the option of holding back that
seed for another year.

This debate is important because it brings to the forefront the
discussion of just what the Department of Agriculture should be and
who should the Department represent. It is our opinion, that USDA
should be an advocacy agency, working to protect those Americans who
give of their lives to produce food for the rest of us. It should be
an agency that works to protect all our citizens through the
production and distribution of a safe food supply. It should NOT be an
agency that allows certain segments of agribusiness to reap huge
financial rewards under the cover of the Department of Agriculture or
with the financial blessing of the Department of Agriculture.

It is in the public good for farmers to sustain themselves and the
families they feed. It is in the public good for the United States to
have a plentiful and safe food production and distribution system. It
is in the public good for farmers to be allowed to retain seed for the
next growing season. And it is in the public good for USDA research
dollars to be used to help mankind, not hinder it.

It is NOT in the public good to use public taxpayer dollars to further
the financial well-being of the biotechnology industry or to
shortchange the economic well-being of production agriculture.

History tells many stories about the legacy of public representatives
and the institutions they hold dear. It would be most unfortunate if
the legacy of this Department of Agriculture were to be tied to the
Terminator/GURT technology. There are clearly better ways to expend
public research dollars that help mankind. Let us all recognize what
our mission is on this earth and how best we can work together to
achieve a lasting legacy of safe, affordable food produced by another
generation of family farmers. That is a decision that is in the hands
of this Advisory Committee. Please don't squander this opportunity to
do want is right, sensible and just.

Thank you very much.







Mark Ritchie, President
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
2105 First Ave. South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404  USA
612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax)
mritchie@iatp.org     www.iatp.org


============================================================
How to Use this Mailing List
============================================================

You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
biotech_activists mailing list.

To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body
of the message type: unsubscribe biotech_activists

For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
listserv@iatp.org. In the body of the message type: help

Please direct content questions about this list to: mritchie@iatp.org

Please direct technical questions about this service to:
support@iatp.org