Thank you.
My background is as a genetic scientist, and at the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was just mentioned by my colleague here, I represent the Federation of German Scientists. In that way, I represent Germany and the U.K. a little bit in my nationality.
My concern is also with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, so I've been here in Montreal at the negotiations a number of times. It is also that expertise around biosafety and gene regulation that I bring to this meeting.
Briefly, with respect to GURTs, as we call it in the CBD, it is genetic use restriction technology, otherwise referred to as terminator technology, in respect to seeds that are sterile. And as we heard, we also have the other variety, which are seeds that will not express certain traits of plants unless sprayed. In addressing this topic, I want to proceed under four headings: the purpose of GURTs; the design of GURTs; the specifics of it in comparison, for example, to other GMOs or to seedless grapes or hybrid seeds; and the problems with GURTs, the risk scenarios and potential impacts on farmers.
Briefly, to the purpose, as I see it, it's twofold, according to its original design--I'm now talking about terminator technology or V-GURTs. According to its original design, it is intended as an IP protection--protection of intellectual property--or as it's called by those who are currently developing it, Delta and Pine Land, TPS--technology protection system. It is to protect the technology of those who develop it, meaning that the farmers cannot reuse any saved seed.
The second purpose is to protect the environment from contamination. If I have sterile seeds, then anything that escapes will not be able to multiply in the environment. It is predominantly under that heading that it is discussed by regulators, and I will go into that a bit more in a moment.
Just briefly on the design, it has three major components. The first component is to have a toxin gene, a gene that produces a toxin that is lethal to the cell, to the plant. It's not a toxin gene when it's consumed; it's just to kill the cell. A toxin gene is put into a plant that then is supposed to be expressed, activated, at the very late embryonic stage--that is, when the seed is already developed. Then the gene will switch on so that the seed can't sprout, and the embryo will be terminated.
The problem, of course, is that if I'm the seed multiplier, how do I multiply it if my plant doesn't produce fertile seed? I need to prevent this gene from being active for the multiplication purpose; therefore, I block this gene from being active by putting, literally, a block in front of it. Now, I need to be able to switch it on later. So what do I do?
I now take a next set of genes, which has something we could say is like a molecular scissors, an enzyme that will recognize this block that I've put in and cut it out so that the gene can then become active.
But you can see that I now have a problem. I have put in a set of molecular scissors. I need to regulate them because, at one point, I will want to give the seeds to the farmer and I want the whole mechanism to be activated. I need a third set of genes that now have a repressor built in to repress the molecular scissors.
It's what we often refer to as the gene switch or gene switch technology. It means we have a component that's often taken from bacterial background, because it's been well researched, which will then react to chemicals.
In the original design, for example, tetracycline would be the trigger for the whole mechanism. This is not used in the model any longer, but alcohol-triggered mechanisms are thought about now. It means the plants are treated or something is added to the seed coating, and the mechanism is then triggered.
From the scientific perspective and my analysis and that of many of my colleagues, the problem is that we can't look at whether a whole plant works or doesn't work. I can't give you that analysis. As Stephen Yarrow already explained, GURTs do not exist yet. No greenhouse trial data is available from Canada or from anywhere else. It does not exist, and it's therefore hard for us to now give you all the details of an analysis.
We can tell you about individual components, how they work when you put them into a plant, and whether or not they work 100% reliably. I don't want to go into the details here, but if you look through all the literature or at the experiments of colleagues, it's not the case that they work 100% of the time.
For example, we have a problem with gene silencing, which is a phenomenon mostly seen in plants that have been genetically modified, where plants switch off a gene that has been introduced. In this case, you can see that it's a very complex system. There are many areas where a plant can interfere, for example, by silencing a gene. It is a problem.
Another problem is the inducer. If the chemical I apply doesn't get to all the plants or all the cells at the right time and in the right amount, the trigger will not be switched. Again, the system doesn't work.
Another possibility is that mutations will occur. Of course, it's a biological system. Plants are alive. This changes, and everything changes, otherwise evolution wouldn't take place. But we also need to be able to adapt to other situations.
Mutations and gene silencing are part of the plants' ability to survive. Of course, genes can segregate in the multiplication process. If the genes don't stay together, the mechanism again doesn't work.
To put it in a summary, we have a technology in front of us that, by its design, is very vulnerable and will in all likelihood be unable to produce to 100%. The components don't, so there is no reason to believe the whole will. We therefore need to regulate and do risk assessments for both scenarios of when the terminator technology will work and when it won't work. We need to look at both.
Common to both is the fact they produce pollen that will be able to cross-pollinate. The idea of protection against contamination is only for seed of the second generation to regrow. Pollen can cross-fertilize into nearby farmers' fields or into relatives elsewhere and will therefore give rise to seeds that potentially contain all the transgenes out of the components produced by those genes.
Thirdly, quite a number of them also will be sterile. So if a farmer saves the seeds, that means he or she can't reuse them in the way they had before, because now there will be less yield because some of the seeds will not grow anything further. Therefore, a farmer can't rely on their own seeds any longer. That means that in a way it's undermining the capacity of farmers to save seeds.
Another area, of course, is that for a farmer who wants to sell their crops, let's say terminator technology was being used in order to grow crops with pharmaceutical compounds in them, which definitely you don't want to have in a food crop that you want to sell on the market--if it's contaminated, then you can't sell it. So terminator technology, in that sense, or V-GURTs, do not work as a biocontainment, because the genes can spread, and in some cases they are inheritable.
Just briefly, what is the difference between these and other technologies that we have? For one thing, there are other ideas about containment tools using other methods, for example, putting genes into chloroplasts. I will not go into these details. According to analysis done by various scientist groups, including the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A., none of the methods available to us so far, including GURTs, is able to really work reliably. So we don't really have a tool at hand.
The other aspect I said I would mention is what now makes it different from other genetically modified organisms or different from, let's say, hybrid seeds. The difference is, as I mentioned earlier, that it is a gene switch technology--it is designed to be controllable from outside--so that by application of chemicals either certain traits or fertility will be available only when the plant is treated, and in that it is a completely different category.
It is also a completely different category if you look at terminator technology in that it carries completely different risks. The risks, from the scientific perspective, include a false sense of security. If you think it works and then it doesn't work, what happens then?
For example, if you have seedless grapes or seedless melons, yes, you can't use them in order to grow plants, but you are not growing the melon in order to save the seeds in order to grow another crop. You're growing the melon in order to sell it on the market, and then the consumer enjoys not having to take the seeds out. So that's completely different. If that should go wrong, nothing actually can happen. Yes, you will find some seeds in your grape, but that is not a biosafety concern.
However, if terminator technology does not go right--that means if it goes wrong, and it will go wrong in quite a number of cases--then there is a serious problem. Therefore it should not be likened to or compared on the same level as seedless fruit. Can one liken it to hybrid seeds? Actually, one cannot, because you can still replant not the hybrid seeds, but the seeds from the harvest. They will not breed true, so you don't get a uniform crop, but the seeds are still fertile, and farmers in parts use exactly those for further breeding, whereas V-GURTs, terminator seeds, will actually not grow at all.
So if you want to compare, we actually have nothing that compares to GURTs. GURTs is a category on its own, and in that sense it needs to be regulated specifically. This is exactly what the CBD has done in its decision, following all nations' agreement on a moratorium on field releases until we have further scientific data. Also, there has been agreement on no commercialization until we also rule out that it is safe, until socio-economic risk assessments, impact studies, etc., have been done.
As background information for you, the Convention on Biological Diversity is looking at GURTs as a category in its own right.
Thank you.