Terminator Technology: Boon or Curse to Farmers/ Jogendra Singh, Vijayata Singh and Ashwani Kumar

7/29/2019 Terminator Technology: Boon or Curse to Farmers/ Jogendra Singh, Vijayata Singh and Ashwani Kumar

1/7

Terminator Technology: Boon or Curse to Farmers

Jogendra Singh, Vijayata Singh and Ashwani Kumar

Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana-132001

The plant breeder rights in present version have a provision of breeders and farmers

exemption so that a protected variety can be used by plant breeders for experimental purpose andfarmers can save seed for planting another crop. The private industry has thus innovate a novel

method of enforcing automatic protection popularly dubbed as terminator technology to impose

biological restriction on production of their varieties for re-cultivation. Terminator technology isthe colloquial name gives to proposed method for restricting the use of genetically modified plant

by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was patented by USDA and Delta

& Pineland Company in 1998. terminator technology is one form of Genetic Use Restriction

Technologies (GURT) there are two types of GURT viz., V-GURT (means seed could not besaved for future planting) and T-GURT (means crop seed does not function potentially until the

treated with a chemical that sold by company). Possible advantages of terminator technology arean incentive to development of new plant varieties, improve farm management, improved grainquality and biosafety and disadvantages are transmission of terminator trait to wild plants,

inequitable distribution of means, the targeting of vulnerable classes.

Terminator Technology is the colloquial name given to proposed methods for restricting the

use ofgenetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technologywas under development by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company

in 1990s and is not yet commercially available. Because some stakeholders expressed concerns

that this technology might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers, Monsanto, anagricultural products company,pledgednot to commercialize the technology even if and when is

becomes commercially available.

Terminator technology is one of the biggest and most controversial issues concerning

genetically modified crops. The goal of Terminator technology is to allow a plant to produce afully mature yet inviable seed.

This technology's success depends on a cleverly controlled sequence of interactions among the

spliced-in genes. The last engineered gene comes into play very late in seed development when a

special switch under the control of the inducer turns on the gene causing it to produce a toxicprotein. This protein kills the embryo that is part of each mature seed.

Terminator Technology is one form ofGenetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT). There

are conceptually two types of GURT.

1. V-GURT This type of GURT produces sterile seeds meaning that a farmer that had purchasedseeds containing v-GURT technology could not save the seed from this crop for future planting.This would not have an immediate impact on the large number of farmers who use hybrid seeds, as

they do not produce their own planting seeds, and instead buy specialized hybrid seeds from seed

production companies. The technology is restricted at the plant variety level - hence the term V-GURT. Manufacturers of genetically enhanced crops would use this technology to protect their

products from unauthorized use.
http://www.answers.com/topic/genetically-modified-foodhttp://www.answers.com/topic/monsantohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260202,00.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260202,00.htmlhttp://www.answers.com/topic/hybrid-seedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/monsantohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,260202,00.htmlhttp://www.answers.com/topic/hybrid-seedhttp://www.answers.com/topic/genetically-modified-food


2/7

2. T-GURT. A second type of GURT modifies a crop in such a way that the genetic enhancement

engineered into the crop does not function until the crop plant is treated with a chemical that is

sold by the biotechnology company. Farmers can save seeds for use each year. However, they donot get to use the enhanced trait in the crop unless they purchase the activator compound. The

technology is restricted at the trait level - hence the term T-GURT.

METHODS

The following is a general scheme of 3 approaches that can be employed in creating steriletransgenic plants (Oliver and Shapiro, 1995). Although the techniques differ in the specific

approaches that can be adopted to carry out this task, they all share a common scheme of utilizing

known gene mechanisms to control the expression of genes of known function.

(1) Transfection of a plant cells with 3 different transgenes:

This method involves the use of 3 different, but functionally-related transcriptional units. One ofthese transcriptional units contains a protein-coding segment called Ribosome Inhibitory Protein

(RIP) whose expression results in tissue-specific death via inhibition of cellular translation

(Barthelamy et al., 1993). Expression of RIP is controlled through 2 mechanisms

(a) Use of a transiently-active promotor called the Late Embryogenesis Abundant (LEA)promotor. As the name suggests, this promotor becomes active only in the late stages of

seed embryogenesis (Galau et al., 1992; 1993). Thus, not only is expression of RIP

restricted to embryotic tissue, but also temporally restricted to a certain stage ofdevelopment. However, to allow for germination of plants containing sterile seeds, this

gene also contains a stretch of DNA (blocker sequence) located between the promotor and

the RIP sequence. The presence of this sequence prevents expression of the lethal

phenotype, allowing the plant distributors to grow many generations of these plants beforeselling their seeds to farmers.

(b) The CRE/LOX site-specific recombination system, derived from bacteriophage P1,

mediates the removal of the blocker sequence, and thus, expression of RIP (Sadowski,1993).

The 2nd transcriptional unit codes for the CRE protein, preceded by a repressible promotor such

as tetO. The "silencing" of this promotor is mediated through the Tn10 tetsystem (Gatz and Quail,

1988; Gatz et al., 1992). Release of inhibition of CRE expression, and thus, induction of RIP

expression is initiated by treating cells with an external stimulus, tetracycline. Tetracyclinedisplaces the TetR repressor protein from the tetO promotor site, inhibiting its expression. If seeds

are treated just after embryogenesis (i.e. after the time period in which RIP is expressed), they will

be allowed to germinate into adult plants, which will eventually produce seeds expressing RIP,rendering the plant sterile.

(2) Hybrid seed production

This is an alternative method to produce sterile hybrid plants via cross breeding of two fertile

transgenic plants, containing the following transgene:

(a) Transgenic plant 1: Plant cells are transfected with a single transcriptional unit composed ofthe LEA promotor, LoxP sequences, blocking sequence, and RIP coding sequence.

(b) Transgenic plant 2: Plant cells are transfected with a single transcriptional unit composed of

a promotor that is active during germination and a CRE coding sequence.


3/7

When resultant hybrid seeds undergo germination, the floxing reaction occurs. However, since the

LEA promotor is inactive after late embryogenesis, expression of RIP is specifically restricted to

the seeds of resulting mature plants.

(3) Inducible Promotor

As another alternative method, the patent holders suggest a set up similar to that in (2), only inthis case instead of using a germination-specific promotor upstream of the recombinase gene,

using a promotor in which activity can be directly controlled by an exogenous substance.

Modus operandiof Terminator genes

PC gene C

RepressorProtein ofgene B

PB gene B PA Blocking sequence Gene A

(Norecombinase)

Not Excised

LOX sequence

(No RIP andembryodevelops and seedviable)

Gene operation at breeders field

PC gene C PB gene B PA Gene A

Repressor

Protein ofgene B

(Derepressed B)

Recombinase Excised

LOX sequence &

gene A expressedRIP

Degenerates embryoand seed is unviable

Tetracycline

Gene operation at farmers fields


4/7

How Terminator Technology could affect the Farmers

Terminator Technology can provide a regulatory framework for agricultural development and

fair trade.

Farmers will lose substantial influence and control over production of their own crops.

Terminator Technology can prevent farmers from other countries from pirating varieties ofcrops out of the country.

Farmers will have to buy new seeds every season, which may not be affordable to everyone

especially farmers in developing countries.

Farmers will still have a choice: they can choose varieties that don't carry the terminator gene.

The terminator gene will decrease the variety of wild plants, which decreases the natural plant

diversity; they are adapted to the local environment in order to protect against crop failure, to

provide a continuous and varied food supply, and toward against hunger and malnutrition.

Monsanto stated its commitment to transgenic crops.

"When biotechnology is used with proven agricultural methods and practices, it will offerenvironmentally responsible options to meet continued consumer demands for sustainable and

healthy food production."

Monsanto: "Terminator technology does not exist; it is only a name given to the theoretical

concept 'Gene Protection Technologies' (GPR)".

OPINIONS

Activist group Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) is strong opponents to this

seed sterilizing technique.

