[gardeners] warning Long..from arsusda.gov re:Plant Protection/Terminator
coneh@uswest.net (gardeners@globalgarden.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:52:09 -0800
Roddy wrote:
> The below was just sent to me concerning the 'terminator seeds". I have
> been waiting a very long time for it and it arrived only after I mailed
> another person on this group about not getting a reply.
> roglun@fidnet.com
> --------------------------------------------------
> That is not dead which can eternal lie,
> and with strange eons even death may die.
> HPL
>
> ----------
> > From: Sandy Miller Hays <shays@asrr.arsusda.gov>
> > To: roglun@fidnet.com
> > Subject: Plant Technology Protection System
> > Date: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:29 AM
> >
> > Dear Sir or Madam:
> >
> > Your question about the plant Technology Protection System (TPS) was
> > forwarded to me by the staff of the National Agricultural Library. TPS
> has
> > sometimes been referred to in the media as "terminator technology."
> >
> > In response to your request for information, here's some background for
> you.
> >
> > On March 3, 1998, a patent was granted to the Agricultural Research
> > Service--that's the chief research agency of the U.S. Department of
> > Agriculture--and a company called Delta and Pine Land Co. of Scott, Miss.
> > It's my understanding that DPL is a major producer of cottonseed.
> >
> > The patent covered "Control of Plant Gene Expression." The technology
> being
> > patented came out of cooperative research between ARS and DPL under what
> is
> > known as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA.
> CRADAs
> > are not an unusual factor in ARS' operations; this agency has entered
> into
> > approximately 800 CRADAs with private companies since the mid-1980s.
> >
> > The reason for a CRADA is this: ARS is in the "business" of developing
> new
> > technologies to benefit the U.S. food and fiber production system...but
> > we're not in the business of actually making or selling a specific
> product.
> > So ARS will "partner," if you will, with a particular company on a
> project,
> > the idea being that if a product develops out of this research, the
> company
> > would get "first crack" at a marketing license. This way all the great
> > things that are developed in federal laboratories using taxpayers'
> dollars
> > actually get turned into products for consumers, rather than just
> > languishing on a shelf in a federal lab somewhere.
> >
> > At any rate, the work on "control of plant gene expression" was done
> under a
> > CRADA signed in 1993 between ARS and DPL.
> >
> > The question being tackled was a simple one: Can you put a gene into a
> seed
> > and then turn that seed on and off when you want to, rather than having
> to
> > wait for Nature to turn it on and off? The answer appears to be "yes."
> >
> > In the particular work in question, a gene was inserted (via genetic
> > engineering) into a seed. Then, if that seed receives a certain
> treatment
> > before planting, the inserted gene is "turned on." If the seed does not
> > receive the specific pre-planting treatment, the gene remains "turned
> off."
> >
> > To be more specific about this project, the way the gene is "turned on"
> is
> > by treating the transgenic seed with tetracycline before planting that
> seed.
> > If the tetracycline treatment is given, the gene in the seed is turned
> on.
> > That seed can be planted and will produce a plant. That plant, in turn,
> > will produce seed--but those second-generation seed will not germinate.
> >
> > However, by the same token, you can take that same transgenic seed and
> NOT
> > treat it with tetracycline--just plant it in the ground without the
> > pre-planting treatment. In that case, the inserted gene will NOT get
> turned
> > on; the seed will grow a plant, the plant will produce seed, those
> > second-generation seed can be planted and will produce a plant, those
> plants
> > will produce seed....and on and on and on.
> >
> > The key is the pre-planting treatment--in the case of our studies,
> > tetracycline. Tetracycline was used because we deliberately chose a
> > substance that is NOT going to be encountered "accidentally" in Nature.
> We
> > do not want to turn on the inserted gene by accident.
> >
> > Our studies were done first in tobacco, as a model species only. (It's
> my
> > understanding that tobacco is the "guinea pig" of the plant world--very
> easy
> > to work with. But ARS is NOT doing--and is not INTERESTED in
> > doing--research on tobacco. We used tobacco as a model species ONLY.)
> >
> > Later tests were done in cotton, although I think only greenhouse tests
> have
> > been done--not field tests.
> >
> > The process worked in tobacco and in cotton...so far.
> >
> > The $64,000 question is, of course: Why would ARS want do this research?
> > The answer is this: There is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity
> > available to us; we're constantly learning something new about a plant
> gene
> > that confers this desirable trait or that one, such as ability to
> withstand
> > drought or ability to fend off insect attacks. The tools are out there
> for
> > development of some terrific new plant varieties, utilizing the genetic
> > diversity that we now know exists.
