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

Consider the alternative:

[physicsphairy]

If there are no limitations about replanting, then what will company X that has spent Y millions of dollars to produce a superior crop do to recoup their expenses? After just *one* person buys seeds, well, that person is in a position to supply the whole rest of the world with those same seeds (directly and indirectly) at normal seed prices, so company X, despite their extra expenses, will not be able to make any more money than they would have simply have sold ordinary seeds int the first place.

So, guess what? The only way they can ensure profit is to maintain total agricultural monopoly on the product itself. And which do you think is more likely to squeeze out the small farmers, continued dependence on seed suppliers, or corporations with vastly superior crops who will not share these crops with anyone else?

I'd say the first is the better choice, although we are making many generalization about what would actually end up being very specific scenarios.

Consider that as long as the farmer's increased crop yields, decreased use of pesticides, fertilizer, etc. all result in more profit than is consumed by the extra expenditure for seeds, then all the farmers, no matter how small they are, are better off for buying the self-terminating seeds than they would be otherwise. Clearly, that is a different situation if they are being gouged, but you can't just blindly say that this is a bad idea.

Whether it benefits the little guy is 100% contingent on the pricing scheme the company offers, and we do need to have some sort of market reward for this kind of work. I personally would much rather have seeds that self-terminate than government laws which simply forbid you to grow such plants without a license.

Terminator Gene useful for quality control

[reovirus1]

Before Biotech and GMO: The industry has always encouraged farmers to buy new commercial seed every year and not store seed from the previous year's harvest to plant in the current year. The reason for this is to preserve the hybridization of that specific variety of seed. Seed is grown by certified plant breeders that over time through breeding trials select for specific traits such as winter hardiness, disease resitance, baking quality in the case of wheat and protein content to name a few. It is a long and expensive method. They get paid a royalty on the sale of commercial seed. If farmers continue to plant seeds that are harvested from their own farm (what is called "bin run seed") then they will, over time, begin to loose the strength of the original hybrid commercial seed that they bought as it will inbreed and become a weaker strain. Therefore the quality for the traits that the original hybrid was bred for will be lost. Therefore lower grade, lower price and pissed off customers ie the bakers and pasta makers if wheat is used as an example. After Biotech, BMO. -- Obviously this is driven by the big seed companies but the technology is good and will in the long term benefit the food industry. It is a faster means to develop a plant breeding method through gene manipulation than through the slower natural selection process. For instance, the industry can introduce a gene into cotton that will prohibit certain insects from damaging that crop and thus eliminate the need to use pesticides. The end product is not affected by the gene and in other plants such as corn neither is human health. The companies that develop this technology have user aggreements which is at a cost to the farmer. The agreement usually prohibits the grower from using the harvested crop as seed the following year. The reason is to protect the integredity of the technology and the oringinal hybrid product. Also, if the harvested seed is planted the following year it can over time pollinate other similar non biotech crops and thus you could have contamination to another field. Basically, you lose control of the technology which the companies are wanting to protect and admitably keep their revenues growing. There is also technology where they can produce insulin for diabetics in rice through gene manipulation and I see this as needed use for the terminator gene to maintain control. The terminator gene will at the end of a certain time period after harvest not allow that seed to germinate. Thus it would prevent the farmer from planting that seed and protect the industries investment and revenues and reduce the risk of contaminating other fields IMO, it is a good idea because it will protect the quality and traits of that particular seed for which it was designed . It will also provide for more control over the seed industry thus more confidence in developing more product that will benefit the food industry and the consumer. "Bin run seed" has always been a black eye in agriculture and it needs to be curtailed whether it is traditonal seed or GMO.