Terminator technology and NZ's position in Brazil

For more detailed information, read this report by the Federation of German Scientists PDF (48 KB).

WHAT ARE GURTS AND WHAT IS TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY?

Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTs) is a class of GE technology that allows genetic traits to be switched on and off via application of an external inducer such as a chemical.

Terminal technology, or sterile seed technologies, are a type of Varietal-GURTS (V-GURTS) ie. they switch viability off and on for that variety. T-GURTS are technologies that switch discrete traits on or off.

WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS?

Who benefits?
Seed companies are investing in this area because it would allow them almost total control over seed supply. Farmers who use such seeds would not be able to plant a crop, save the seed, and re-sow next season. This technology makes the next generation sterile unless a chemical trigger is applied, thereby protecting the companies investment.

Who is at risk?
The danger is that while the proportion of terminator seeds that remain viable is not enough to provide a crop, enough remains viable to create a cross-contamination risk. In addition pollen is still able to travel. This puts crops grown by subsistence farmers and poor farmers at a real risk of contamination, with potentially lethal consequences. It also potentially puts native ecosystems at risk.

In addition the many international cases of contamination of seed shipments means that a crop grown anywhere creates a risk everywhere.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY?
The NZ government is maintaining a fiction that there is no moratorium on GURTS.

Paragraph 23 from decision 5 of the 5th conference of the parties held in Nairobi in May 2000 recommends that "in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing…"

Since that recommendation there has been a de facto moratorium on field testing of these technologies, and the EU plenary has recently confirmed that in its view there is a moratorium and it rejects any attempt to weaken or undermine it. A recent EU resolution stated that: "[the decision] taken by COP5 in 2000 lays down a moratorium on the field-testing and marketing of V-GURT technology" and E.U. member states should "reject any proposals to undermine the moratorium on the field-testing and marketing of so-called terminator technologies set by CBD Decision V/5 through a 'case-by-case' assessment or approval of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies".

In fact New Zealand's position at Curitiba makes no sense unless it is based on the implicit acceptance that such a moratorium exists.

WHAT IS NEW ZEALAND DOING AT CURITIBA?
Since January New Zealand, Canada and Australia have been attempting to introduce wording into the convention that allows field trials to be assessed on a 'case by case' basis by individual countries. The United States is supporting this position, although it is not a signatory.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH A CASE BY CASE ASSESSMENT?
While the NZ government has said that it does not support the use of technologies that will disadvantage subsistence farmers, this is the practical impact of its position. GE seed companies will simply set up field trials in those countries with the least restrictive regulations and with the least capacity to monitor any trials. Those are likely to be the countries where farmers are most at risk, ie a high proportion of them are subsistence farmers.

New Zealand is fortunate in having some regulations and the ability to enforce them. It is unethical to deny protection to the many countries, especially in Asia, Africa and South America, who do not share that fortune.

In addition the case by case assessment criteria followed by regulatory authorities such as in NZ is based on a very narrow view of risk. It does not take account of social or economic impacts and so fails to protect the interests of subsistence and poor farmers.

WHY WOULDN'T WE AT LEAST LOOK AT TECHNOLOGIES THAT MADE POSSUMS STERILE, FOR EXAMPLE?
This is a specious example put forward by the NZ government. It is hard to see how something designed to make possums sterile would come under the definition of a GURT, unless the proposal was to breed millions of GE possums and airdrop them all over the country in the hope they would mate with wild possums and create sterile offspring. The suggestion is ludicrous.

WHAT DO WE WANT?
If the NZ government is genuine about not supporting technologies that disadvantage subsistence farmers or put them at risk, it must change its position at Curitiba and push for stronger restrictions around the field testing and commercialisation of V-GURTS, in particular, terminator seeds.