| Author |
Ecopinions:  Frankenforests?  |
|
|
Jen
Expedition Leader
1384 Posts
Jennifer
Calico Rock
AR
USA
1384 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 02 2007 : 12:44:30 PM
|
Frankenforests: GE Trees Threaten Ecosystem Collapse
By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted August 2, 2007.
Across the U.S. and the world, the timber industry is
driving research behind genetically engineered
forests. But environmentalists worry that it will open
an ecological Pandora's Box.
In China, over a million poplar trees have been
planted since 2002 to combat deforestation. But the
move has not been widely applauded by everyone. The
poplars, which are genetically engineered, are China's
first foray into the world of transgenic forestry --
or "frankenforests" -- and other countries are not far
behind.
As the biotech industry continues to lay the
groundwork for genetically engineered crops -- poorly
tested, widely debated and yet plugged as a
technological wonder -- a potentially greater threat
to biodiversity has begun to emerge. Pushed forward by
biotech and the multibillion-dollar timber industry,
genetically engineered trees are the latest invention.
"The industry has tried very hard to keep it quiet, or
tout the technology as benign and beneficial to the
environment," says Anne Petermann, co-founder of the
Global Justice Ecology Project, a nonprofit
established to advance global justice through
ecological awareness. "The technology is moving
forward very quickly, outpacing regulations. There are
no controls in place to properly address or assess the
risks -- which are major."
GE trees are planted in monoculture forests, which
look more like plantations, and pose serious risks to
the ecosystem. Trees live decades or centuries longer
than plants, and their seeds can travel hundreds of
miles, increasing the likelihood of gene contamination
to wild species. The technology was created to
optimize the manufacturing process, but
environmentalists worry that it will open an
ecological Pandora's Box and threaten the health of
the forests we depend on for survival.
The world is a test lab
GE forestry research is already alarmingly prevalent
across the globe. The United States leads the world in
research projects, with 150 tree test plots --
two-thirds of the world's known research areas -- and
they are joined by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
China, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the
United States.
Despite the prevelance of the practice, GE forestry
has remained somewhat obscured by GE crops, which have
raised more immediate health concerns, as forestry
"doesn't seem to affect the daily shopping trip -- or
at least, less visibly," according to Larry Lohmann, a
researcher with U.K.-based Corner House, a nonprofit
that fights for social and environmental justice.
"But the problems transgenic trees pose are just as
severe. Whether it's endangering wild species or
pollen drift, the fact is we're in danger of setting
off a chain of events that's irreversible. We don't
know what we're messing with," he says.
From the perspective of the timber industry, driven by
commercial pressure and deforestation to "build" its
own resources, the case for GE trees is clear-cut.
Uniform, faster-growing species produce more paper or
lumber in a shorter period of time, driving down
costs. Faster-growing trees also produce greater
biomass, which can potentially be converted into a
second-generation biofuel -- an important financial
incentive in the current gold rush for agrofuels.
Biomass furthermore acts as a carbon sink, sucking
carbon dioxide emissions from the air, which the
industry claims is an environmental plus, though
native forests actually absorb more. The industry's
outlook is simple: The technology poses minimal risk
with maximum return.
"The industry is looking for a way to make more money,
damn the consequences. What's driving this is not
environmental concern, but mass production -- you
can't say that's environmentally friendly," says
Lohmann.
Concerns over the technology's long-term impact are
serious. "The forests are already under tremendous
pressure from climate change and human interaction,"
says Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, co-founder of the
London-based nonprofit science watchdog Eco-Nexus.
Steinbrecher, also co-author of "Hungry Corporations:
Transnational Biotech Companies Colonize the Food
Chain," has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics.
"Compared to crops that have been cultivated for
thousands of years, trees are 'wild.' If a GE trait
enters a forest species, the implications could be
absolutely horrendous. We could see the ecological
system weaken and collapse. Without the forests, we're
sunk."
Steinbrecher's fears resonate deeply with
environmentalists. Given genetic science's infancy,
which has been plagued repeatedly by controversy,
biotech -- with its thrust towards profit -- has
continued to promote its art as a magic bullet
solution. But there's always the risk of misfire. And
now that trees have been loaded into the barrel,
environmentalists, those involved in forestry,
indigenous peoples and scientists have worked to raise
the alarm.
"Forests are crucial to us," says Alexander Evans,
research director at the Forest Guild, which promotes
responsible forestry in America, noting how they are
one of the most valuable and little-understood
ecosystems in the world. "When it comes to GE, the
potential risks are not well understood, so why go
into it? We're not into the quick-return model --
there are too many hidden costs. There's simply no
reason to take the risk."
The risks, in fact, are numerous. Genetically modified
trees have been engineered to exhibit unnatural traits
such as herbicide tolerance, insecticide production,
reduced lignin content, the substance that makes trees
strong but must be removed to make paper, and finally,
sterility.
