London (18th April, 2006) – Recent weeks have witnessed an upsurge of interest in genetic use restriction technologies (“GURTs”), dubbed “terminator” by those people who dreamed up “Frankenfoods” and other abusive terms and concepts to help them with their own unconvincing arguments.

Just why GURTs surfaced again at this time is not altogether clear. It may be because Monsanto's annual report noted that the company was in dialogue with public sector researchers who had developed methods to allow the switching off of specific traits so that only the seed's GM trait, not its total viability, would be unable to transfer to food crops. The statement merely said the company would keep an open mind on such new developments while adhering to the commitment they made some years ago not to develop sterile seed traits. But no matter; reality is unimportant when up against fantasy

The mystery revealed

So what are GURTs and why might they be useful? Strictly defined, the term implies the engineering of genetic traits either rendering seeds sterile or controlling the expression of a particular property in a plant. As far as CropGen is aware – and contrary to current assertions from the media and various campaigning groups – no commercial or even working experimental varieties exist anywhere in the world. GURTs remain an idea of which just one application (the so-called “terminator technology”) has hit the headlines but nobody has yet produced a “terminator” seed.

There are two key forms of GURTs:

(a) variety use restriction (V-GURT), which renders the subsequent generation of seeds sterile (this is the dreaded “terminator” technologies).

For example: If GM crops were grown in close proximity to other cultivations sensitive to GM presence, any movement of GM seeds or pollen into the sensitive area would be rendered null and void because the GM components would be sterile and could not give rise to another generation of plants.

In this format, the farmer could not save seeds. Although portrayed by some activists as drastic, farmers in developed countries many years ago gave up saving seeds for maize, sunflower, sorghum and other crops. Quite simply, they found that they could obtain much better yields by buying new hybrid seeds afresh each year.

(b) use restriction of a specific trait (T-GURT), which requires the external application of an inducer to activate the trait’s expression.

For example: In this case the seed itself would not be sterile but a particular characteristic (such as a GM trait) could not be expressed unless the seed or plant were treated in some way (such as with a specific chemical) to activate the added value trait. This would be another way of limiting the expression of transgenic proteins where there might be cross-pollination from GM plants: the seeds could be replanted year after year but the GM property would not be expressed without the application of that specific inducer.

Why the “worries”?

It has been suggested that biotech companies are interested in pursuing GURTs because farmers, especially in the developing world, would be unable to save their seed banks and so be forced to replace all their seeds every year. But GURTs are designed not for developing world farmers; they are for those farmers who already buy new seed each year. GURTs would have no impact at all on the use of traditional seeds. No farmer anywhere is obliged to use GM materials and those who choose not to are entirely free to save their seeds as they have done for generations.

Crops which did have GURT seeds would indeed need to replaced, exactly like the existing practice of many farmers around the world using hybrid seeds bought afresh from the seed producers every year because they increase productivity and may have other benefits. No farmer is obliged to use them nor would he be forced to use GURT seeds; there are plenty of other choices and farmers must remain free to choose for themselves.

But the idea behind “terminator”, and the potential it has for campaigning when there is not much else to say, will help to keep it going for the time being. It is one of those classical cases of scaremongering with which we are constantly assailed, perpetrated by people and groups trying to push a point of view which is not doing too well.

See also:

1. Robert Wager. 'Terminator' seeds unfairly demonized by critics. Stratford Beacon Herald (Jan 27th, 2006) (http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2472)

2. United Kingdom Parliament: Terminator Seed Technology [8 March 2006] (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060308/debtext/60308-34.htm)

<<<back