by GRAIN | 11 Oct 1996

October 1996



Maize was the "Golden Crop" of native Americans. It is one of the most important crops in the world today, in terms of feeding people and livestock, and for corporate profit. While for most countries in the South maize is one of the main staple foods, in the North it is the primary animal feed crop. For the seed industry, maize has become a major battleground for market control and a race to gain greater control by leading the pack in genetic engineering to capture intellectual property rights on new innovations. This important grain has become the biotech industry's "Holy Grail".


In her book "Life in Guatemala", Rigoberta Menchu tells us about the rituals of baptism in a village:

"And then the child is told about maize, about beans and all important plants. The child is present during the whole ceremony, but wraped in so well, that it cannot be seen. (...) The child is told that it will live from maize and, naturally, that it is made from maize because already his/her mother was eating maize while it grew on her. The child will learn to honour the maize and collect every grain of maize that will lie on his path".

Reverence and respect for the very base of life has been and remains at the heart of people's relationship with maize through Latin America. The native Americans called maize the "Golden Crop", and it was given almost religious significance in their cultures. Ever since, art and literature have expressed the close ties between agriculture, food and culture, which are commonly shared among the people of Central America.

Scientific advancements, such as Mendelian breeding at the beginning of this century and the introduction of hybrids, introduced an entirely new perception of the crop. Maize became both "designable" and, in practice, "proprietary". The development of hybrids guaranteed the seed industry farmers' purchases year after year. It was in the seed industry's interest to ensure that farmers abandoned their traditional varieties, and many have. Maize research and development (R&D) began to shift to the private sector. As seed industries have grown, agglomerated into bigger and bigger corporate agrochemical industries and globalised, the "golden crop" of the Americas has been transformed into the privatised "green gold" of the life industry.

The Incas would never have imagined that anybody would dare to modify or believe they could own life itself. However, their collectively developed crop lures the ag-biotech industry more than any other and large corporate battles are now being fought as companies struggle for position in the brave new agricultural landscape.

Maize Worldwide

Today, maize is the world's third staple crop in terms of production, with 502 million tonnes produced in 1995. The USA accounts for more than one third (38%) of global production, far ahead of the rest of the five top producers: China (21%), Brazil (7%), Mexico (3%) and France (2%). As a block, the North's share is not a great deal larger than the South's (58 to 42% between 1989 and 1991, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO). However, these similarities mask very different realities in both production and use.

One significant difference is in the source of the seed. According to the International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT), 99% of the maize sown in industrial countries in 1992 came from commercial hybrids. In the South, commercially marketed maize seed accounted for only 46% of the total maize sown. But the situation is more complicated: In China, all marketed seed is of public origin and is publicly distributed. In other countries, such as Brazil, Zimbabwe and Kenya, a large share of commercial hybrids are of public origin. As an average, multinational corporations account for nearly 34% of all commercial maize seed sales in developing countries, excluding China.

The progressive introduction of hybrids, especially commercial varieties, has led to, and continues to exacerbate, the displacement of local varieties and the introgression of alien genetic material into local populations. Only 20% of local maize varieties reported in Mexico in 1930 are still known. In addition to genetic erosion caused by hybrid introduction, decreases in the area of land planted with maize and its replacement with other more profitable crops have also played a role. Costa Rica, Chile, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand have also documented widespread genetic erosion in maize. In the North, even fewer maize varieties are available. Monocultures of hybrid maize dominate production: all commercial US hybrids are mainly derived from six inbred lines. As is the case for most widely grown crops in industrialised countries, genetic uniformity is a major plague in maize production, as illustrated by the vulnerability of Pioneer's hybrid to the gray leaf spot fungus (see the article on Food Security in this Seedling.)

Genetic erosion is a problem in the genebank as well as in the field. Besides gaps in the existing collections, genetic erosion has taken its toll on maize. The FAO Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture reports that "(In) the Latin American Maize Programme (LAMP), it was noted, in 1991, that only half of the accessions could be evaluated due to lack of viable seed, and that the lack of reliable storage facilities had resulted in the total loss of a large number of accessions and severe genotype deletions in many more".

Differences between North and South also arise in the way maize is grown. In the North, maize is typically grown in intensive, external input-led monocultures that may cover up to millions of hectares, as found in the US "corn belt". In the South, maize is cultivated in a large number of different agricultural systems, which include both monocultures and traditional systems based on intercropping with legumes such as beans, and other crops, like squash.

Perhaps the biggest difference between North and South is in the view and use of maize. In the North - with the USA in the front line - it is mainly, and increasingly, used as a raw material for the livestock industry. In Central America, South America, and Eastern and Southern Africa, it is the foundation of food security for families and communities. Maize is the single most important US crop. According to the US National Corn Initiative (`corn' is the American English word for maize), maize generates "US$20 billion in farm value and more than $4 billion in exports annually". However, only 1 to 3 % of the crop is used for human domestic consumption. In contrast, 62% of maize is used for livestock feed (for beef, pork, chicken and fish) and 20% is exported to compete in international markets mainly as feed.

But the days of maize being used only for food or feed are long gone. With the aid of biotechnology, the "golden crop" is becoming a cheap, reliable and controllable raw material for all kinds of industrial applications. The fastest growing market is for High Fructose Corn Syrup, which has replaced sugar as sweetener in the soft drink and many other food industries. Also widely used are corn ethanol and corn starch to finish paper and clothes. There are plenty of other examples, from polymers to pharmaceuticals. Already, up to 15% of the US corn crop is used as a raw material for more than 3,500 products, and a great deal of R&D is being carried out to increase this figure.

Maize: the Private Sector Crop

Maize has been and still is crucial to the income of seed companies and their agro-chemical and agro-business corporate owners. Since the first hybrid maize was introduced in the market by Funks (now known as `Novartis') in 1928, maize has been the most commoditised crop. Ever since the introduction of high yielding hybrids from crossing pure inbred lines, farmers using them have been obliged to purchase new seed for every planting season, because the seeds saved from the harvest do not retain the high-yielding characteristics of their parents. These de facto "property rights" created the financial security which enabled the development of today's large seed companies, most of which (with the remarkable exception of the leaders in the field, Pioneer Hi-Bred and De Kalb) were acquired by petrochemical and agrochemical interests in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, transnational corporations alone account for 56% of the hybrid maize seed sold in the North, and 34% of all commercial maize seed sales in developing countries, according to CIMMYT. Pioneer alone is responsible for a massive 46% of US maize seed sales.

The success of creating farmer dependency has turned maize into the private sector's favourite crop. In its drive to maximise hybrid sales, the seed industry has influenced maize R&D more than any other staple. This is especially true for the North, where, according to CIMMYT, only 20% of maize breeders work in the public sector (as opposed to more than 65% in the South). Another difference is that while hybrids are the only type of maize commercialised in the North, in the South 10% of the sales are of Open Pollinated Varieties (OPVs), which allow farmers to replant and further develop them. The importance of the private sector in maize R&D is also reflected in the fact that, of all the International Agricultural Research Centres, CIMMYT has directed the highest percentage by far of its samples to developed countries and the private sector: 72% and 8% respectively (according to the Report of the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). These are shocking figures for an institution that is supposed to serve the South.

Maize: the Biotech Crop

The biotechnological revolution and its promises for increased yields and profits is accelerating the trend towards corporate control of corn production. As new technologies are developed and patents turn access to those technologies into the main condition for access to the market, new actors - biotechnology companies and agrochemical giants such as Du Pont, Dow Elanco, AgrEvo and Monsanto - have entered the scene. Research is not necessarily as crop-oriented as it has been up to now - increasingly, the emphasis is on developing traits that can be integrated into several species. Nevertheless, maize continues to be by far the most economically interesting crop. Maize alone accounts for over 40% of the release notifications for release of genetically modified crops and release permits allowed or pending by the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) until September 96. There is little doubt that ag-biotech money will best be earned by those companies managing to put more added-value maize into the markets.

Thriller or Soap Opera?

Mycogen took the first step in the battle in May 1995 by suing Monsanto for allegedly infringing its rights to Bt and herbicide-resistance technologies in cotton, maize and potatoes. Next, in October PGS sued Mycogen and Ciba-Geigy for allegedly infringing its insect-resistant maize plants. Mycogen and Ciba-Geigy retaliated by going to court to try and invalidate PGS' patent. In January 1996, DeKalb Seeds announced it had been awarded patents for Bt in corn and a gene resistant to glufosinate, in direct confrontation with Mycogen. In March, after receiving another patent for a Bt gene in maize, Monsanto suited both Mycogen and Ciba-Geigy. Monsanto also claimed that that Mycogen was infringing on Monsanto patents on Roundup resistance technology. In 1989 Monsanto had granted Lubrizol Genetics options for access to this technology which Mycogen intended to use after buying the company up. Finally, the courts favoured Mycogen, allowing it to license Monsanto's Bt technology for resistance to the European Corn Borer. Then, as soon as DeKalb and Monsanto had reached an agreement, DeKalb filed suit against Mycogen, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Ciba-Geigy claiming that their insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant corn infringed its patents. This move must have alerted AgrEvo, which developed its Liberty Link product line based on resistance to glufosinate (manufactured by one of its mother companies, Hoechst) and licensed it to Pioneer Hi-Bred. This might be one of the reasons leading it to acquire PGS three days after PGS had received a US Patent on Bt genes used by other companies. New suits - such as DeKalb suing Becks' Hybrids for planning to sell Sandoz's Bt maize - are constantly popping up.


Genetically Engineered Maize In The Lab

One way of assessing where the corporate mind is leading the maize crop is to look at the patents that claim property rights on genetically engineered maize. Since biotech research breaks down species boundaries, genes which confer a particular trait can often be inserted into a number of different crops. This means that in some cases, patents can be claimed on genetically engineered plants that have not been field tested. For example, a technique for increasing oil content may be developed and tested in soybean, but the patent application may include using the technique in maize. However, in other instances, it is the gene that is patented and separate applications are required for each crop in which it is used, as is the case with many Bacillus thuringiensis patents. According to Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts, between 1982 and June 1996, 138 patents were applied for that explicitly cover genetically engineered maize plants. (For research purposes, some other patents that claim property on entire plant categories that include maize but do not explicitly mention maize, such as the family Graminae, have not been included). Table 1 shows the main traits that are being patented.

Table 1. Patents On Genetically Modified Maize
Starch content 14 Zeneca
Oil content 9 Du-pont
Protein Content 8 Du-Pont
Pest Resistance (not Bt-Based) 15 Dow Elanco, Pioneer Hi-Bred
Pest Resistance (Bt-based) 8 Ciba-Geigy, PGS
Disease Resistance1 15 Pioneer Hi-Bred, Novartis
Fungal Resistance 8 Pioneer-Hi-Bred
Herbicide Tolerance 13 ICI
Stress Resistance 7 Dekalb, Japan-Tob
Crop Improvement 4 Miscellaneous
Male sterility 8 Pioneer Hi-Bred
Genetic Engineering2 25 Miscellaneous
Others 10 Miscellaneous

1Including virus resistance
2 Covering technologies and claiming IPRs on maize resulting from the application of such technologies.
Compiled by GRAIN, from Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts.


The bulk of the patents (56.5%) are for particular agronomic characteristics. Pest resistance is the most common trait applied for. One third of these patent applications involve Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) as the source of resistance. The rest cover a number of options, from antibody fragments to spider venom, with the use of lectins being the most abundant. The same trend appears in the case of disease resistance (which includes viral resistance): five out of the 16 applications are related to virus coat protein. Research on herbicide tolerance is often highly diversified according to the herbicides produced by the patentee companies. Fungal and stress resistance are also in the corporations' agenda. Of particular interest for the industry are male sterility patents, since this trait has the potential to save corporations large amounts of both money and labour required for the detasseling in hybrid production.

The other important focus of research is maize quality (representing 24% of patent applications), with the modification of maize starch content receiving the most attention. This comes as no surprise, since maize starch is the base for many industrial applications. Because of maize's low content of the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophan, maize has always had to be complemented with other protein sources, both as food and feed. Improving the protein content of maize is thus also a focus. Patents on oil content very often also cover other more important oil crops, such as soybean.

From the above, it is clear that the scope of research into genetically engineered maize is pretty limited, while development is leading to an even narrower range of products.

Genetically Engineered Maize in the Field

Field test releases are another indicator of the spread and development of genetically engineered crops. The USDA's APHIS service maintains a database on authorised field releases in the US, which can be accessed and downloaded through the Internet ( Research done last September 12, 1996, showed that 1,444 of the 3,534 approved release notifications and release permits - either granted or pending - involved maize. This means that up to 1,444 legal field tests of genetically engineered maize have been approved in the US alone.

Table 2. Traits field tested in the USA
Insect Resistance 636 Bt: 316
    Not Bt: 19
    CIB3: 294
Herbicide Resistance 557 Phosphinothricin (BASTA) 372
    Glyphosate 187
    Sulfonylurea 3
    Imidazolinone 1
Others 251 Mostly agronomic properties and product quality
3Commercial Business Information
Compiled by GRAIN, from APHIS database.


Although maize has been field tested for a number of traits, there is an important concentration of nearly 83% of the tests upon insect and herbicide resistance. Within insect resistance at least 49% of the tests have involved the use of Bt. Of the
557 tests made on herbicide tolerance - apart from four nearly anecdotal exceptions - all have been conducted around only two types of herbicides.

A look at the products that already have market permits shows an even narrower spectrum. On the insect resistance side, Mycogen and Ciba and Pioneer will soon market maize genetically engineered with exactly the same Bt gene for resistance to the European Corn Borer. Monsanto and Sandoz have also inserted Bt genes into maize. According to the specialised press, Ciba and Mycogen's engineered European corn-borer resistant maize will cover 160,000 ha in the USA next year. Two herbicide-resistant maize seeds may soon reach commercial release permission in the USA: one by Monsanto resistant to Roundup, and the other by Pioneers and AgrEvo's, resistant to AgrEvo's Liberty herbicide. Liberty is an new and a fancier name for the herbicide currently sold as BASTA, which the company plans to use in its future herbicide-resistance marketing strategy. DeKalb's Liberty resistant genetically engineered maize has already received US approval.

A trend can be thus found in R&D: as genetic engineered maize approaches the marketplace, the range of options for insect and herbicide resistance becomes narrower and single-gene approaches prevail. This trend might even become strengthened as pressure for supplying the market grows. As Andrew Barnes, executive vice-president of Mycogen Crop Protection puts it, "The key now is to concentrate on manufacturing and sales rather than the discovery of new products".


In April 1996, the UK voted against an application for marketing consent for a genetically engineered crop for the first time. It happened in a Brussels committee of national Competent Authorities on the Deliberate Release of GMOs. The crop under consideration was Ciba Geigy's maize, which contained a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene, a second gene making it resistant to Hoechst's herbicide BASTA and yet another one making it resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin. The last is linked to a bacterial promoter, and concerns on this resistance trait transferring to pathogens was at the heart of this decision: ampicillin is in clinical use in the UK. This does not seem to have presented a problem in the USA, which authorised the genetically modified maize in August 1995.

Concerns about the potential environmental and health impact of Ciba Geigy's maize, which were widely publicised by NGOs, lead to its overwhelming rejection of marketing consent by the Environmental Council of Ministers, where only France, the applicant country, voted in favour.

However, undemocratic as it is, the EU legislation still technically allows the Commission to introduce Ciba Geigy's maize onto the market. This was the path of choice for the Commission, but again strong public pressure managed to stop the process. In late July 96, the Commission called upon three Scientific Committees to study the case (those regarding Animal Nutrition, Food and Pesticides).

If these committees advise against the maize's introduction, the bacterial promotor could become the subject of the first serious confrontation over a genetically engineered crop between two OECD countries. At present, the EU has ruled that no genetically engineered maize will enter the European market. How it is going to avoid it is less clear, although several companies have already developed technologies allowing to identify genetically engineered seeds.


The Battle for Control and Corporate Survival

A closer look into the patent and the USA field test release applications and notifications also allow to identify another tendency: the progressive concentration of maize biotech activities in the hands of a smaller number of giant firms as the process of R&D goes on, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. While the top ten patent-holders own 60% of the patents, the top ten companies in field test releases account for at least 93% of releases, if we take into account current mergers and thus actual control of the results.

Table 3. Top 14 maize patentees account for 60% of 138 patents on maize





ICI / Zeneca










Plant Genetic Systems


American Cyanamid








Max-Planck Institute


Berlin Inst. for Genetic Research


Compiled by GRAIN, from Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts.


Table 4 .Top 10 companies account for 93% of 1,444 maize field tests.










Du Pont








Great Lakes Hybrids




Compiled by GRAIN, from APHIS database.


With the first biotech crops arriving at farmers' fields, the "hour of truth" has come. Both old players and newcomers are fighting over the handful of varieties genetically-engineered maize. The battle is raging in three main areas:

* control of current market distribution

* the acquisition of technology, through R&D and ongoing mergers, alliances and the absorption of patent-rich biotech companies

* patent infringement suits to gain monopolistic control on entire crop traits.

The recent purchase of Plant Genetic Systems by AgrEvo (the agrochemical joint venture between Hoechst and Schering) for no less than US$730 million after a tight battle (see Box) is only the latest episode in a mad rush of take-overs, stock purchases and agreements that has characterised the biotech industry in the last year (see Table 5). Virtually all of the top specialist ag-biotech companies have been absorbed, controlled or are have come under the influence of one or more of the previously controlling transnational (TNC) stock holders in agriculture.

Currently three corporate blocks are fighting over leadership of the maize seed industry: Monsanto out on its own; Pioneer, Novartis and Dow Elanco, who have chosen to rely on Mycogen's technology; and AgrEvo, which has assumed the formerly lonely Plant Genetic System's (PGS) position. Each giant is attempting to ensure the ownership of key maize technology in order to take control. But, with such wide differences in patent criteria in the world's various patent offices and such a huge number of patents relating to such a limited number of technological options (see Seedling 4/95 for the case of Bt), this is proving to be a difficult and very expensive task for all of participants.


Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) is the largest biotech research company in Europe. Its genetically modified oilseed rape is already being sold in Canada, and approval has also been granted for commercialization in the EU. Next year, it plans to launch genetically engineered corn and has some vegetables such as chicory close to launching. Its total annual sales come to US$5 million.

However, in August 96, facing the difficulties research companies experience in bringing their products to the market on a competitive scale, the Belgian-Dutch company Plant Genetic Systems decided to look for a partner. At that time, PGS was owned by some 120 shareholders, for the most part institutional investors.

The reason why Hoechst and Schering joint venture AgrEvo has paid the incredible sum of US$730 million to acquire the tiny PGS is because of the company's patent portfolio, which includes at least 46 patents or patent applications in the areas of herbicide resistance, male sterility, and insect protection. In particular, it owns two broad patents on Bt technologies. AgrEvo doubtlessly foresees a future of handsome royalties. AgrEvo only paid such a huge amount of money (putting itself into debt in the process) because of the other bees buzzing around the honeypot in the form of Zeneca, Novartis, Bayer and Du-Pont.

But the costs do not seem very important to a pesticides giant that was being left behind by others such as Monsanto and which foresees a market of US$ 6 billion for genetically engineered crops in year 2005.

PGS was founded in 1982 to "create and capture value from proprietary plant biotechnology through premium-priced seeds". It has ended up allowing others to do so.

Although the cloud has still to settle down, it has already changed the biotech industry landscape. As Bill Freiberg, publisher of the industry newsletter Biotech Reporter puts it, 10 to 15 years after the "start up" of the ag-biotech era, the "bunch of noisy, optimistic, rabble-rousing .. and fun .. upstart companies" have "either shut their doors, or their technology has been absorbed by the big companies. And (surprise) the same old names of the past are the ones remaining in power".

Table 5. Recent corporate alliances, acquisitions and mergers






Access to Mycogen's Bt gene library
  Monsanto     License Monsanto's Bt gene
  AgrEvo     Collaboration on the commercialisation of AgrEvo's Liberty Link technology
  Human Genome Sciences  


Collaborative work to sequencing and mapping maize DNA. Pioneer will hold intellectual property on discovered sequences
Mycogen Cross-licensing agreement to develop insect-resistant crops (Bt).
  Monsanto     Sandoz licences Monsanto's Bt technology
(Dow Chemicals & Eli Lilly)



Mycogen holds a large Bt gene library, important patents on Bt and 2.5% of the US maize seed market.



Gain access to Ecogen's patents on Bt genetic resources and technology



14 out of the 31 new genetically engineered products that Monsanto plans to send to the market are Calgene's.
  Dekalb Genetics



10 year-long R&D collaboration

Non-exclusive cross-licensing agreements covering insect and herbicide resistance technologies.




Purchase of the plant biotechnology assets of Agracetus. This includes patents and development of pharmaceuticals in engineered crops.
  Sandoz     License the commercialisation of its Bt corn.
  Pioneer Hi-Bred     License the commercialisation of its Bt gene.



Purchase of Asgrow Agronomics to a subsidiary of Empresas La Moderna, S. A. Main crops at stake are soybean and vegetables.
(Hoechst & Shering)
Pioneer Hi-Bred and others     Development and commercialisation of glufosinate (BASTA) resistant Liberty Link corn
  Plant Genetic Systems (PGS)



PGS holds a number of patents on Bt and has developped insect resistant, herbicide tolerant and male sterile maize. It has also collaborated with Holden's, a foundation seed supplier.
ZENECA SEEDS Royal VanderHave.     New joint venture formed.

i This agreement involved Mycogen purchasing DowElanco's United AgriSeeds business and DowElanco buying Mycogen shares owned by Lubrizol for US$ 126M.
iiMonsanto has bought 10% of Dekalb voting stock, and 45% of its non-voting stock.

The reality is that TNCs are already in control of today's and any future genetically engineered corn. Corporate breeding is moving maize further and further away from a food in its own right, and more and more into feed and industry. It is becoming just a raw material. Contrary to the colourful advertisements, showing for example a proud African with Ciba Geigy's Bt-maize, there is little hope that the poor and the South will benefit from current biotech trends.



CIMMYT, 1994: 1993/94 World Maize Facts and Trends; Maize Seed Industries, Revisited: emerging Roles of the Public and Private Sectors, Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

FAO, 1996: The State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Background Documentation prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources Leipzig, Germany, 17-23 June, 1996) Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Rome, 1996.

Fowler, C., 1994: "Unnatural Selection; Technology, Politics, and Plant Evolution", International Studies in Global Change, 6. Gordon and Breach, Yverdon, Switzerland. ISBN: 2-88124-639-7.

Industry publications: Biotech Reporter, Agrow, Nature/Biotechnology.



The new era of biotech pest resistant plants is having quite a bleak beginning. Black, indeed, at the eyes of farmers who believed Monsanto's claims that planting its BollGard cotton they would benefit from "season-long in-plant control (…) without the use of in-season sprays" against cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm and pint bollworm.

BollGard is Monsanto's genetically engineered and patented cotton with a Bt gene producing a protein that makes cotton poisonous for these pests. This transgenic plant is commercialised by the world's largest cotton seed dealer, Delta and Pine Land. However, across five states in the South of the USA, huge numbers of cotton bollworm seem to feel happy eating away and living in such supposedly nasty plants. In order to put an end to the insects' happiness, farmers have been obliged to pay for expensive pesticides. That was not what they had in mind when they paid a premium price for the supposedly pest-resistant seed. Monsanto now says it does not deserve to be blamed and claims that it had always stated that supplemental applications of insecticide may be necessary in certain circumstances. Dry weather, high temperatures an unusually high pest population are to be blamed, instead…

Fears about insect survivors developing resistance have quickly been risen. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has called on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the registration and sales of BollGard cotton "pending development of new management plans that will prevent pest resistance".

In the meanwhile, Delta and Pine's market stock price has plummeted. With the amount of R&D dollars invested in developing Bt crops and products, this could be the beginning of a butterfly effect.

SOURCE: Prepared by GRAIN from Biotech Reporter, Nature Biotechnology and RAFI Communique.

Author: GRAIN
Links in this article:
  • [1]