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]

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.

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.

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?

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!