The potential benefits, risks and costs of genetic use restriction technologies

Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Volumn 87, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 753-762

  Van Acker, Rene C ^a   Szumgalski, Anthony R ^b   Friesen, Lyle F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Genetic use restriction technology; Genetically engineered; Genetically modified; Plant breeding; Plants with novel traits

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BREEDING; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROP; DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY;

EID: 37049037255     PISSN: 00084220     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4141/CJPS06033     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Anonymous. 2006. Monsanto to buy Delta and PineLand. The Street, online, August 15, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/ markets/marketfeatures/10303712.html. [2006 Aug. 22].
2. Beckie, H., Hall, L. M. and Warwick, S. I. 2001. Impact of herbicide resistant crops as weeds in Canada. 2001. Proceedings of the 2001 British Crop Protection Conference-Weeds. pp. 135-142.
3. Bhatia, C. R. 1998. Terminator transgenics. Curr. Sci. 75: 1288-1289.
4. Burk, D. L. 2004. DNA rules: legal and conceptual implications of biological "lock-out" systems. Calif. Law Rev. 92: 1553-1587.
5. Boisson de Chazournes, L. and Mbengue, M. M. 2005. International legal aspects of the coexistence between GM and non-GM products: approaches under international environmental law and international trade law. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Coexistence Between GM and non-GM Based Agricultural Supply Chains, 2005 Nov. 14-15, Montpellier, France. pp. 15-28.
6. Cerdeira, A. L. and Duke, S. O. 2006. Current status and environmental impacts of glyphoste-resistant crops: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 35: 1633-1658.
7. Clark, E. A. 2006. Environmental risks of genetic engineering. Euphytica 148: 47-60.
8. Daniell, H. 2002. Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnol. 20: 581-586.
9. Demeke, T., Perry, D. J. and Scowcroft, W. R. 2006. Adventitious presence of GMOs: Scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 1-23.
10. EcoNexus and the Federation of German Scientists. 2006. V-GURTs (terminator technology): design, reality and inherent risks. Submission to the Convention on Biological Diversity working group on article 8(j). 16 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.econexus.info [2007 Mar. 19].
11. Eaton, D., Van Tongeren, F., Louwaars, N., Visser, B. and Van der Meer, I. 2002. Economic and policy aspects of 'terminator' technology. Biotech. Develop. Mon. 49: 19-22.
12. Elbheri, A. 2005. Biopharming and the food system: examining the potential benefits and risks. AgBioForum 8: 18-25.
13. Ellstrand, N. C., Prentice, H. C. and Hancock, J. F. 1999. Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 539-563.
14. Federation of German Scientists and EcoNexus. 2006. GURTs: no case for field trials. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP8, Curitiba, Brazil, 2006 Mar. 2006. 4 pp.
15. Friesen, L. F., Nelson, A. G. and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95: 1342-1347.
16. Giovannetti, M. 2003. The ecological risks of transgenic plants. Rivista di Biologia 96: 207-223.
17. Goeschl, T. and Swanson, T. 2003. The development impact of genetic use restriction technologies: a forecast based on the hybrid crop experience. Environ. Develop. Econ. 8: 149-165.
18. Government of Canada. 1990. Plant Breeders Rights Act. [Online]. Available: http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/P-14.6/254567.html#rid-254576. [2006 Aug. 18].
19. Gray, R., Malla, S. and Ferguson, S. 2001. Agriculture research policy for crop improvement in western Canada: past experience and future directions. Report prepared for Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. pp 35.
20. Gupta, P. K. 1998. The terminator technology for seed production and protection: why and how? Curr. Sci. 75: 1319-1323.
21. Gustafson, D. I., Horak, M. J., Rempel, C. B., Metz, S. G., Gigax, D. R. and Hucl, P. 2005. An empirical model for pollen-mediated gene flow in wheat. Crop Sci. 45: 1286-1294.
22. Kaiser, J. 2000. USDA to commercialize 'terminator' technology. Science 289: 709-710.
23. Kirkpatrick, S. and Tarasuk, V. 2003. The relationship between low income and household food expenditure patterns in Canada. Pub. Health Nutrit. 6: 589-597.
24. Lawrie, R. G., Matus-Cadiz, M. A. and Hucl, P. 2006. Estimating out-crossing rates in spring wheat cultivars using the contact method. Crop Sci. 46: 247-249.
25. Lehmann, V. 1998. Patent on seed sterility threatens seed saving. Biotech. Develop. Mon. 35: 6-8.
26. Lence, S. H., Hayes, D. J., McCunn, A., Smith, S. and Niebur, W. S. 2005. Welfare impacts of intellectual property protection in the seed industry. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87: 951-968.
27. Mahajan, S. K. 1999. Terminator technology - a weapon of biological warfare. Curr. Sci. 76: 617.
28. Marvier. M. and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3: 93-100.
29. Masood, E. 1998. Monsanto set to back down over 'terminator' gene? Nature 396: 503.
30. Matus-Cadiz, M. A., Hucl, P., Horak, M. J. and Blomquist, L. K. 2004. Gene flow in wheat at the field scale. Crop Sci. 44: 718-727.
31. Mower, J. P., Stefanovic, S., Young, G. J. and Palmer, J. D. 2004. Gene transfer from parasitic to host plants. Nature 432: 165-166.
32. Niiler, E. 1999. Terminator technology temporarily terminated. Nature Biotechnol. 17: 1054.
33. Oliver, M. J., Quisenberry, J. E., Trolinder, N. L. G. and Keim, D. L. 1998. United States Patent no. 5,723,765. Control of plant gene expression. 1998 Mar. 03. United States Patent and Trademark Office. [Online]. Available: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d= PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&1= 50&s1=5723765.PN.&OS=PN/5723765&RS=PN/5723765 . [2006 Aug. 17].
34. Pendleton, C. N. 2004. The peculiar case of "terminator" technology: agricultural biotechnology and intellectual property protection at the crossroads of the third green revolution. Biotech. Law Rep. 23: 1-29.
35. Pilger, G. 2002. Terminator could eliminate GM volunteers. Canola Guide, 2002 May 16-17. Farm Business Communications, Winnipeg, MB.
36. Rakshit, S. 1998. Terminator technology: science and politics. Curr. Sci. 75: 747-749.
37. Schiemann, J., Stamp, P., Foueillassar, X., Atanassov, A., Renard, M., Pierre, J., Gleba, Y., Bock, R., Curtis, M. and Gressel, J. 2005. Biological containment systems for genetically modified plants. Proc. of 2nd International Conf. on Co-existence between GM and non-GM based agricultural supply chains. Montpellier, France. Edited by A. Messean. Agropolis Productions, Montpellier, France.
38. Service, R. F. 1998. Seed-sterilizing 'terminator technology' sows discord. Science 282: 850-851.
39. Van Acker, R. C., Brule-Babel, A. L. and Friesen, L. F. 2004. Intraspecifc gene movement can create environmental risk: The example of Roundup Ready® wheat in western Canada. In B. Breckling and R. Verhoeven, eds. Risk, hazard, damage - specification of criteria to assess environmental impact of genetically modified organisms. Bonn (Bundesamt fur Naturshutz) - Naturschutz und Biolische Viefalt 1: 37-47.
40. Van Acker, R. C. 2006. The potential for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in Canada. In C. J. Swanton, ed. Topics in Canadian weed science. Volume 4. Transgenic herbicide tolerant crops: Agronomy, environment and beyond. Canadian Weed Science Society-Société canadienne de malherbologie, Sainte-Anne-de Bellevue, QC. (in press).
41. van Wijk, J. 1994. Hybrids, bred for superior yields or for control? Biotech. Develop. Mon. 19: 3-5.
42. Visser, B. 1998. Effects of biotechnology on agro-biodiversity. Biotechnol. Devel. Mon. 35: 2-7.
43. Visser, B., Van der Meer, I., Louwaars, N., Beekwilder, J. and Eaton, D. 2001. The impact of 'terminator' technology. Biotechnol. Devel. Mon. 48: 9-12.
44. Vom Brocke, K., Presterl, T., Christinck, A., Weltzien, R. and Gieger, H. H. 2002. Farmers' seed management practices open up new base populations for pearl millet breeding in a semi-arid zone of India. Plant Breed. 121: 36-42.
45. Willenborg, C. J. and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. Comments on an empirical model for pollen mediated gene flow in wheat (Crop Sci. 45:1286-1294). Crop Sci. 46: 1018-1019.
46. Yadav, O. P., Weltzien-Rattunde, E., Bidinger, F. R. and Mahalakshmi, V. 2000. Heterosis in landrace-based topcross hybrids of pearl millet across arid environments. Euphytica 112: 285-295.