Seedless Dependence and Seed Security Farmers using GURT technology become completely dependent on seed suppliers.

This may be comparable to hybrid seed users, except that in extreme cases these latter farmers have the option to use F2-seed. Farmers in relatively low-value markets in developing countries (i.e., value relative to other options for multinational seed companies) risk a lack of seed after poor seed harvests. Intensive horticulture producers already depend on the input suppliers and the introduction of GURT will not have very significant effects on these farmers. Seed security is vital for all farmers. A highly competitive seed market guarantees seed security in industrialised countries. In many developing countries on the other hand, only one national or multinational company is active. Dependence on such monopolists is dangerous if farmers do not have local alternatives to purchase seed, especially at the lower side of the market. Multinational companies will supply their higher value market first when shortages occur due to ecological limitations or social unrest in the production areas. GURTs will increase the dependence on off-farm seed sources, thus creating a risk for the poorer farmers. More pronounced seed security risks can be expected for the already seed insecure poor farmers who are not able to save their own seed every season. Risks of crop losses due to low viability will occur with the poorest farmers who depend on the grain market for their seed (often over 20% of farmers). They purchase something to plant at the last moment and risk unknowingly plant non-germinating (V-GURT) seeds. This may also happen when food-aid is distributed to disaster-struck communities. Food grain is currently distributed as seed by ignorant relief agencies.

Also, relief food supplies are often used as seed. Such disaster struck farmers may loose their investment in land preparation and loose a seasons crop when GURT-food or seed is supplied. It is the poorest farmers who risk loosing their crop this way. It may be argued that even the poorest will learn to test their seed before planting, but this will happen only after a number of them have had to learn the hard way. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS It may be clear from the above that the technology has some advantages and disadvantages. Policy makers basically have three options: to promote, to regulate or to prohibit the technology. Even when policy makers do have a clear answer, it may not always be easy to identify the appropriate mechanisms to prohibit the development or the application of GURT. The complexity of the issues also creates an institutional problem. Different ministries may consider different aspects. National economic advantages of an increased national agricultural output through increased research investments for high potential farming systems have to be weighed against a possible increased technology gap between commercial and resource-poor farmers. In other words, lower urban food prices may coincide with increased food insecurity in remote rural areas. Policy makers dealing with environmental issues have to take into account the risks of reduced agro-biodiversity on the one hand and reduced risks of gene-transfer from modern (transgenic) varieties to nature and endemic crop varieties. Those interested in commerce may welcome an increased interest by multinational companies in national markets, but these advantages have to be

weighed against possible reduced opportunities to develop a national commercial seed industry and against an increased dependence of farmers on foreign (owned) seed suppliers. In the international discussion on V-GURT (Terminator), an important additional argument has been put forward very strongly: the point to develop sterile seeds is considered a major ethical issue. As an ethical issue this argument is close to the development of male sterility, which is common practice in hybrid production in crops like sunflower. More extreme cases in which the ethical argument has not been voiced are sterile triploid varieties (e.g., sugar beet), and seedless watermelon and grape. The result of such deliberations is either to promote the use of such technology, to regulate them to particular uses, or to ban them from the country. Different countries may want to take different positions. 96 Seed Policy, Legislation and Law: Widening a Narrow Focus