Many of these qualities have already proved
problematic. For example, herbicide-resistant trees
are meant to reduce the quantity of herbicides applied
to tree plantations, yet experience shows that farmers
who converted to herbicide-resistant, genetically
modified crops used just as much herbicide as their
counterparts, according to the World Wildlife Fund.
Or take sterility, also known as terminator technology
and by far the most controversial. In GE crops, this
strategy was used to prevent farmers from saving and
replanting seeds, thus compelling them to buy from
dealers -- a highly lucrative move for the
multinational/agrochemical seed industry. With trees,
however, the technology is meant to act as a biosafety
control to prevent contamination as trees, large
organisms with a long life span, have enormous
potential for gene flow.
So far, engineering persistent sterility has been
impossible. But its success would be worse, creating
sterile trees that would produce no seeds, pollen,
fruit or flowers, sources of food for thousands of
species of birds, insects and animals. Instead,
sterile trees would comprise forests akin to silent
green desserts, devoid of life.
"From a scientific perspective, we haven't got a clue
what the response (in GE trees) will be. There's real
arrogance in saying that we do," says Steinbrecher.
"Genome scrambling isn't like moving Lego blocks. It's
introducing a number of mutations into the plant's
DNA, and the side effects are not something we can
predict."
The U.S. approves GE trees
Back in the States, however, major transgenic tree
projects are in the works. On July 16, APHIS (Animal
Plant Health Inspection Service), a subsidiary of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, approved a request by
forestry giant ArborGen to let a field of genetically
modified eucalyptus trees flower and produce seeds --
a monumental move that has alarmed environmentalists
worried about GE trees interbreeding with wild ones.
"The USDA has basically been rubber-stamping things
without doing a thorough environmental assessment,"
says Petermann of the Global Justice Ecology Project,
critical of the USDA's decision to give the green
light to ArboGen, a $60 million venture between
International Paper, the world' largest forest and
paper company, and Westvaco, another huge U.S.
multinational forest products company. "Trees live for
decades, so to do a thorough study, you have to study
them for decades," she says.
Not that USDA approval counts for much these days. The
pro-GE department has strong ties to biotech, going so
far as to sue other nations before the World Trade
Organization over bans on genetically engineered crops
grown in the United States. Such political cronyism
these days is rampant, leaving the fox guarding the
henhouse.
Arbogen has invited serious criticism on several
fronts: In its permit application, the company
classified certain genes as confidential business
information, meaning even the USDA could not assess
their impact; its field trial site in Alabama is prone
to severe storms that could blow eucalyptus seeds much
farther than the mere 100 meters the USDA anticipated.
And there's also the choice of trees. Eucalyptus, a
fast-growing, high-yield hardwood, is notorious for
colonizing native ecosystems. The species has become
so successful in California, it's now listed as a
plant pest by the state's Invasive Plant Council. The
tree additionally depletes ground water, exacerbating
drought conditions, and is extremely flammable,
potentially causing massive wildfires, an ongoing
issue for the American South, where ArboGen is
headquartered.
By far, the largest threat ArboGen poses, however, is
gene drift. Trees are perennial plants that can spread
seeds and pollen for hundreds of miles, or even
further. According to new research from Duke
University's Center on Global Change, which has
studied pollen from GE conifer trees, the pollen from
transgenic pines can spread more than a thousand
miles, leading to "substantial ... subsequent
colonization."
Gene drift in agricultural crops has already occurred
rapidly. Take, for example, StarLink Maize, a GM
variety approved only for animal feed, which entered
the human food chain in the United States, Canada,
Egypt, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Japan and South Korea.
With trees, contamination is more worrying because
they are long-living, complex organisms that are key
to the planet's ecosystem. China's Nanjing Institute
of Environmental Science has already reported
contamination of native poplars -- what's to stop this
from spreading elsewhere?
"There's no way to experiment safely in the open with
this technology. Companies say it's very safe and that
they have testing protocols, but it's an illusion to
think, once contamination starts happening, that it's
somehow going to be regulated," says Lohmann. "That
depends on the assumption that you know what could go
wrong."
Steinbrecher, too, finds the promise of halting GE
contamination and thus interbreeding with wild trees a
"scientifically meaningless argument that's
unsatisfactory and unconvincing."
"You cannot design a biological system that's 100
percent fool-proof," she says. Data backs her up.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), even at a 95 percent success
rate, it is nearly impossible to control gene flow
through pollen and seed dispersal.
"Contamination is inevitable and irreversible," says
Petermann. "Regulations need to be put in place now to
properly address and assess the risk from these trees
because the industry is getting them out there without
public debate. Once it's too late, it really is too
late."
Industry's spin
To pacify these concerns, projects such as the
European Union-funded Transcontainer scheme have been
created. A three-year, 5.38 million Euro research
project, Transcontainer is aimed at developing
technology to allow the coexistence of GE and non-GE
crops, as well as GE trees, through technology that
reverses sterility -- what critics refer to as zombie
seeds. In other words, seed fertility can be
recovered, possibly with a chemical application, which
critics fear would create a new monopoly for the seed
industry.
"This is not a viable solution. No molecular
technology exists for biocontainment -- and if it
doesn't prevent 100 percent gene flow, it's not a
workable option," says Hope Shand, research director
of ETC Group, an organization that supports socially
responsible technology. "Why should taxpayers, farmers
and society be asked to accept the burden of defective
technology and then accept an even riskier technology
to fix it? You really have to look at it in this
light. This technology is not safe. It shouldn't be
used."
But according to Piet Schenkelaars, a Dutch biotech
consultant for the Transcontainer project, research is
still in its infancy. Schenkelaars agrees the
technology isn't failsafe at the moment -- that's
exactly why research is being conducted. "In a couple
of years, we can deploy the technology for more
commercial purposes if it works as it should -- but
that's something we don't know at the moment," he
says.
Asked why, in the face of great public rejection of GE
crops, Europeans were being asked to support similar
research, Schenkelaars responded that public
opposition was questionable. "Whether people reject GE
is doubtful. Surveys on public attitudes within Europe
show different levels of acceptance," he says.
However, substantial public resistance to genetically
modified crops does exist. In Europe, the most recent
Eurobarometer, a survey conducted since 1991,
indicated that most Europeans remained skeptical of
genetically modified crops, expressing moral
objections about potential risks.
Or closer to home, take Quebec. A survey conducted for
Quebec Science found that more than 75 percent of the
province's residents would rather pay extra for
organic food than buy GM foods at lower prices. And in
America, studies by the International Food Information
Council and the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology found nearly an identical lack of
awareness of GM foods among consumers. But when
respondents were told how pervasive GM foods are in
the United States, they were outraged.
Says Schenkelaars, "I think we should develop our
options as much as possible and keep our minds open.
Indeed, this technology is very complex. We need to
proceed with caution."
On that most critics would agree but find the very
existence of Schenkelaars, a public relations
consultant fronting questions for biotech, troubling.
"This is boiling down to a PR battle. There are two
things research has shown are the industry's biggest
concerns: contamination and public opinion," says Orin
Langelle, co-founder of Global Justice Ecology
Project. "The industry is going to pull out their
wallets to convince the public this is good, but it's
our job to broaden the debate. We don't have money for
big ad campaigns, but I guarantee the other side
does."
One thing that's missing in the current dialogue is
discussion of natural alternatives, such as hemp. Hemp
does not need pesticides or herbicides and yields
three to four times more usable fiber per hectare per
year than forests. But growing hemp remains illegal in
the United States, where the DEA has taken a hard line
on the crop as a result of the war against its
psychoactive cousin, marijuana, even though hemp
contains only trace amounts of THC. In terms of
biofuels, hemp is capable of producing 10 tons of
biomass per acre in four months --10 times more
methanol than corn, according to the Hemp Industries
Association.
Clearly, as this issue garners wider attention,
alternatives should be sought and public debate
welcomed. Says Shand, "Research continues to be done
on something that has been repeatedly rejected by the
public, so why not put that money into researching
something more sustainable? We keep hearing the
argument that technology, like sterility in trees, is
safe, but safe for whom? Is it safe for companies
introducing huge monoculture plantations, or is it
safe for the trees? You have to look at the larger
impact."
Source: http://www.alternet.org/environment/58477/
The View From My Boots: www.bovesboots.blogspot.com
|
|
|
marybeth
outstepping
146 Posts
Marybeth
Washington
USA
146 Posts |
Posted - Aug 03 2007 : 08:42:07 AM
|
Dang, that is interesting. The things we don't know and if not for you, jen, we may never know. I live in/on a hugh tree farm. Pilchuck Tree Farm now Denkmann and they are logginh in there now. They do replant---but with what? Conifer tree? YES!
On a similar subject--The government is pushing farmers to grow canola for seed for fuel. the Skagit valley farmers have petitioned the government to NOT have any grown in Skagit County because it is a genetically altered plant that will cross polinate with the many seed crops in the Valley. As of now no canola will be grown in the valley. Seed crops (spinach, beet, cabbage and kale) are a large part of Valley farming. MB
Being outside is being |
 |
|
|
Jen
Expedition Leader
1384 Posts
Jennifer
Calico Rock
AR
USA
1384 Posts |
Posted - Aug 04 2007 : 3:25:44 PM
|
Thank you for giving us a real-life local perspective, MB. Keep us up to date & let us know if we can jump on any kind of petition/ bandwagon to help preserve the Skagit!
The View From My Boots: www.bovesboots.blogspot.com
|
|
|
| |
Ecopinions: Frankenforests? |
|
|
|
Frankenforests?
