Subj: letter to Convention on Biological Diversity urging a ban
Date: 10/6/2006 6:52:18 AM Central Standard Time
From: [log in to unmask] (Laurel Hopwood)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> (Biotech Forum)
To: [log in to unmask]
In conjunction with the Sierra Club US - Canada International
Committee and US International Committees, we signed on to this
letter. Many thanks to Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
member, Neil Carman, PhD, for helping to create the message.
Laurel Hopwood, Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee member
Background:
Sign-on letter to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) urging a
ban on genetically modified trees
At its last Conference of the Parties (COP8), the Convention on
Biological Diversity adopted a very important Decision
(VIII/19),"Recommending "Parties to take a precautionary approach
when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees".
That Decision recognized "the uncertainties related to the potential
environmental and socio-economic impacts, including long-term and
transboundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on global forest
biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of indigenous and
local communities, and given the absence of reliable data and of
capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments and to
evaluate those potential impacts".
This is a very important step in the right direction, which needs to
be supported against the pressure that will be put on the CBD by the
powerful pro-GM tree lobby.
Given that the COP8 Decision has invited everyone "to provide
relevant views and information to the Secretariat for inclusion in
this assessment", a number of organizations have produced a joint
letter to be sent to the Secretariat providing information and
analysis on the issue and calling for a "mandatory decision declaring
an immediate ban on the release of GM trees."
The letter concludes that "GM trees have no role to play in the
conservation of global forest biological diversity and, on the
contrary, are likely to reduce forest biodiversity, with attendant
social consequences. The high risks indicated by the available though
incomplete science show that the technology could result in the
extinction of forest plant and animal species with severe negative
impacts on biodiversity" and urges the CBD "to move forward from the
current recommendation to Parties to take a precautionary approach,
to a mandatory decision declaring an immediate ban on the release of
GM trees."
LETTER:
CBD Secretariat
Dear Mr Djoghlaf,
The undersigned wish to express our full support for the COP 8's
Decision VIII/19 (Forest biological diversity: implementation of the
programme of work), which "Recommends Parties to take a precautionary
approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees".
We also support the reasons for the adoption of the above Decision
which states that: "Recognizing the uncertainties related to the
potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, including
long-term and transboundary impacts, of genetically modified trees on
global forest biological diversity, as well as on the livelihoods of
indigenous and local communities, and given the absence of reliable
data and of capacity in some countries to undertake risk assessments
and to evaluate those potential impacts".
Given that the Decision also "Invites Parties, other Governments and
relevant organizations, including indigenous and local communities,
as well as relevant stakeholders, to provide relevant views and
information to the Secretariat for inclusion in this assessment," we
would like to contribute to this assessment.
A look at the main genetically modified (GM) tree research currently
being carried out shows that it is focused on a very narrow range of
aims:
- herbicide resistance
- insect resistance
- tree sterility
- lower lignin and higher cellulose content
- resistance to cold, salt or drought
- faster growth
None of the above can be seen as being beneficial to global forest
biological diversity, which needs accompanying flora species
(impacted by herbicides), insects and related food chains (impacted
by insect resistant trees), flowers and seeds (inexistent with tree
sterility), wood resistant to strong winds (lower lignin content
makes trees weaker), trees and plants adapted to local environments
(impacted by alien trees resistant to cold, salt or drought), intact
soils and sufficient water (depleted by fast-growing trees) In
addition, genetically engineered tree plantations are likely to be
developed where biologically diverse forests now stand, following the
trend of monoculture plantations that have replaced native forests
around the world.
This indicates that GM trees are not beneficial for global forest
biological diversity. It is also clear that those genetic
modifications are being carried out for industrial and not
environmental reasons and, if released, would result in industrial
plantations with low biodiversity, largely devoid of other living
organisms, thus effectively depleting forest biological diversity.
This leads to the main question: Can genetically modified trees have
a negative impact on global forest biological diversity?
The main threats are:
- Substitution of diverse forests by genetically modified tree
monocultures. This is already happening with "conventional" tree
monocultures (oil palm, eucalyptus, pines, acacias, and gmelinas) and
there is no reason to believe that it would be different with GM
trees. On the contrary, corporations like ArborGen have postulated
that pulp from plantations of GM trees could bring in considerably
higher profits than pulp from conventional monocultures, indicating
that corporations intend to rapidly implement large scale industrial
GM tree plantations.
- Contamination of non-GM trees of the same species or genus. This
contamination is particularly dangerous in the case of the most
widespread plantation tree-eucalyptus -whose many species have the
capacity to hybridise and could therefore be easily pollinated by GM
eucalyptus. It is also dangerous in other plantation species such as
pines, poplars and acacias. In China, the only country where GM trees
are planted on a commercial scale, contamination of native poplar
trees has already been documented.
- Contamination of related tree species. Tree pollen can travel very
long distances and could contaminate non-GM trees both of the same
species as well as other related species in entire regions and
countries. This would mean that native trees might acquire the
genetically modified traits of GM trees. For instance, they might
become resistant to insects, i.e. produce toxins, thus resulting in
the depletion of certain insect populations and dependent plant and
animal species. The "solution" of developing flowerless trees creates
false confidence in the supposed safety of the technology and runs
the risk of passing on any of the modified genes to trees in the wild
- if sterility were to fail in just one single tree in one year.
- Trees with less lignin (and higher cellulose content) would be more
prone to pest attacks, and potentially increased windfalls, and would
rot more quickly, altering soil structure and releasing CO2 more
quickly, thus contributing to climate change. Decomposing forest dead
wood provides an essential habitat for a high diversity of flora and
fauna. Disturbing the rate of wood decomposition would have a
dramatic effect on species populations, the consequences of which
have not been studied. These trees would also show altered
characteristics during storm, flooding and possibly drought.
- Contamination of forest ecosystems and other habitats with GM trees
via seed. Trees produce abundant fruit and seed, often capable of
travelling long distances either carried by air, water, animals and
human activities. Trees genetically engineered for faster growth,
salt tolerance, short daylight adaptation or cold tolerance could
out-compete common pioneer species or populate rare or marginal
habitats previously uninhabitable to trees.
- Impacts on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities. The
environmental release and commercial use of GM trees in industrial GM
tree plantations would provide no goods to local communities, and
would impact on their traditional use of forest resources, including
fruit, seed, insects, animals, honey, and fibres. In the long run,
contamination of native tree species could wipe out most of the
resources they depend on.
- Many studies have been done on the potential human health impacts
of GM crops and the risks involved are manifold. Few risk assessment
studies apply specifically to trees and though they are likely to
share similar risks to plant crops, trees are also know to have other
specific areas of concern when genetically modified. The longevity of
trees makes the necessary multi-generational risks assessment studies
impossible to carry out in the short-term. Yet it is known that
aberrations of intended gene expression may only become apparent when
studied over several generations. Unexpected gene expression is known
to have occurred in elm trees, for example.
- Increased contamination of soils, water and air from toxic
herbicides used in conjunction with herbicide-resistant trees, or
inhalation of pollen from insect-resistant trees could have serious
impacts on the health of indigenous and local communities.
- There are significant likely impacts on women and indigenous
peoples, the traditional caretakers of biodiversity. In many
communities, women are the ones who think in terms of generations. It
is women in rural and indigenous communities who will bear the
greatest burden of the impacts of GM tree plantations, just as they
currently bear the brunt of the impacts from conventional monoculture
tree plantations. Women and children will likely bear the brunt of
any human health consequences of GE trees, for example resulting from
inhalation of large quantities of Bt toxin from the pollen of
insect-resistant Bt trees.
In conclusion, GM trees have no role to play in the conservation of
global forest biological diversity and, on the contrary, are likely
to reduce forest biodiversity, with attendant social consequences.
The high risks indicated by the available though incomplete science
show that the technology could result in the extinction of forest
plant and animal species with severe negative impacts on biodiversity.
We therefore urge the Convention on Biological Diversity to move
forward from the current recommendation to Parties to take a
precautionary approach, to a mandatory decision declaring an
immediate ban on the release of GM trees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
