Canada should support the potential that Coexistence Crops can bring to the World
I read a rather interesting commentary by a Canadian university researcher on the internet recently entitled “Why Canada should support Coexistence Crops.”
The article focuses on genetic use restrictive technology and its use in genetically modified foods. Genetic use restriction technologies, or GURT for short, are systems designed to prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the modified DNA inserted into plants that makes them genetically engineered) to other plants or the unauthorized propagation of genetically modified crops. According to the author, there are several ways the technology works, including creating GURT containing seeds that will not germinate and GURT engineered plants that produce only sterile pollen, but the systems all have one thing in common: blocking the possibility of genetically engineered genes and traits from ending up elsewhere.
Canada has had an interest in GURTs since it joined other parties to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity in imposing a moratorium on the technology six years ago. Canadian representatives called for an end to the moratorium at the U.N. Convention meeting in 2004 and recently Canada, Australia and New Zealand called for support for field testing of GURT seeds on a case by case basis at the U.N. meeting earlier this year.
According to several different reports, genetic use restriction technology seeds are one of the most controversial products that biotechnology has produced, which is why critics often refer to them as “terminator seeds” or “suicide seeds.” The author, however, suggests a more appropriate and descriptive term: coexistence crops. The author coined this term because these particular crops would eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing with each other. I think coexistence crops are aptly named because they can “co-exist” with both fields of GM crops and conventional crops.
The author contends that, perhaps more than any other aspects of genetically engineered crops, GURTs have been the target of massive fear generating campaigns by activists, environmentalists, and other critics. According to the commentary, critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in developing nations because they prevent seed from being saved from one year to the next. However, they’re not designed for developing world farmers because, as the article points out, they are more designed for farmers who regularly buy new seed each year.
Critics also claim that coexistence crops threaten biodiversity and say that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which Canada is a signature, prohibits the development of these types of crops. Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from genetically modified crops to other plants, their incorporation into biotech crops is actually in keeping with an article of the Protocol, which states that parties shall ensure that any living modified organism are undertaken in a manner that “prevents or reduces risks to biodiversity.”
Coexistence crops would also have several advantages over today’s genetically modified crops, the author contends. With these types of crops, any issue of cross pollination between GM crops and organic crops would be eliminated. Cross pollination has always been a “concern” of the organic lobby and environmentalists who insist that food must be kept “natural.” In fact, pollen from genetically modified crops does not threaten organic crop certification at all. According to the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), there should not be any threshold of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it doesn’t necessarily threaten a product’s organic status. The IFOAM doesn’t even advocate mandatory testing of cross-pollinated crops.
In addition, the article says that coexistence crops can help with the development of plant made pharmaceuticals. Adding GURT technology would further increase the safety of plant made pharmaceuticals, end the reliance on refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in parts of the world, and allow these pharmaceuticals to be grown wherever they are needed.
While I agree with some of the author’s assertions, I have to ask if the increased nutritional value that is a noted benefit of biotech crops will remain intact with coexistence crops. I would have also liked to have read about any preliminary studies that have might been done on genetic use restriction technologies and whether they really do prevent cross-pollination, if such research is available.
Although the hypothetical concerns and controversies over biotechnology will certainly continue, research and development of coexistence crops should be performed. The potential these crops could bring is exciting and could lead to greater acceptance of biotechnology around the world. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next with this technology.
