GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Tech) - Terminator gene

[countryguy]

Northfarmer,I am just curious as to what situations you find volunteers such an issue that you need them to self destruct themselves?

[northfarmer]

Currently canola volunteers in follow crops to canola are the specific issue I have to deal with....easy to kill, but still take mositure and nutrients from crop in early growth stage that is critical to yield potential..

I will also post an article i read this morning of one of my info services....good info on the issue...

Why Canada should support Coexistence crops

Wednesday, March 22, 2006
By Robert Wager

There is no such thing as risk-free anything. However, this fact does not stop some from demanding risk-free agricultural biotechnology.



The controversies (mostly hypothetical) over genetically engineered (GE) crops and food never seem to end. As soon as one scare story is demonstrated to be false or highly unlikely, another floods the media. No doubt, this is by design. Canada recently stirred up a hornets nest when its representatives at the meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity in Bangkok called for the end to a de facto moratorium on the research and development of genetic use restriction technologies for genetically engineered crops. Recently several other countries have joined Canada in calling for an end to the ban.

Genetic use restriction technologies or GURTs are systems designed to prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the DNA engineered into GE plants) to other plants or the unauthorized propagation of transgenic crops. There are several different ways they work, but these systems have one thing in common. They all block the possibility of the engineered genes and traits from ending up elsewhere.

Some GURT-containing GE seeds will not germinate, for example, while other GURT engineered plants will produce only sterile pollen. Either way, no genetically engineered genes will spread to other plants. This is why critics of GE crops call these terminator technologies. However, a more appropriate and descriptive term would be coexistence crops, since they would eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing with each other. Perhaps more than any other aspects of genetically engineered crops, these technologies have been the target of massive fear-generating campaigns by critics.

Critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in the developing world by preventing the saving of seed from this year's crop for next years planting. But coexistence crops are not designed for developing world farmers. They are designed, in part, for farmers who already buy new seed each year. Most farmers in the developed world buy hybrid, certified or transgenic seed each year. These types of seed cost more, but produce far better yields, protect the environment or cost far less to grow, so the farmer gains in the end. Virtually all corn grown in North America is from hybrid seed with 50 per cent transgenic. Better than 70 per cent of the canola grown in Canada is transgenic. The benefits are well documented, including less pesticide use, healthier corn with less fungal toxin contamination and healthy canola oils that are trans-fat free.

The development and incorporation of coexistence crops would have several advantages over today's transgenic crops. Along with ending illegal propagation of transgenic crops, the issue of horizontal gene flow would also be eliminated. Therefore, there would no longer be any issue of cross-pollination between transgenic and organic crops.

Perhaps this is why certain groups are fighting the development of coexistence crops so ferociously. In fact, pollen from transgenic crops does not threaten organic crop certification at all. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), there should not be any threshold of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it does not necessarily threaten the organic status of the product. The IFOAM does not even advocate mandatory testing for the cross-pollination of organically grown crops from transgenic ones.

It has been suggested that coexistence crops will threaten biodiversity. Critics claim the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which Canada is a signature, prohibits the development of coexistence crops. However, Article 2 of the protocol states: "Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use and release of any living modified organism [international term for GE crops] are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biodiversity."

Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from transgenic crops to other plants, their incorporation into biotechnology crops is actually in keeping with the International Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety agreement. There are approximately 60,000 seed varieties sold in North America each year. There are approximately 100 transgenic varieties of crops. It seems very far-fetched to suggest 100 transgenic varieties with sterile GURT engineering are going to threaten 60,000 non-transgenic varieties.

Blocking gene flow is important in another area of agricultural biotechnology. Up to now the production of most pharmaceuticals has required very expensive laboratories and production facilities. This is all about to change. Scientists have developed ways to make pharmaceuticals in plants. This has tremendous health and economic benefits. Where once a particular pharmaceutical might cost $100 per dose to produce, it can now be made in a plant for pennies. Everything from vaccines to heart medicines will be produced in genetically engineered plants. Of course, safety issues surrounding the growing of "pharma crops" have been considered in detail. There are very elaborate rules to maintain separation between food and pharmaceutical producing crops, including dedicated fields, large isolation distances, dedicated equipment, as well as separate storage and processing facilities.

Adding GURT technology to pharma crops would further increase the safety with the complete elimination of the possibility of pollen flow from pharma crops to related plants.

The whole world stands to benefit from such developments. Soon the lack of refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in many parts of the world will no longer be a problem, for example. Pharma crops containing edible vaccines will be grown wherever they are needed. Two of the pharma crops furthest along in development contain vaccines for Hepatitis and Norwalk virus. Hundreds of millions of people stand to benefit from these advances in agricultural biotechnology.

Almost 10 years of growing biotechnology crops has demonstrated huge environmental benefits, better yields and healthier food with absolutely no demonstrated harm from consumption. Canada should be applauded for its call for a return of a science-based approach to continued research and development of coexistence crops. It is clear there are many benefits to incorporating coexistence crops into agricultural biotechnology.

