---

Terminator Seed Technology

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

6.45 pm

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): Before I speak on this matter, I want to say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister of State in his place, particularly given his interest in these matters. Putting up a Minister of State in an Adjournment debate also shows that the Government see this as an important matter, so I am very grateful that he is here—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman is not a Minister of State, he jolly well ought to be.

I want to discuss the Government's position on continuing the moratorium on the commercial use and field-testing of terminator seed technology, and what the Minister hopes that the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity will achieve when it meets in Brazil on 20 March. The moratorium was agreed in 2000, and there is concern that it will be overturned. If it is amended to permit case-by-case assessment, its very purpose will be in jeopardy.

It may be useful if I explain to the House what terminator technology is. Terminator technology, or varietal genetic use restriction technologies—known as V-GURTs for short—produces seeds that grow into plants that have sterile seeds, often referred to as "suicide seeds". The plant itself appears normal, as do the seeds that it produces, but if planted they would never germinate.

I do not want to be drawn into a debate on genetic modification technology; I want to concentrate exclusively on terminator technology. Of course, GM technology can be used to modify seeds to accomplish many different outcomes, such as higher crop yields, greater disease resistance or drought resistance. An example of the latter is planting in the Sahara crops that do not need much water.

I was one of the first Members of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you recollect, to raise the issue of GM crops—by way of a debate in this Chamber in July 1998. I was then co-chairman of an all-party group on GM, and I want to make it plain that this very important subject is not the exclusive prerogative of either the Green party or the Liberal Democrats—strangely, I cannot see any of them in their places this evening, such is their concern.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important topic and I, too, am delighted that the Secretary of State, as I think he is, is in his place—[Interruption.] Oh, well—whoever. We are delighted to have a Minister of such seniority to answer these questions. However, he should be aware that this is not simply an issue for rural areas. Although there are probably only three farms in the whole of Orpington, my constituents are as concerned about this issue as constituents in rural areas are. The people of Orpington fully support my hon. Friend's suggestions.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; at least I have support on the Conservative Benches. It is worth commenting on the fact that there
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 920
 
are no Liberal Democrats here, but I will not dwell on the point any longer, because the House will recognise it as a matter of fact. My hon. Friend is right to say that interest in this issue is not peculiar to the people of south Devon, although many of them are interested in it. It should arouse worldwide interest, and certainly interest in urban seats just outside London. I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend for being in his place and for raising that important point.

Terminator technology is just one form of genetic modification, but many believe it to be the most significant development because it alters seeds' fundamental characteristic—their self-reproducing nature. The Government announced on their website on 21 February—when, incidentally, the House was in recess—that

"an application for a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) incorporating GURTs would be dealt with in the same way as any other GMO."

I believe that to be a wrong assessment. V-GURTs have a unique property. They are not just any type of genetic modification; they have ramifications that could affect the entire planet.

Why would anybody want to introduce terminator technology? There are two possibilities. They may want to prevent the contamination of non-GM crops by GM crops, thus resolving a fundamental concern about GMOs. Or, as most people suggest, the technology is designed to ensure greater profits for seed manufacturers by requiring new seeds to be purchased annually. However, the seed industry should not be painted as the villain in this picture. I have no interest in seed companies—although I might like one, I do not have one—but they are commercial businesses that have a duty to their shareholders and employees to make profits. Their decision-making process should, and largely does, focus on what is in the best interests of the company, rather than any wider audience.

The decisions are taken within a framework of national and international law. Monsanto, the very large company that trades in seeds, has made a welcome decision not to use terminator technology, but the decision on what technology is acceptable is properly the remit of elected representatives in Parliaments such as this, and of Governments. It is Governments' responsibility, not the companies', to determine the appropriate use of innovative and controversial technology.

If terminator technology will prevent GM contamination—that was an issue in my constituency in 1998, when the first GM trials took place outside Totnes and resulted in many people destroying crops and being sent for trial in Plymouth—why do environmental groups not hail it as a great invention? It is partly because so little is known about the precise nature and behaviour of the technology. As Dr. Srinivasan and Professor Thirtle recently said:

"The nature of interaction of terminator varieties with other crops and species is not known. It remains to be assessed whether terminator varieties are, accidentally or otherwise, capable of rendering the seeds of (adjacent) non-terminator varieties also sterile."