RAFI strategically coined the term "Terminator Technology".

Their website encourages Terminator Technology opponents to protest by mass-mailing the

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pat Roy Mooney, head of RAFI said 'its a delightful profit-making platform' for seed

companies although he argued that subsistence farmers in developing countries would be most

adversely affected.

Dr. M. Swaminathan, touted 'father of the green revolution in India', voiced his rage towards

Terminator Technology in a Rediff Business interview, comparing it to 'putting a virus intocomputer software'.

This technology does not offer the necessary free choice of a cafeteria:

'in a cafeteria, you can eat for 10 dollars, you can also eat for one dollar...it all depends uponhow much money you have and what you want to eat.'

It is thus unethical to deny poor farmers more risk-free technology when they do not have the

money or capital to adopt profit-maximizing strategies.


5/7

IN REALITY

Genetically modified foods can potentially solve the global hunger crisis that has been a

looming reality coupled with the unprecedented exponential increase in the world's population

since the turn of the 20th century. U.N. predicted world population increases to 8 million by the year 2020 and pressing shortage

of arable land urgently call for higher crop yield capacity and improved stress resistance in

food crops.

REBUTTAL

Monsanto argues that this seed sterilizing technology exists to protect its intellectual property

and must also generate revenue for continued research into refining the transgenic food crops

that could potentially feed the neediest.

Pollen produced by activated terminator plants would not contain blocker DNA in front of the

RIP gene. If this plant were able to fertilize another plant, the resulting seeds would carry one

copy of the RIP gene that could be transcribed in the late stages of seed development. It couldbe that having only one copy of RIP would still be lethal to the seed.

Some seeds might for some reason not respond to, or might not have soaked up enough of the

tetracycline to activate recombinase. In this case the blocker DNA would not have beenremoved in the resulting plant, and any progeny resulting from a cross of this plant to a wild

type plant would be viable. These seeds would contain both terminator and other novel genes.

A promoter that acts very late in seed development ensures that seeds killed by the toxin would

be almost identical to normal seeds in all other respects. These seeds might then be crushed for

oil and protein, and consumed by humans and other animals. Although the RIP toxin describedearlier is thought to be not directly poisonous to animals (i.e. it is broken down and inactivated

in the gut), it may cause allergic reactions.

Advantages of Terminator technology

An Incentive to the Development of New Plant Varieties

Where effective intellectual property protection systems don't exist or are not enforced,

GURTs could be an alternative to stimulate plant developing activities bybiotech firms.

Improved Farm Management

Non-viable seed produced on V-GURT plants will reduce the propagation of volunteer

plants. Volunteer plants can become an economic problem for larger-scale mechanized

farming systems that incorporatecrop rotation.

Improved grain quality

Under warm, wet harvest conditions non V-GURT grain can sprout, which lowers the

quality of grain produced. It is speculated that this problem would not occur with the use of

V-GURT grain varieties.

Biosafety
http://www.answers.com/topic/biotechnologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/volunteer-botanyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/volunteer-botanyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/crop-rotationhttp://www.answers.com/topic/crop-rotationhttp://www.answers.com/topic/crop-rotationhttp://www.answers.com/topic/harvesthttp://www.answers.com/topic/biotechnologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/volunteer-botanyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/volunteer-botanyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/crop-rotationhttp://www.answers.com/topic/harvest


6/7

Use of V-GURT technology could prevent escape of transgenes into wild relatives and

prevent any impact onbiodiversity. Crops modified to produce non-food products could be

armed with GURT technology to prevent accidental transmission of these traits into cropsdestined for foods.

Disadvantages of Terminator technology

Transmission of the "Terminator" trait to wild plants, or cultivated plants whose seeds are

saved

There is a concern that V-GURT plants could cross-pollinate with non-genetically modified

plants, either in the wild or on the fields of farmers who do not adopt the technology.

