Genetic Use Restriction Technology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic Use Restriction Technology ( GURT , in German 'genetic use restriction technology ') refers to methods of green genetic engineering that restrict or prevent the spread and reproduction of genetically modified plants . These technologies include different strategies that either influence the characteristics of genetically modified properties ( trait-GURTs , T-GURTs for short ) or the plant's ability to reproduce ( varietal-GURTs , V-GURTs for short ). Seed-sterilizing V-GURTs are often referred to as terminator technologies .

properties

GURTs are in the research and development stage. Some techniques have already been patented, but so far no GURT has been implemented for market approval. It is discussed whether the GURTs are even suitable for use instead of serving as a basis for further research. Since the fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) , there has also been a de facto ban on field trials with GURTs in the Parties.

GURTs were developed with the aim of ensuring the protection of intellectual property of breeders and seed breeding companies and of preventing the seeds from multiplying by farmers (plant variety and patent protection ). They also wanted to offer a stronger breeding incentive. In addition, the transaction costs incurred in enforcing patent rights for non-GURT-based proprietary seed varieties would be eliminated. Furthermore, the spread of fertile, genetically modified pollen into the environment should be prevented.

T-BELTS

T-GURTs control the expression of a certain genetically modified property in plants. The plants remain fertile and develop germinable seeds, but some properties are not passed on. T-GURTs reduce the expression of the transgene in subsequent generations and thus the appearance of the associated properties in their phenotype . However, T-GURTs do not reduce the frequency with which the genetically modified gene occurs in the genotype of subsequent generations.

In the case of T-GURTs, a certain genetically determined property - for example a salt tolerance - can be triggered when buying seeds or at a later point in time by a chemical activator offered by the seed manufacturer. Syngenta received its first patent for this technology in the USA in 2001.

V-BELTS

V-GURTs hinder the re-sowing and spreading of varieties of the following generation. For this purpose either the development of the plant is inhibited, the seeds or the pollen are sterilized, or the spread is prevented. The techniques include changing the seeds (distribution, size, color, sterility ) and vegetative growth ( lethality , reduced fitness, flowering) as well as pollen and chloroplast survival ability.

V-GURTs could be particularly suitable for self-pollinating plants such as wheat , barley , soybeans and cotton , as hybrid breeding is difficult with these and thus the possibility would be given to improve effective plant variety protection.

Furthermore, V-GURTs could prevent undesired outcrossing . However, research into this potential and possible ecological risks is still very inadequate.

Terminator Technologies

After the USDA and the seed manufacturer Delta and Pine Land (now Monsanto ) received a patent in the USA in March 1998 for a jointly developed V-GURT for seed sterility called the Technology Protection System , this was granted by the Canadian NGO Rural Advancement Foundation International ( RAFI, today the ETC Group ) is called "Terminator Technology". This is the name under which the seed sterility technology became known to the public. Since then, parts of the scientific community, some governments and NGOs have raised concerns about the possible use of V-GURTs, as they believe they would endanger food security , biodiversity and access to technology. The false assumption that terminator technology had been introduced into varieties motivated, among other things, the destruction of field tests with Bt cotton by non-governmental organizations in India at the end of the 1990s .

This technology uses the bacterial Cre / loxP system , which allows DNA pieces to be cut out of the genome via non-homologous recombination . The sequence to be removed is enclosed by loxP sequences, and the Cre recombinase cuts out the sequence in between. In terminator plants, expression of Cre recombinase is induced, for example, by the tetracycline repressor system, and this removes a blocking sequence. This lies between a seed-specific promoter (for example LEA ) and a lethal gene , for example the cytotoxic ribosome inhibitory protein . The plants are grown for seed production and the Cre recombinase is induced before the seeds are sold so that sterile seeds can be sold.