Gene silencing and gene instability could result in the seeds behaving in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Some scientists have speculated that the process will
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 921
 
render only 80 to 85 per cent. of the so-called suicide seeds sterile, leaving 15 to 20 per cent. carrying the gene in an inactive form. That clearly poses the danger of the gene spreading into other crops through cross-pollination. It has also been suggested that it would be impossible to ensure that all seeds were treated with the chemical—for example, ethanol—required to switch on the terminator gene. That obviously creates the potential for wide margins of error that could result in the unintended spread of those GM seeds.

In the worst-case scenario, terminator seeds would have more than the intended consequences of producing sterile plants. The technology could leak out and prove much more dangerous than the spread of other types of GM contamination. If the technology proved imperfect and spread, farmers could end up unwittingly planting sterile seeds that would diminish their crop yield, with disastrous consequences. How can we consider lifting the moratorium on that technology, when the evidence is so vague?

Let us suppose that the technology worked perfectly and produced seeds that were always sterile. Should we then give it the go-ahead? Should the Government go to Brazil and say, "Whoopee, we've got the answer—let's go ahead"?

I have no doubt that the Minister is aware that at least 1.4 billion people—nearly double the size of the population of India—mainly in developing countries, currently practice seed saving from one year to the next. That has been practised since crop civilisation began many hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is not only cheaper than buying new seeds every year, but allows the development of regional varieties particularly adopted to local conditions. Obviously, that practice would not be possible if people started out with a suicide seed. The seed collected from the crop would be useless and new ones would be needed.

However, so long as farmers can choose not to buy such seeds, it could be suggested that there is no reason why the market should not determine the commercial success of suicide seeds versus fertile seeds, whether GM or non-GM. Could countries that wish to ignore such technology simply do so? The concern is that if all big multinational seed producers decide to use terminator technology and produce only suicide seeds, there is a real possibility that farmers may not have a choice about whether to buy into that technology in the future. The choice would have gone. The danger is that companies might produce only seeds with agronomic characteristics that also come packaged with a terminator gene. It might be that not only all new seed varieties came packaged with a terminator gene, but seed companies modified all their seeds, so that all existing varieties became terminator seeds—suicide seeds.

It is worth remembering that innovation and development in seed technology are essential if we are to feed the world's rapidly increasing population, which it is estimated will reach 10 billion people in 2070. As Monsignor Bruce Kent said, the train has left the station; there is no way of stopping the population of the globe doubling by 2070. Therefore, we need seed
 
8 Mar 2006 : Column 922
 
companies to continue with research and development, and they need to be able to recoup their research expenditure from sales.

Terminator technology has been a solution to the weaknesses of patenting law and its enforcement. It is clear therefore that if the moratorium on terminator technology is lifted, those companies will have understandable reasons to make the most of its obvious advantages for profits, particularly if we do not improve patent law. That could well result in the end of the local adaptation of varieties and community-based seed, which would clearly have adverse consequences for biodiversity.

In any case, agriculture is not a precise science, and it is inevitable that terminator seeds and normal seeds might become mixed up over time, particularly on small-scale holdings in developing countries, where land is not clearly separated by substantial fences or hedges. In such circumstances, accidental mixing or physical contamination could easily occur, and it would have devastating consequences if, as a result, the crop was significantly less than what had been planned.

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to envisage the horrendous food shortages and famines that could occur as a result in countries where food is already in high demand. In Africa, 90 per cent. of all seed planted is from farm-saved sources, and the vast majority of farmers are subsistence farmers. Thus those who live at subsistence level are most vulnerable and most at risk. The Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum said in September 2005:

"We do not trust regulations or seed companies to ensure that GURTs seeds do not accidentally contaminate or get mixed in with conventional seed, or planted by mistake. But farmers planting sterile seed face disaster and hunger."

For such reasons, many developing countries are vehemently opposed to that technology. A number of African non-governmental organisations released a statement on 2 February 2006, calling for the moratorium to be strongly reaffirmed, if not made concrete in an outright ban. The effect of terminator technology on developing countries is particularly worrying in the light of concerns that even if individual countries decide to ban the use of terminator seeds, the Government's institutions and structures in those countries are often not sufficiently well established to be able to enforce such a ban, and thus it may well creep in by the back door.

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

---