On This Page:

"Terminator seeds" in the news.
How the technology works.
The Controversy, Part I: Corporate control of the seed supply
The Controversy, Part II: The "sterile universe"

In early 1998, the Delta & Pine Land Company, working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, was awarded a patent for its newly developed system to control the timing of gene "expression"-- that is, how to make genes engineered into plants turn on and off when desired. One suggested application of the technology was to turn on a "lethal" gene during seed development-- a plant would grow normally but would not be able to produce seeds for the next generation.

Farmers who purchase and grow GE crops already sign agreements not to replant the next year's crop from saved seeds, but instead must purchase new seed from dealers each year. The utility of the new technology to an ag-biotech company marketing GE crops would be to prevent farmers from "cheating" by breaking their agreements and saving seeds anyway. For this reason, the seed-killing strategy was later named "Genetic Use Restriction Technology" or GURT.

News of the patent approval hit the news in early April, 1998, when the warning bells were rung by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), dubbing the patented system "Terminator Technology." RAFI claimed that use of the technology would be detrimental to small farmers, who depend on seed-saving practices and cannot afford to purchase new seeds every year, and warned that the technology could spread sterility to other plants. Much of the criticism was directed at the Monsanto Corporation-- although it did not develop the technology, it did own an 8 percent share of Delta & Pine, was planning a by-out, and had hinted that it might utilize the technology in its GE crops. Responding to the growing controversy, however, Monsanto announced less than a year later that it would not pursue the technology further, and would not purchase Delta & Pine. Several countries and international organizations around the world have since banned the technology.

The so-called GURT outlined in Delta & Pine's patent is still a hypothetical strategy, and to date, the method has not actually been engineered into any marketed commercial crop anywhere in the world. Delta & Pine however has recently made it clear that they do intend to develop the technology further for use in cotton. Several other companies have also acquired patents for similar GURT methods.
[top of page]

The GURT system, as outlined in the patent, has three rather elaborate steps, each of which would be encoded by a gene introduced into a plant by genetic engineering:

1) A "terminator" gene that halts seed development, programmed to switch on specifically in the seed's embryo when the growing seed nears maturity (in genetics lingo, an "inducible, seed-specific promoter"). One example might be a non-toxic protein that blocks protein synthesis in the embryo. The plant and its seeds (soybeans, corn kernels, etc) would look entirely normal through harvest time, but the seeds would not grow when planted.

2) A "repressor" gene that keeps the "terminator" gene turned off until the seeds are sold to farmers. Breeders and seed companies would need a way to be able to produce several generations of plants before marketing the seeds without the seeds dying in the second year. This gene would be programmed to stay "on" all of the time (a "constitutive promoter")- thus, normally keeping the "terminator" gene turned "off."

3) An "activator" gene, which-- in the presence of some chemical applied to the seeds (an "inducible promoter")-- produces a protein that snips out the part of the "terminator" gene recognized by the "repressor" gene.

Follow that? Try this: when the seed company is ready to sell its seeds to growers, it first treats the seeds with some chemical (several different options), which turns on the "activator" gene, which prevents the "repressor" gene from working, which allows the "terminator" gene to come on, which would stop the seeds from developing further. Why don't those seeds die before they are sold to farmers? Because the "activator" chemical treatment is applied after the seeds have fully developed-- the "terminator" gene won't block seed development until the next generation of seeds, the seeds being harvested by the farmer.
[top of page]

The main controversy associated with the use of the GURT method is its potential impact on seed-saving practices by farmers. Groups like RAFI argue that smaller farmers, particularly those in Third World nations, cannot afford to buy seed every year, and seed-saving practices are vital to their traditional livelihoods. If forced to purchase new seeds annually, small farmers might be at a disadvantage to larger farmers or might no longer plant their traditional varieties, reducing important genetic diversity.

On the other hand, proponents argue that no one (including small farmers) is forced to purchase GE seed. When farmers choose to grow GE varieties, they currently must sign a contract agreeing not to save seeds for replanting. The GURT system might be used to prevent growers from breaking their contracts and cheating. Before the introduction of GE crops, as many as one-third of US soybean farmers saved seeds for the next year's crop. Today, with as many as 70% of US soybean acres genetically engineered, many farmers have stopped saving seed. The GURT system might be used to prevent growers who have already agreed not to save seed from breaking their contracts and cheating. However, if hypothetically GE varieties become so popular that seed companies begin to drop their non-GE varieties, it may be possible that some farmers feel that they have no choice but to abandon seed saving and purchase GE varieties. This is not inconceivable-- the last 10-20 years has seen considerable consolidation in the seed industry, with fewer and fewer suppliers. Further, even if choice exists, the smaller farmers that cannot afford the GE varieties (or choose not to) might be at a competitive disadvantage to the adopters.

Nevertheless, GURT is a system the purpose of which is clearly to protect the financial interests of the developers of new GE crop varieties. Application of the system by a seed company would suggest there is little or no intent to make new GE technologies freely available to farmers or public breeders.
[top of page]

Critics of the "Terminator Technology" often paint a ghastly picture of "terminator gene" escaping and spreading into other fields and into the wild, causing crop failures and eventually spreading its sterility throughout the world's ecosystems:

"This would present a huge risk to the world because it could spread and sterilize all living plants, trees, etc."
[Bragg Health Science website]

This line of argument bungles basic genetics: lethal genes do not spread through populations. Any plant carrying the terminator gene will not produce viable seeds. If the pollen from a GE plant carrying a GURT system fertilizes a plant in a nearby non-GE field, that pollination will not produce a viable seed. If the pollen fertilizes a wild, weedy relative of the crop, it will also fail to produce a hybrid seed. The method was developed to prevent plants carrying genetically engineered genes from surviving into the next generation.