This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Fw: Plant Technology Protection System

The below was just sent to me concerning the 'terminator seeds".  I have
been waiting a very long time for it and it arrived only after I mailed
another person on this group about not getting a reply.
roglun@fidnet.com
--------------------------------------------------
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
and with strange eons even death may die.
HPL

----------
> From: Sandy Miller Hays <shays@asrr.arsusda.gov>
> To: roglun@fidnet.com
> Subject: Plant Technology Protection System
> Date: Friday, August 07, 1998 10:29 AM
> 
> Dear Sir or Madam:
> 
> Your question about the plant Technology Protection System (TPS) was
> forwarded to me by the staff of the National Agricultural Library.  TPS
has
> sometimes been referred to in the media as "terminator technology."
> 
> In response to your request for information, here's some background for
you.
> 
> On March 3, 1998, a patent was granted to the Agricultural Research
> Service--that's the chief research agency of the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture--and a company called Delta and Pine Land Co. of Scott, Miss.
> It's my understanding that DPL is a major producer of cottonseed.
> 
> The patent covered "Control of Plant Gene Expression."  The technology
being
> patented came out of cooperative research between ARS and DPL under what
is
> known as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or CRADA. 
CRADAs
> are not an unusual factor in ARS' operations; this agency has entered
into
> approximately 800 CRADAs with private companies since the mid-1980s.
> 
> The reason for a CRADA is this:  ARS is in the "business" of developing
new
> technologies to benefit the U.S. food and fiber production system...but
> we're not in the business of actually making or selling a specific
product.
> So ARS will "partner," if you will, with a particular company on a
project,
> the idea being that if a product develops out of this research, the
company
> would get "first crack" at a marketing license.  This way all the great
> things that are developed in federal laboratories using taxpayers'
dollars
> actually get turned into products for consumers, rather than just
> languishing on a shelf in a federal lab somewhere.
> 
> At any rate, the work on "control of plant gene expression" was done
under a
> CRADA signed in 1993 between ARS and DPL.
> 
> The question being tackled was a simple one:  Can you put a gene into a
seed
> and then turn that seed on and off when you want to, rather than having
to
> wait for Nature to turn it on and off?  The answer appears to be "yes."
> 
> In the particular work in question, a gene was inserted (via genetic
> engineering) into a seed.  Then, if that seed receives a certain
treatment
> before planting, the inserted gene is "turned on."  If the seed does not
> receive the specific pre-planting treatment, the gene remains "turned
off."
> 
> To be more specific about this project, the way the gene is "turned on"
is
> by treating the transgenic seed with tetracycline before planting that
seed.
> If the tetracycline treatment is given, the gene in the seed is turned
on.
> That seed can be planted and will produce a plant.  That plant, in turn,
> will produce seed--but those second-generation seed will not germinate.
> 
> However, by the same token, you can take that same transgenic seed and
NOT
> treat it with tetracycline--just plant it in the ground without the
> pre-planting treatment.  In that case, the inserted gene will NOT get
turned
> on; the seed will grow a plant, the plant will produce seed, those
> second-generation seed can be planted and will produce a plant, those
plants
> will produce seed....and on and on and on.
> 
> The key is the pre-planting treatment--in the case of our studies,
> tetracycline.  Tetracycline was used because we deliberately chose a
> substance that is NOT going to be encountered "accidentally" in Nature. 
We
> do not want to turn on the inserted  gene by accident.
> 
> Our studies were done first in tobacco, as a model species only.  (It's
my
> understanding that tobacco is the "guinea pig" of the plant world--very
easy
> to work with.  But ARS is NOT doing--and is not INTERESTED in
> doing--research on tobacco.  We used tobacco as a model species ONLY.)
> 
> Later tests were done in cotton, although I think only greenhouse tests
have
> been done--not field tests.
> 
> The process worked in tobacco and in cotton...so far.
> 
> The $64,000 question is, of course:  Why would ARS want do this research?
> The answer is this:  There is a tremendous amount of genetic diversity
> available to us; we're constantly learning something new about a plant
gene
> that confers this desirable trait or that one, such as ability to
withstand
> drought or ability to fend off insect attacks.  The tools are out there
for
> development of some terrific new plant varieties, utilizing the genetic
> diversity that we now know exists.
> 
> But this type of research still takes a lot of time and a lot of
money...and
> there's not that much incentive at present for a plant breeding to
company
> to invest a lot of dollars and scientist-hours in coming up with those
> terrific new varieties.  Why?  Because as things stand now, a plant
breeding
> company might spend years and lots of dollars developing and patenting a
new
> variety.  They finally put it on the market.  Everyone rushes out to buy
the
> seed that first year.  Everyone goes home, plants the seed, grows the
> resultant plants, collects the seed from those plants...and never has to
go
> back to the plant breeding company for more seed because the people are
now
> "growing their own."  This means that, for all its time and effort and
> investment, the plant breeding company has managed to make good sales
that
> first year...and that's it.
> 
> It was the hope of ARS that if a seed company could see a way that it
could
> "protect" its research investment--"copyright" their new seed, if you
> will--those seed companies might be significantly more interested in
putting
> for the effort to develop the new varieties that farmers really
need--like
> crops that can live in very dry areas or survive on poor-quality water or
> even worse quality soil.
> 
> ARS also develops new varieties of crops...but we can't do it all.  We
need
> the efforts of plant breeding companies, too, to meet farmers' needs; it
was
> hoped this "technology protection system" would encourage them to push
> harder on developing new varieties.  BUT---important note:  New plant
> varieties that come out of ARS--and probably those that come out of
> land-grant university systems as well--will NOT contain the "technology
> protection system."  It is ARS' mission to serve the public and the needs
of
> our agricultural community.  As a result, farmers will still continue to
> have a wide choice of varieties to plant, with and without TPS.
> 
> Now, to get back on track:  While ARS has a CRADA with DPL, and while DPL
is
> a co-holder of the patent with ARS, DPL still has to come to ARS to
> negotiate a license to market this technology.  This is a very important
> point!!   Those negotiations are in the very early stages...and as those
> negotiations proceed, ARS will be very vigilant in protecting the
public's
> interests.  Also, it is ARS policy that technology in which it has an
> ownership interest will be made widely available.  Therefore, this
> technology will be freely available for research purposes by public and
> private researchers, ensuring that no one seed company will monopolize
the
> technology.
> 
> I must point out that I have not heard anyone mention use of this
technology
> in garden-type crops--only in the very large, mainstream agricultural
crops,
> such as cotton.  And what our researchers have told me is that the system
> basically has to be "custom-designed" each time for each individual crop;
> that this is not "one-size-fits-all" technology, and there's no guarantee
it
> will even work in all crops...and if it were to work, there's no
guarantee
> that it would be deemed appropriate for use in all crops.  We're still in
> very early days here on what and where and how this technology can and
> should be used.  For example, we know it works in cotton--or at least, it
> seemed to work in lab tests--but the earliest that anyone expects a
> commercial cottonseed with this technology to be on the market is the
year
> 2004.
> 
> Even if the technology does work in a specific crop, use of this
technology
> in individual varieties will require the approval of various regulatory
> agencies (ARS is NOT a regulatory agency--we're strictly a research
agency).
> Commercial production of TPS plants--as with any genetically engineered
> plant--would require approval by USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection
> Service, so there's an important safeguard there; they're not going to
allow
> a crop into the environment that might "accidentally" pose a threat to
> another crop.  So you can rest assured that significant safeguards will
be
> put into place before this technology pops up in a neighboring field. 
Also,
> if the technology is to be used in a food crop, that food crop must
conform
> to the rules of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
> 
> One of the great fears concerning transgenic plants--plants that have
genes
> other than those given to them by Nature--is that those "transgenes" will
> somehow "jump" into nature.  With the "technology protection system,"
it's
> virtually guaranteed that that cannot happen--because while the
> first-generation transgenic seeds will produce a plant, the seeds that
come
> off that plant are sterile--so they absolutely CANNOT "spread" the
transgene
> into other plants.
> 
> I think you can safely report to your gardening friends that this is not
> going to pose problems for their tomato crops...or their flower
crops...or
> their watermelon crops, for a number of reasons, starting with the fact
that
> this is likely to be limited to massive field crop varieties that will
bring
> in enormous quantities of income to cover the extensive costs incurred by
> the plant breeding company...and secondly, they have agencies like the
> Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service whose role it is to ensure
that
> nothing goes into a field that could endanger other crops.
> 
> I'm sorry to have given you such a long-winded answer, but I wanted you
to
> have all the details.  If you feel you need additional assistance, please
> feel free to call me anytime at 301-344-2415 (after Aug. 21, my telephone
> number will change to 301-504-1636) or you can e-mail me at
> shays@asrr.arsusda.gov
> 
> Good luck with your gardening!
> 
> Sandy Miller Hays
> Director of Information
> Agricultural Research Service
> U.S. Department of Agriculture
> Greenbelt, Maryland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index