Journal or Publishing Institution: Nature Biotechnology
Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0802-775b
Author(s): Shand, H.
Article Type: Journal Publication
Record ID: 2349
Text: To the editor – In their commentary “Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops” in the June issue (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 537–541, 2002), Smyth et al. make a compelling case that the inability to control gene flow is the Achilles heel of the biotech industry. The authors offer two examples in which the inability to manage gene flow has had “disastrous consequences.” Rather than placing the liability firmly on the industry and regulatory bodies that brought these products to market, however, they reach the astonishing conclusion that “plants and people [farmers who save proprietary seed] cannot be trusted to do what markets require.”
Unfortunately, the authors’ shortsighted solution is to promote the terminator technology (genetic seed sterilization) as an environmental control mechanism. The authors fail to mention that 1.4 billion poor people depend on farm-saved seed as their primary seed source. The promotion of terminator seeds as a “green” solution to pollution by genetically modified (GM) crops is the Trojan Horse of agbiotech. If terminator wins market acceptance under the guise of biosafety, it will be used as a monopoly tool to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seed. The goal of terminator is now, and has always been, to maximize seed industry profits.
After more than 130 million acres of GM crops have been planted worldwide, we are told that we can prevent leaky genes by adopting an untested GM technology that has been widely condemned as an immoral application of agricultural biotechnology. This is illogical and dangerous. Unwanted gene flow is a serious problem that must be addressed, but food security for poor people and Farmers’ Rights must not be sacrificed to solve industry’s genetic pollution problem.
It is erroneous to suggest that agriculture is dependent on genetic seed sterilization as a method for minimizing genetic pollution from GM plants. In his article entitled “Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops” (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 581–586, 2002) Henry Daniell reviews alternative strategies for gene-containment approaches. Clearly, much more research is needed. In the meantime, it is unacceptable to suggest that farmers and society should adopt an untested, immoral GM technology to fix the defects in biotech’s first- and second-generation products.
Keywords: gene flow, alternative strategies
Citation: Shand, H., 2002. Terminator no solution to gene flow. Nature Biotechnology, 20(8), p.775.