Economic Effects

Depending on the enforceability of property rights, both the size and distribution of welfare gains can vary between seed companies , farmers, and consumers. Assuming that the protection provided by GURTs (in contrast to patents ) is unlimited in time, the extent of the protection of GURTs for the simulated scenario of widespread use in the US corn sector is above the social optimum.

GURTs can accelerate the development of improved seeds, but at the same time make their diffusion more difficult, especially in developing countries. A simulation based on experience with hybrid seeds suggests that the widespread use of GURTs in industrialized and emerging countries such as China would be worthwhile with regard to productivity increases , but not in the Least Developed Countries . There, the negative productivity effects due to slower diffusion would outweigh the positive productivity effects due to the accelerated development of improved seeds.

Because of the strong economic advantages for the seed manufacturers associated with GUR techniques, further market concentration in favor of a minority of manufacturers would be supported. Varieties that promise less commercial use could disappear from the market and thereby further reduce genetic and biological diversity .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e Hills, M., Hall, L., Arnison, P., Good, A. (2007): Genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs): strategies to impede transgene movement. Trends in Plant Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 177-183. ( Memento of the original from March 15, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 610 kB)  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.cof.orst.edu
  2. ↑ a b c d e Budd, G. (2006): Are GURTs Needed to Remedy Intellectual Property Failures and Environmental Problems with GM Crops? In ( Evenson, R. & Santaniello, V., eds.): International Trade and Policies for Genetically Modified Products. CAB International. Pp. 147-161.
  3. ↑ Scientific Services of the German Bundestag, Susanne Donner, WD 8: Modern Plant Breeding (Part II): Cisgenetics and Terminator Technology , No. 34/07 (June 5, 2007) (PDF; 84 kB)
  4. ^ Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). CBD website
  5. ↑ Seeds that do not germinate - information on V-GURTs  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . Biosicherheit.de, February 19, 2007.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www. Pflanzenforschung.de  
  6. ^ Y. Sang, RJ Millwood, C. Neal Stewart: Gene use restriction technologies for transgenic plant bioconfinement. In: Plant biotechnology journal. Volume 11, Number 6, August 2013, pp. 649-658, ISSN  1467-7652 . doi: 10.1111 / pbi.12084 . PMID 23730743 .
  7. ↑ cf. Luttermann / Mitulla: Gene patents and monopoly formation in seeds (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) , Journal for the entire food law 2008, 390
  8. ↑ Herring, Ronald (2007): The genomics revolution and development studies: Science, poverty and politics. Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1-30.
  9. ^ Dutfield, G. (2007): Social and Economic Consequences of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies in Developing Countries. In (Kesan, J., ed.): Agricultural Biotechnology and Intellectual Property. CAB International.
  10. ^ Joel I. Cohen & Robert Paarlberg (2004): Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries - A Report from the Field. World Development, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 1563-1577. (PDF; 211 kB)
  11. ^ H. Daniell: Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. In: Nature Biotechnology . New York 20.2002. Pp. 581-586. ISSN  1087-0156 doi: 10.1038 / nbt0602-581 and Erratum ( doi: 10.1038 / nbt0802-843c )
  12. ↑ JT Odell, J. Hoopes, W. Vermerris: Seed-Specific Gene Activation Mediated by the Cre / lox Site-Specific Recombination System. In: Plant Physiology. Rockville 106.1994, 4, pp. 447-458. ISSN  0032-0889
  13. ↑ Lence, S., Heyes, D., McCunn, A., Smith, S., Niebur, W. (2005): Welfare Impacts of Intellectual Property Protection in the Seed Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 951-968.
  14. ↑ Goeschl, T., Swanson, T. (2002): Genetic use restriction technologies and the diffusion of yield gains to developing countries. Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 75-92.
  15. ↑ Susanne Donner: Modern Plant Breeding (Part II): Cisgenetics and Terminator Technique ( Memento of the original from August 16, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 84 kB) German Bundestag - Scientific Services No. 34/07, June 5, 2007. Retrieved September 8, 2012.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundestag.de