Robert Wager is a researcher at the University of Guelph in Canada
http://www.uoguelph.ca

[SASKFARMER3]

North farmer your way off the mark in this one.
Why do you have so many volunteer canola plants must have a Case combine cant keep them in the hopper. HA HA!
It must be the Round up ready ones that are the problem that are sucking moisture so early in the season. I spray out the Liberty with 1/2 Liter generic roundup. Yea that's $1.89 Canadian.
Yea the benefits of the terminator gene out ways the cost.
Keep reading propaganda I can create a report that says the same thing with some money sent my way.

[northfarmer]

do not have a Case combine at thispoint in time...I long ago grew up and out of discriminating on color of equipment...

yes i grow rr canola and it poses challenges....not uniquely at burnoff off and sometimes at preharvest of my cereals...

who is to say that there will even be an additional cost to having this tech in my certified seed...no one knows that as of yet...the seed companies may save more money by not having to concern themselves with theft of their technology...maybe they might even bring some of the stacked traits over from corn and soybeans...like insect resistance, drought tolerance, NUE....or zero transfat oil like they now have in soy in the US....

fact is i might be able to skip the burnoff entirely on my rr stubble, your chem might only cost you a little, but I guess the sprayer runs for free and does not depreciate..

...but I always got great value out of my burnoff on ll stubble, for there are many more weeds than just volunteer canola to deal with...

...and the nutrients and moisture those little plants use comes at a cost...

[SASKFARMER3]

North farmer your brainwashed by the fact that you see a benefit to this technology and it amazes me that you believe that the seed costs saving will be given back to the farmer.
Where in the history of farming in western Canada have We been passed on any savings a company gets.
COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SASKFARMER3]

NorthFarmer, My beef with a terminator gene is not the part of no more volunteers. That would be great. My beef is that we won't be able to reuse any of our own seed anymore in cereals, being forced to pay whatever price tag they put on certified seed.

[northfarmer]

i see the potential benefit to such technolgy, i have not concluded that i would buy it, do not know the price or the implications...you seem to think I am already sold. there is nothing yet to buy...

by the same token, one could argue those that categoratically deny technology advancements for our industry may have been have been brainwashed......

i spend less per unit of production on canola now than i did in mid 90's on canola, the $50 dollar chemical cocktail an acre that gave me high dockage and lower yields...and even then i can still remember having to sell canola at times for $5bu...fact of the matter is we just grew less acres of canola and was a much smaller part of our rotation then than it is now...

...I am sure the 80 percent of acres in Canada that are seeded to transgenic canola and certified seed do so because of the value it offers their farm, if they did not they would seed conventional canola...

Convince me of why you could not continue to seed the varieties you grow now if such technogies were available.....

.I suspect what what we would all like is the vlaue of the technolgy for no cost......will not happen, all investments are motivated by the potential for profit...same idea when you plant your crop...

....on the cereals side, with much fewer acres being seeded to certified the implications would be far less and may not even be commercially viable....this is witnessed by the fact that most new varieties come from public breeding and not private breeding....

[mjohn]

"Control" is a little dramatic. They're usually so busy fighting with each other that I don't think they spend a lot of time conspiring to rule the world. Look at their perspective. They spend millions of dollars to produce a new clearfield or RR variety and then invest in a huge inventory only to have one or two years of sales and then see it dry up because everyone is bin running it. How do you expect them to react? It's not evil, just entirely predictable. Not all seed companies are corporate giants. They have expenses too. So what is the solution guys? One is to ramp the government and university progams back up to where they were in the 70's and 80's.

[SASKFARMER3]

12 years of no vision with agriculture lead us to where we are today.
Terminator gene works in USA or EU where they are paid for the product.
Canada where were given lip service Sorry.
Talk to any farmer that been at this a long time and you will get the truth.

[northfarmer]

good point Mjohn....but i suspect the appetite for more public breeding programs, and investment in biotech for those crops is a tough sell with shrinking total budget for agriculture and lack of political support and vision for our industry, the vision and strategy issue I can agree with Sasfarmer....we have seen substantial reduction in total support for western agriculture during the reign of the Chretien/Martin liberal govts...it will be a hard trend to now reverse with a minority conservative govt....

we will need to continue to see advancement in both canola production characteristsic and economics as well as quality and end use characteristics...else we will fall further behind the crops that get the biotech and breeding attention, specially in the case of canola it would be soybeans....

they already have commercial production in the US of zero transfat soy and this will quickly move to capture oppotunities that may otherwise might be available to canola in food ingredients....

if you had stock in a biotech/seed company where would you want to your investment to go, the 125 million acres of soybeans or the 15 million global acres of canola....

I just read in agriweek that by 2010 eu demand for bio fuel will require that the EU will have to import and equal amount of ****/canola oil as the what it produces to meet predicted demand.....we will need breeding and development of canola and other crops for that matter...to help us meet and compete with what will inevitably be the global competition to capture new demands for plant fuel sources...

i read on one of my newswires that at the Commodity Classic in the US Dupont/Pioneer announced new stacked trait gene shuffling technology, the focus likely being corn and soybeans....will it even make it too canola, who knows?

just because many think and should beleive our govt has failed our industry over the past decades should not preclude people in our industry from defending and planning for its future......