> >
> > But this type of research still takes a lot of time and a lot of
> money...and
> > there's not that much incentive at present for a plant breeding to
> company
> > to invest a lot of dollars and scientist-hours in coming up with those
> > terrific new varieties. Why? Because as things stand now, a plant
> breeding
> > company might spend years and lots of dollars developing and patenting a
> new
> > variety. They finally put it on the market. Everyone rushes out to buy
> the
> > seed that first year. Everyone goes home, plants the seed, grows the
> > resultant plants, collects the seed from those plants...and never has to
> go
> > back to the plant breeding company for more seed because the people are
> now
> > "growing their own." This means that, for all its time and effort and
> > investment, the plant breeding company has managed to make good sales
> that
> > first year...and that's it.
> >
> > It was the hope of ARS that if a seed company could see a way that it
> could
> > "protect" its research investment--"copyright" their new seed, if you
> > will--those seed companies might be significantly more interested in
> putting
> > for the effort to develop the new varieties that farmers really
> need--like
> > crops that can live in very dry areas or survive on poor-quality water or
> > even worse quality soil.
> >
> > ARS also develops new varieties of crops...but we can't do it all. We
> need
> > the efforts of plant breeding companies, too, to meet farmers' needs; it
> was
> > hoped this "technology protection system" would encourage them to push
> > harder on developing new varieties. BUT---important note: New plant
> > varieties that come out of ARS--and probably those that come out of
> > land-grant university systems as well--will NOT contain the "technology
> > protection system." It is ARS' mission to serve the public and the needs
> of
> > our agricultural community. As a result, farmers will still continue to
> > have a wide choice of varieties to plant, with and without TPS.
> >
> > Now, to get back on track: While ARS has a CRADA with DPL, and while DPL
> is
> > a co-holder of the patent with ARS, DPL still has to come to ARS to
> > negotiate a license to market this technology. This is a very important
> > point!! Those negotiations are in the very early stages...and as those
> > negotiations proceed, ARS will be very vigilant in protecting the
> public's
> > interests. Also, it is ARS policy that technology in which it has an
> > ownership interest will be made widely available. Therefore, this
> > technology will be freely available for research purposes by public and
> > private researchers, ensuring that no one seed company will monopolize
> the
> > technology.
> >
> > I must point out that I have not heard anyone mention use of this
> technology
> > in garden-type crops--only in the very large, mainstream agricultural
> crops,
> > such as cotton. And what our researchers have told me is that the system
> > basically has to be "custom-designed" each time for each individual crop;
> > that this is not "one-size-fits-all" technology, and there's no guarantee
> it
> > will even work in all crops...and if it were to work, there's no
> guarantee
> > that it would be deemed appropriate for use in all crops. We're still in
> > very early days here on what and where and how this technology can and
> > should be used. For example, we know it works in cotton--or at least, it
> > seemed to work in lab tests--but the earliest that anyone expects a
> > commercial cottonseed with this technology to be on the market is the
> year
> > 2004.
> >
> > Even if the technology does work in a specific crop, use of this
> technology
> > in individual varieties will require the approval of various regulatory
> > agencies (ARS is NOT a regulatory agency--we're strictly a research
> agency).
> > Commercial production of TPS plants--as with any genetically engineered
> > plant--would require approval by USDA's Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection
> > Service, so there's an important safeguard there; they're not going to
> allow
> > a crop into the environment that might "accidentally" pose a threat to
> > another crop. So you can rest assured that significant safeguards will
> be
> > put into place before this technology pops up in a neighboring field.
> Also,
> > if the technology is to be used in a food crop, that food crop must
> conform
> > to the rules of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> >
> > One of the great fears concerning transgenic plants--plants that have
> genes
> > other than those given to them by Nature--is that those "transgenes" will
> > somehow "jump" into nature. With the "technology protection system,"
> it's
> > virtually guaranteed that that cannot happen--because while the
> > first-generation transgenic seeds will produce a plant, the seeds that
> come
> > off that plant are sterile--so they absolutely CANNOT "spread" the
> transgene
> > into other plants.
> >
> > I think you can safely report to your gardening friends that this is not
> > going to pose problems for their tomato crops...or their flower
> crops...or
> > their watermelon crops, for a number of reasons, starting with the fact
> that
> > this is likely to be limited to massive field crop varieties that will
> bring
> > in enormous quantities of income to cover the extensive costs incurred by
> > the plant breeding company...and secondly, they have agencies like the
> > Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service whose role it is to ensure
> that
> > nothing goes into a field that could endanger other crops.
> >
> > I'm sorry to have given you such a long-winded answer, but I wanted you
> to
> > have all the details. If you feel you need additional assistance, please
> > feel free to call me anytime at 301-344-2415 (after Aug. 21, my telephone
> > number will change to 301-504-1636) or you can e-mail me at
> > shays@asrr.arsusda.gov
> >
> > Good luck with your gardening!
> >
> > Sandy Miller Hays
> > Director of Information
> > Agricultural Research Service
> > U.S. Department of Agriculture
> > Greenbelt, Maryland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >