Her response:
>Reply-To: "Sandy Miller Hays" <shays@asrr.arsusda.gov>
>From: "Sandy Miller Hays" <shays@asrr.arsusda.gov>
>To: "Debbie Ortman" <safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us>
>Subject: Re: ?
>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:30:43 -0500
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>
>Dear Debbie Ortman:
>
>The short answer to your question is: Yes, if pollen from a TPS corn plant,
>for example, were to hitch a ride on the wind and fly into a neighboring
>corn field--where the corn was not TPS--the pollen from the TPS corn COULD
>pollinate the non-TPS corn...and the result would be that the seeds that
>came from that non-TPS corn plant would be sterile.
>
>Now for the good news: Although the patent covers "all plants," ARS has
>said TPS as it now stands should NOT be used in cross-pollinated crops such
>as corn, because of this pollen issue. It should only be used in
>self-pollinated crops where the hitchhiking pollen isn't an issue. Also,
>ARS' next step in the research will be to modify the pollen from TPS plants
>so that pollen will NOT contain any of the three "transgenes" that make up
>TPS. In other words, after we've modified the pollen, even if it gets onto
>another plant, it won't render that plant's seeds sterile.
>
>Remember, negotiations are still under way between ARS and Delta and Pine
>Land Co. on how and where this technology will be used; the use of TPS is
>not all "signed, sealed and delivered" as yet. Also, if I didn't tell you
>before--the best estimate on when a commercial variety of cotton (the plant
>about which we know the most, vis-a-vis TPS and whether it will work, etc.)
>containing TPS will come onto the market is, AT EARLIEST, the year 2004. So
>there's still time to modify the system...which is where we're at now.
>
>I hope this answered your question. If you have other questions, please
>feel free to send me another e-mail.
>
>Sandy Miller Hays
>Director of Information
>Agricultural Research Service
>U.S. Department of Agriculture
>Beltsville, Maryland
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Debbie Ortman <safefood@cp.duluth.mn.us>
>To: shays@asrr.arsusda.gov <shays@asrr.arsusda.gov>
>Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 3:28 PM
>Subject: ?
>
>
>So after reading the information below, I am still asking:
>Is it possible for the terminator gene to be transferred to another
>crop, via pollen and make that crop's seed sterile?
>Debbie
>>Delivered-To: fixup-OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU@fixme
>>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:59:12 -0800
>>Reply-To: coneh@uswest.net
>>Sender: Organic Gardening Discussion List <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>
>>From: Connie Hoy <coneh@uswest.net>
>>Subject: Re: straight from the(USDA)"horse's mouth"/long
>>To: OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU
>>
>>coneh@uswest.net wrote:
>>
>>> I have kept this post forwarded by Roddy,its a "must read".
>>>
>>> Roddy wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>>> message text UNSUBSCRIBE PROPAGATION
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail