Brave New World II
-----------------------------
Subj:         GE trees:  A high risk answer?
Date:   00-11-15 17:28:33 EST
From:   [log in to unmask] (Laurel Hopwood)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
Reply-to:   [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
To: [log in to unmask]

Center for International Development  at Harvard University (CID)

Genetically engineered trees: a high risk answer?
Faith T. Campbell, Ph.D.,
[log in to unmask]
Director, Invasive Species Program
American Lands Alliance
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

    Many experts predict global or regional shortages of wood products in
future
decades. While there is no unanimity about which approach would best supply
the
growing demand, many scientists, government agencies, and corporations have
opted for a strategy based on short-rotation plantations.

Genetically engineered trees are seen by some as enhancing the perceived
ability
of plantations to provide quantities of cheap wood fiber from intensively
managed sites. Some expect plantations of genetically engineered trees to be
planted in the "South" within a year. Plantations in North America are several
years -- perhaps a decade -- away, and most -- although not all -- could
proceed
only after regulatory review.

However, even in North America, questions about the full range of potential
environmental impacts have not been answered and the process for funding the
needed research is inadequate -- in flat contradiction to the precautionary
principle.  Those attempting to insert new genes into trees have several
goals,
among them producing faster-growing trees that provide "better" wood, that are
more easily converted to paper, that can be managed at less cost, that can be
grown in "extreme" environments, or that can help to remove pollutants from
the
soil. However, it is far from clear that these touted benefits can be
realized.
Alternative approaches to achieving some of these goals -- approaches which do
not entail the same level of risk -- have not benefited from the same level of
investment and effort.

Novel genes inserted into trees could have a myriad of impacts, including the
possibilities that the genetically engineered trees might be more "weedy" in
natural environments, that insects might develop resistance to inserted
pesticides more rapidly than to those delivered by sprays, that reduced
numbers
of insect species -- whether the "target" species or other species -- might
disrupt forest food webs and ecosystem processes (including reduced
populations
of predators, parasites, scavengers, pollinators, and endangered or valued
species). It is more difficult to evaluate these and other potential risks
associated with genetically engineered trees than with genetically engineered
food crops because trees live longer -- so they are exposed to more
environmental stresses that might trigger unexpected responses, and more
time is
required to study reproduction and genes' presence in later generations.

Furthermore, tree plantations are often placed in "wilder" areas farther from
human supervision. The trees' ecological relationships are complex. Finally,
tree species are less dependent on people to survive -- an attribute that
raises
the likelihood that they might become "weedy". Research has shown that woody
plants' "weediness" when introduced to new environments may not be detected
for
up to 150 years. The environmental risks associated with genetically
engineered
trees are particularly high in regions where the experimental subjects are
native tree species -- as is the case in North America. The presence of
sexually
compatible wild relatives near the plantations greatly increases the
likelihood
that the novel genes will "escape" into the wider environment. A safety net
made
up of various regulatory and technical "fixes" is required to prevent such
escapes and to minimize the other risks that may arise from use of transgenic
trees in plantations.

However, even the United States lacks a sufficiently comprehensive regulatory
regime to ensure that such "fixes" are put in place and carried out; once the
U.S. Department of Agriculture approves commercial use of the GE organism,
regulation ceases in most cases. Furthermore, scientific research to test
"containment" strategies lags far behind research into technologies for
inserting genes. Clearly, if GE trees can be used safely, it is only under
conditions of high vigilance and with the application of complex and expensive
management safeguards. These requirements belie the proponents' claims of
producing wood fiber inexpensively and focusing technological challenges on
meeting customers' specific desires.


http://www.cid.Harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments93.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]