Though the V-GURT plants are supposed to produce sterile seeds, there is concern that this

trait will not be expressed in the first generation of a small percentage of these plants, but

be expressed in later generations. This does not seem to be much of a problem in the wild,as a sterile plant would naturally be selected out of a population within one generation of

trait expression. This is however a problem in some farming systems, especially for

indigenous groupswhosave seed rather than purchase it from developers. The loss of theability for such farmers to save seed may lead to decreased agro-ecological biodiversity on

their farms and decreased yields of affected crops.

Safety of Food produced from Terminator technology crops

As with all Genetically Modified crops the food safety of GURT technology would need to

be assessed when and if a commercial release of a GURT containing crop was proposed.

The inequitable distribution of means; the targeting of vulnerable classes

In addition to potential biological and ecological harms, there is both an economic and

normative concern that small farmers, indigenous peoples, and entire rural communities

could be made dependent on agro-industry corporations for seed.

A presumption of entitlement

As with many other technologies, there is debate as to the role and responsibility implicit in

the normative assumptions involved in producing GURTs. The issue is distinct from the

conflict surrounding the production of GM foods generally, in that GURT products are

specifically designed to affect future generations and potentially have a distinct impact onhuman and ecological health and livelihoods. Thus, some believe that in making decisions

regarding such products, considerations should extend beyond what is legally permissible.

It is important to note, that although there exists a wealth of information on terminator

technology in opinions and patents, there is little information in published scientific papers. This isbecause no field tests have been done with terminator plants. In order to directly assess potential

dangers associated with this technology, further tests would be needed.

References:

Barthelamy, I., Martineay, D., Ong, M., Matsunami, R., Ling, N., Benatti, L., Cavallaro, U., Soria,

M. R. and Lappi, D. A. (1993). The expression of saporin, a plant ribosome inactivatingprotein, in E. coli., J. Biol Chem. 268:6541.
http://www.answers.com/topic/transgenehttp://www.answers.com/topic/biodiversityhttp://www.answers.com/topic/infertilityhttp://www.answers.com/topic/indigenous-peopleshttp://www.answers.com/topic/indigenous-peopleshttp://www.answers.com/topic/seed-savinghttp://www.answers.com/topic/seed-savinghttp://www.answers.com/topic/agroecologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/biology-3http://www.answers.com/topic/ecology-1http://www.answers.com/topic/ecology-1http://www.answers.com/topic/economicshttp://www.answers.com/topic/ruralhttp://www.answers.com/topic/humanhttp://www.answers.com/topic/healthhttp://www.answers.com/topic/transgenehttp://www.answers.com/topic/biodiversityhttp://www.answers.com/topic/infertilityhttp://www.answers.com/topic/indigenous-peopleshttp://www.answers.com/topic/seed-savinghttp://www.answers.com/topic/agroecologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/biology-3http://www.answers.com/topic/ecology-1http://www.answers.com/topic/economicshttp://www.answers.com/topic/ruralhttp://www.answers.com/topic/humanhttp://www.answers.com/topic/health


7/7

Galau, G. A., Wang H. Y- C., and Hughes D. W. (1992). Cotton Lea4(D19) and LeaA2(D132)

Group 1 Lea genes encoding water stress-related proteins containing a 20-amino acid motif,

Plant Physiol. 99:783-788.

Galau, G. A., Wang H. Y- C., and Hughes D. W. (1993). Cotton Lea5 and Lea14 encode atypical

late embryogenesis-abundant proteins, Plant Physiol. 101:695-696.

Gatz, C., and Quail, P. H. (1988). Tn10-encoded tet repressor can regulate an operator-containing

plant promoter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 85:1394-1397.

Gatz, C., Frohberg, C., and Wenderburg R. (1992). Stringent repression and homogeneous de-repression by tetracycline of a modified CaMV 35S promoter in intact transgenic tobacco

plants, The Plant Journal 2:397-404.

Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth/White wealth: a new perspective on racial

inequality (New York, Routledge).

Terminator Technology: Boon or Curse to Farmers/ Jogendra Singh, Vijayata Singh and Ashwani Kumar

Documents

Transcript of Terminator Technology: Boon or Curse to Farmers/ Jogendra Singh, Vijayata Singh and Ashwani Kumar