NOTICE: Hard copies of the Australian New Crops Newsletter are available from the publisher, Dr Rob Fletcher. Details of availability are included in the
Advice on Publications Available.[There has been much colourful correspondence on this topic in the press and on the Internet over the past twelve months. Much of the information in this article has been extracted from an article by: Dr Darrell Cox, Director of Education Programs, Educational Concerns for Hunger Organisation which appeared in ECHO Development Notes 61: 5-7.
The ECHO Development Notes are edited by:
Dr ML Price, ECHO
17430 Durrance Road
North Fort Myers
Florida 33917-2239 USA
Telephone: 1 941 543 3246
Facsimile: 1 941 543 5317
Email: echo@echonet.org
Web site: http://www.xc.org/echo/]
On March 3, 1998, the American cotton seed company, Delta & Pine Land Co, and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced they had received US Patent #5,723,765 on a technique that genetically disables the seed harvested from a crop having this protection system.
This renders the seed unable to be germinated if planted again.
Specific genetic material needs to be inserted into crops to render them capable of expressing this non-germinating character.
To activate the system, a chemical would need to be used on the seed prior to it being sold to the farmer.
Under a research agreement with the USDA, the Delta & Pine Land Co has the exclusive right to license the new technology to others.
While only cotton and tobacco seeds have been shown to respond to the new technique, the company plans to have the technology ready for a much wider range of crops shortly after the year 2000.
It has been claimed that patents for the technology have been applied for in at least 78 countries (1998 Summer Edition, Seed Savers Newsletter, Decorah, Iowa, USA).
What do the opponents of the technology fear?
Rural Advancement Foundation In-ternational (RAFI; Web site: http://www.rafi.org), a non-profit international organisation headquartered in Canada has condemned the new technology.
RAFI has done so because of the potential to significantly limit the ability of farmers to save their own seed.
RAFI has expressed concern about the impact such technology may have on rice, wheat, sorghum and soybean (major self-pollinated crops) in emerging nations.
Until this technology was available, the major international plant breeding companies confined themselves almost exclusively to the improvement and production of hybrids.
This was because hybrids have an in-built 'patent' system, requiring fresh hybrid seed, manufactured by the company each season.
Both hybrids and the technology protection system will promote a strong seed industry.
The potential of hybrids encouraged private companies into crop improvement in the past and this technology will probably encourage them into the breeding of self-pollinated crops in the future.
Opponents of the technology system claim this development may reduce the current extent of public breeding effort around the world or such breeders may find it difficult financially to operate without adopting the system.
On the other hand, the decline in public plant breeding has already been occurring for some time now.
The emphasis in public plant breeding may simply change from crop improvement of the staple crops to other useful endeavours.
Hybrids in the staple crops have the advantage of improved performance over their inbred parents and generally more consistently higher production over open-pollinated populations in these crops.
However, it is not likely that self-pollinated varieties carrying the technology protection system by itself will have such a substantial advantage over varieties without it, unless other characters are also introduced at the same time.
One disadvantage of the new technology may be reduced diversity with the concurrent risk of widespread vulnerability to disease or environmental stress.
This will apply if the numbers of varieties available, or the genetic differentiation of the varieties available is reduced.
It has also been claimed that diversity will be reduced if farmers, particularly in emerging countries, cannot select plants within their own crops and retain the seed.
One problem with such an approach in self-pollinated crops of course is that the variability evident is usually only environmental and not genetic in origin.
The bio-safety issues which arise with any new biotechnology are probably pertinent with this new technology, as well.
Concern has been expressed about the effect that pollen from the crop with the new technology may have if it is able to fertilise conventional crops or even wild relatives elsewhere.
Such a risk is considerably less with self-pollinated crops, since the extent of pollen transfer is less than with the naturally cross-pollinated crops. If the trait were expressed, then the resulting hybrid seed would not germinate.
The problem in responding to this concern, as with so many other biotechnology developments, is that no-one can anticipate all the possible hazards from the commercial application of such technology.
However, zero tolerance of unexpected problems has never been practical with any innovation.
The risk we always face is the scale of any unexpected problem.
The technology protection system will mean an increase in seed costs for those farmers who currently retain their own seed, if they decide to purchase fresh seed each year. However, such a decision would be an economic decision, dependent on the performance of the particular varieties concerned.
Only when farmers are able to recoup considerably more than the added cost of annual seed purchases will they choose varieties with the technology protection system.
Otherwise, farmers will stay with crop varieties for which they can save their own seed.
In addition, innovative farmers will continue to be plant breeders, both by saving seed of indigenous land races or varieties and improving these genotypes through mass selection.
The extent to which the technology protection system will be licensed into other crops is not yet clear.
However, Delta & Pine Land Co has been purchased by Monsanto and it has been recently announced that American Home Products would be acquiring Monsanto to produce the largest agrochemical/life industries company in the world.
This and other seed company consolidations, coupled with the decline in public plant breeding, may reduce the numbers of options that farmers will have in terms of varieties amongst their staple crops.
Any claims made by authors in the Australian New Crops Newsletter are presented by the Editors in good faith. Readers would be wise to critically examine the circumstances associated with any claims to determine the applicability of such claims to their specific set of circumstances. This material can be reproduced, with the provision that the source and the author (or editors, if applicable) are acknowledged and the use is for information or educational purposes. Contact with the original author is probably wise since the material may require updating or amendment if used in other publications. Material sourced from the Australian New Crops Newsletter cannot be used out of context or for commercial purposes not related to its original purpose in the newsletter
Contact: Dr Rob Fletcher, School of Land and Food, The University of Queensland Gatton College, 4345; Telephone: 07 5460 1311 or 07 5460 1301; Facsimile: 07 5460 1112; International facsimile: 61 7 5460 1112; Email:
r.fletcher@mailbox.uq.edu.au[
New Crops Home Page] [New Crops Program] [Australian New Crops Newsletter] [New Crops Publications] [Order Form] [People] [Crop Profiles] [Other Resources]originally created by:
GK; latest update 6 June 1999 by: RF