WASHINGTON - Inter Press Service via NewsEdge Corporation : Major international seed corporations have filed dozens of patents on new biologically-engineered technologies that cause seeds to become sterile, according to non-governmental watchdogs on agriculture.

The "terminator technology" involves the insertion of certain genes into seeds that make the resulting plants unable to reproduce seeds of their own.

Seeds that have been genetically altered to produce high yields or to resist insects and droughts cannot be reproduced without the corporation's permission.

Such technology, however, has come under heavy criticism worldwide since small-scale farmers, particularly in developing countries, who depend on saving seeds fear the new technique will force them to buy expensive seeds each year.

News of the "terminator" first appeared when the United States granted a patent on the technique to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Mississippi-based Delta and Pine Land Co. a seed company being eyed by biotechnology giant Monsanto for possible takeover.

Although not yet commercially available, the technology can be used on wheat, cotton, soybeans and other crops.

A report by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), a non-governmental organization (NGO), warns that many other seed and pharmaceutical giants -- including Novartis and Seneca -- have such terminator seeds in the pipeline.

Other companies, including Pioneer Hi-Bred, Rhone Poulenc and Dupont, have developed similar techniques to produce sterile seeds.

"The patents reveal that engineered seed sterility is not an isolated research agenda," said Pat Mooney, director of RAFI. "Every major seed and agrochemical enterprise is developing its own version of suicide seeds."

The RAFI report said that the patents show that companies are developing seeds whose genetic traits can be turned on and off by an external chemical " inducer" -- mixed with patented pesticides or fertilizers produced by the same company.

Early in the next century, farmers may be forced to plant seeds that will produce crops only if sprayed with a carefully prescribed chemical regime that includes a patented pesticide, fertilizer or herbicide, RAFI said.

The British seed giant Seneca, for example, has developed a technology that would render the crops yielded by its seeds stunted or impaired if not regularly exposed to certain patented chemicals sold by the company, said Mooney.

U.S.-based Monsanto has also applied for a patent on a technology that would make a seed unable to germinate unless it is exposed to a specific chemical, he said.

And the Swiss firm Novartis has received a patent for a technique that regulates a number of developmental processes in plants -- including germination, sprouting, flowering and fruit maturation.

"If the companies can genetically program seeds to perform only with the application of proprietary pesticide or fertilizer, it means they will increase sales of their patented agrochemicals and other inputs," notes Edward Hammond, a researcher at RAFI.

Monsanto spokesman Jay Byrne, however, denies that companies are conspiring to create a cycle of dependency, as suggested by RAFI. But he admits that corporations are looking into such techniques "as a way to protect their billions of dollars of investment into research on biologically-engineered products."

Monsanto estimates that it takes 10 years and about $300 million to create commercial products -- like its genetically-altered corn, cotton and potatoes -- that contain a gene from a bacterium that produces the insect-killing toxin called "Bt."

"Any company is going to be looking at ways to protect their investment, " said Byrne.

Since the "terminator" and other technologies are not yet on the market, Monsanto is currently trying to recoup its huge investments by requiring farmers in the United States and Canada, who plant the genetically-altered seeds, to buy new supplies each year instead of replanting.

U.S. and Canadian farmers who choose to plant these seeds must sign an agreement to allow Monsanto researchers to inspect their fields for several years to make sure that the seed has not been replanted without repurchasing the seed. Anyone breaking the agreement is hauled into court.

Monsanto said "terminator" would provide a technical fix to this problem and would make the company more at ease selling such seeds in other countries.

Critics of the terminator-type technologies say they could spell disaster for world's food supply, since more than one billion farmers -- primarily small farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America -- depend on collecting seeds yielded by their crops.

When farmers save seeds, they choose the most productive or resistant strains to replant, resulting in continued adaption of crops to their unique farming environments.

Concern over the impact of "terminator" technology on these small farmers has led to the governments of India and The Netherlands to condemn the new technique.

Many agriculture and environmental organizations worldwide -- including Greenpeace, the Chilean-based Center for Education and Technology and the Union of Concerned Scientists -- have called for an outright ban on the "suicide " seeds.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major international agricultural research network funded by the United Nations and the World Bank, has recommended that its 16 member institutes ban the technology in their crop improvement research programs.

Monsanto's Jay Byrne said that the company would not force any farmer to buy its technologies. He said farmers are free to save traditional seeds as they have always done.

Yet small-scale farmer advocacy organizations in developing countries worry that these terminator-type technologies will become widespread and governments may force small farmers to purchase such seeds.

Their fears are increasing as private sector investments in agricultural biotechnology research begins to dominate the agricultural research agenda.

Most of the developing countries are cutting back their financial support for public biotechnology agricultural research programs, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute here, who supports the use of biotechnology in agricultural research.

"The assumption is that the private sector will take it over, but the private sector is not going to generate the kind of technology the small farmer needs until that small farmer is up at a certain level and can afford to pay for it," he said.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **