Terminator Gene Ban Suggested in Canada

innocent_white_lamb writes "A member of the Canadian Parliament has proposed legislation to outlaw the development and deployment of 'terminator genes' that would prevent seeds from germinating after a set span of time. This practice would require farmers to re-purchase seed every year instead of saving the seeds from last year's crop. The legislation is not expected to pass due to opposition from the Agriculture Minister. 'There is also an issue with the technology, which is based on a complicated five-gene construct. It is "inevitable" it will fail and could harm biodiversity, said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which backs the ban. CFIA argues exactly the opposite, saying "the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."'"

Comments

can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene

[lilgorgor]

is going to harm biodiversity? IT CAN'T PROPAGATE.

Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene

[Anonymous Coward]

If an alien race is at all advanced, they would realize how retarded it is to worship "nature". If you believe that you are natural then anything you do is also natural by definition. If you believe you're supernatural, then you'd better commit suicide if you love "nature" so much.

Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene

[ajs318]

Just because a particular gene sequence found in fish means something when spliced into tomato DNA isn't really saying anything. The word "fart" is perfectly respectable in Swedish. The word "mist" is not so respectable in German. It just so happens that a bit of the pattern that happens to make an improvement to a tomato, also occurs in fish.

DNA is basically a self-extracting compressed executable. It just happens that with the current state of the art (which is a bit like doing embroidery by firelight and wearing boxing gloves), messing with it whilst it's still compressed is easier than trying to expand the compressed form.

A living organism is dealt a hand of DNA and plays out that hand strictly according to predetermined rules. Either it scores enough points to play again, or it dies. Most of the possible DNA sequences don't do anything useful. Scientists might be able to stick bits of gene sequences together, but they can't alter the rules for how they play out; just the starting cards. Some random mutation could happen to produce the same sequence and there would be no way to tell which was created artificially and which was created naturally.

Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like DRM, except for living things.

Actually it is like DRM that not only affects the tract purchased but all your other similar tracts and all of your neighbours tracts.

I still haven't figured out why Monsanto-using farmers do not get sued by their downwind neighbours.

There is absolutely no question that Monsanto pollen harms Canadian farmers who do not have agreements with Monsanto. In Monsanto v. Schmieser the courts indirectly concluded that Mosanto's pollen constituted an airborne infection that made Mr. Schmeiser's seed crop worthless since he did not have a right to use the seeds that the source farmer had infected with Monsanto's IP. Additionally, that farmer was also responsible(*) for Monsanto being given Mr. Schmeiser's IP (his own Canola strain that he had spent 50 years developing) free of charge. In effect, the negligence of the upwind farmer resulted in not only the loss of his crop but having 50 years of research handed to a competitor.

(*) This part is arguable since that part of the judgement was unprecedented and had no apparent legal basis.

Re:can someone explain how a plant with a t-gene

[lpq]

I can't figure out how they can push those cases. Why can't the farmers sue Monsanto for damages -- contaminating their crops with defective "seed" that won't breed.

In another context: I release a "toxin" into the air, that sterilizes the next generation of every plant it comes in contact with. Those in turn can fertilize the next generation to sterilize their offspring. Eventually all plant life is wiped out.

How is that not eco-terrorism on a vast scale?

Sterile

[Twillerror]

Isn't making the plants that grow from the seeds produce seeds that are sterile good enough?

If I buy a seed I should be able to plant it as far away from when I bought it as I'd like.

If you explain to the farmer that the plant cannot be used for seed it is up to the farmer and the open market to decide if that is the right approach. If the farmer cannot afford the seed then they will have to use non engineered seed and the companies will have to decide if it is worth it.

Re:This should be banned..

[nametaken]

This has everything to do with recurring revenue, and nothing to do with protection against transference for the sake of preventing unwanted traits in other crops.

Just wrong.

Good idea but for other reasons

[drinkypoo]

There is not serious danger in the idea of the terminator gene making its way into other crops. Anything that has the gene will have a hard time propagating. But I would like to see it outlawed simply because it has the potential to cause problems in the case of a disaster, and because of various IP laws that permit Monsatan to prevent people from being able to harvest the seed from their own crops because some patented seed or pollen flew onto their land. Such happenings are part of nature and quite unavoidable...

Did you mean Germinator?

[packetmon]

Oh financial FUD

Monsanto is the world's largest seed company (after its January 2005 acquisition of Seminis for US$1.4 billion).

The company's 2004 pro forma seed revenues (including Seminis) were US$2.8 billion.

Monsanto's GM crops and traits accounted for almost 90% of the total GM crop area worldwide in 2004

Monsanto controls 41% of the global maize market and over one-fourth of the commercial soybean market (both conventional and GM seed).

Monsanto and Terminator

This is old news... Like 2000 old news...

Total Cost Of Ownership

[nick_davison]

Doesn't this come down to a total cost of ownership decision that any business should make:

Option A: I buy the traditional option, I lose X% to various natural hardships, I replant the seed I keep back next year.

Option B: I buy the new version, I lose a smaller Y% to various natural hardships, I have to buy the seed again next year.

If my profit increases due to decreased loss by more than the cost of annual purchases, I buy the annual purchase option. If my profit increases less than the cost of annual purchases, I keep doing it the old way.

Cheesy as it feels to see science advance to the point where this happens with crops like it already does with other man made commodities, are the "poor farmers" really being forced in to anything worse [in terms of that business model]? They can still buy traditional seeds, right?

Now there's the bigger issue with whether we want something in our food chain that turns off the ability to reproduce (even if there's no science for it being passed on, that alone should make awesome advertising for those who don't go with it). There's also the bigger issue with this gene getting passed on to other farmers and their crops getting wiped out - unfortunately, thus far, legislation seems to be siding with the seed producers and not those who fall victim to cross polinization thanks to lobbying funds etc.

Still, in terms of the "poor farmers" - unless there's some kind of monopoly I'm missing, why can't they just not buy the product if they don't like the terms?

The bottom line...

[FunWithKnives]

The bottom line here is that the only reason for the existance of the terminator gene in the first place is to squeeze more money out of farmers and control crops with their "intellectual property rights" bullshit. The only reason that the Agriculture Minister would be supporting this is because he is a Monsanto shill. This is really one case where what is good for the people and what is good for the corporations can be drawn in black and white. There is absolutely no other reason for the terminator gene to exist.

They've already declared music, writing, artwork, and source code to be "intellectual property." Next up will be genes and molecules, followed by plants and animals, air, water, you name it. Everything will have a monetary value and a corresponding license. Don't you just love commoditization?

Re:This should be banned..

[Scrameustache]

Being a corporation does not give you a free pass to put money ahead of morals. Indeed: It gives you a legal obligation to put money ahead of morals.

Re:even worse

[hswerdfe]

Lets not forget crop rotation.
This Years crop is next years weed!
So if you plant roundup ready canola this year, and next year you want to plant corn. you can't spray your field with round up before you plant, to kill the weeds (ie your seed base form last year).
You have to use a different chemical. and you probably are using corn that is resistant to chemical X. So in year 3 when you plant potatoes you can't use roundup or chemical X.....

I new an organic farmer who tried to keep on a 10->17 year crop rotation.
Imagine a GMO farmer trying to maintain any kind of crop rotation. It would be Insane!

Re:This should be banned..

[*weasel]

It's not their job to rape and pillage the world for profit. Being a corporation does not give you a free pass to put money ahead of morals. That is not their job. Their job is to offer a product to a market.

The limits they operate within can only be defined by the government for the public good.
It's impractical to expect corporations to act 'morally' when there is no consensus on morality, until it's coded into law. If their actions are so clearly immoral, they should be illegal.

Playing corporate whack-a-mole, hating and blaming and boycotting corporations one-at-a-time for acting legally but immorally is truly a Sisyphean endeavor.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion