This should bring the somewhat abstract concepts of genetic engineering as an
environmental threat closer to home. As we all know, Iowa, a predominantly
prairie state, also had many forests and savannahs, pre-European settlement.
Tom
---------------------------
Subj:         on transgenic forestry
Date:   02-03-25 17:48:03 EST
From:   [log in to unmask] (Jim Diamond)
Sender: [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
Reply-to:   [log in to unmask] (Biotech Forum)
To: [log in to unmask]

I am forwarding this from the Transgenic Trees list where it's stated that it
comes from the World Rainforest Movement's e-bulletin.
       Jim Diamond

Biotechnology: The dangerous paradigm of modern industrial forestry

The word "modern" is usually understood as meaning progress. In
forestry, it clearly means the opposite, particularly --though by
no means only-- with respect to biodiversity. Modern industrial
forestry aims at the production of ever increasing volumes of
wood per hectare, regardless of its impacts on people, soils,
water and biological diversity.

The initial stages of industrial forestry are now perceived as
primitive by modern foresters, because only few hectares of trees
of a single genus (frequently several species of eucalyptus in
the same plot) were planted in holes dug in the soil. They grew
fast, though not fast enough to feed the ever-growing appetite of
the pulp and timber industry.

Consequently, scientists and technocrats came to the rescue and
provided the industry with further ideas. Ploughing and
fertilising, herbicide and pesticide spraying were applied to
increase wood yields which were still not high enough to satisfy
industry. So-called "plus" trees (fast-growing, straight trunks,
few and thin branches), were selected for seed production to
produce new generations of even faster growing and more adequate
trees to feed sawmills and pulpmills with homogeneous raw
material. The following steps were the incorporation of
hybridisation and cloning, which increased wood production, now
tailored more closely to the needs of industry (e.g. low lignin
content to meet the pulp industry's economic interest of high
cellulose content).

The above "innovations" --which were in fact only following on
the steps of the Green Revolution in agriculture-- led to the
establishment of millions of hectares of very fast-growing
plantations, which produce wood-yields unimaginable two decades
ago. Establishment foresters portray such "progress" as a success
story. It has resulted however, in serious social and
environmental impacts. The fact that local people --who have to
endure their consequences-- describe them as "dead forests",
"green cancer", "green desert", "planted soldiers" (green, in
rows and advancing ominously), "selfish trees", etc. indicate the
extent of those impacts.

In spite of the above, for the anti-social and anti-environmental
mindframe behind this forestry model, genetic manipulation is the
ultimate paradigm: imagine thousands, millions, billions of
trees, all with the same chosen genotype, growing in straight
lines at amazing rates and producing millions of tonnes of wood!
But for people and the environment, biotechnology would be the
ultimate disaster multiplying their present impacts, which
already make them socially and environmentally unsustainable,
many times.

From a biodiversity perspective, genetically modified tree
plantations pose serious threats and "nowhere are the
contradictions of the GM 'fix' clearer than in the controversy
over how to prevent genetic modifications from spreading from
industrial to neighbouring ecosystems."

The authors of the above quote (Sampson and Lohmann) stress that
"the need to prevent GM trees and their genes from invading
native ecosystems is clear. Low-lignin trees have the potential
to disrupt the forest composting cycle responsible for unique
soil structures and nutrient cycling systems. An influx of
low-lignin trees vulnerable to damage from insects and other
herbivores, moreover, could result in pest population explosions.
Insect-resistant GM trees have the potential to disrupt insect
population dynamics and also are likely to enjoy an invasive
advantage over forest tree species. More generally, invasions of
GM trees could threaten the diversity of the forest gene pool
from which trees are selected for conventional breeding --a
reservoir already reduced by selective logging practices. Because
trees are even more genetically compatible with their wild
relatives than highly-bred agricultural crops, GM "escapes" are
especially worrisome in forestry." (the full version of this
study is available at http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/trees.html)

The authors' concluding remarks underscore the specific concerns
that forestry biotechnology raise: "In these respects, the issues
raised by GM trees are similar to those raised by GM crops. Yet
in many ways, genetic modification in forestry is an even more
serious issue than genetic engineering in agriculture. Trees'
long lives and largely undomesticated status, their poorly
understood biology and lifecycles, the complexity and fragility
of forest ecosystems, and corporate and state control over
enormous areas of forest land on which GM trees could be planted
combine to create risks which are unique. The biosafety and
social implications of the application of genetic engineering to
forestry are grave enough to warrant an immediate halt to
releases of GM trees."

Article based on information from: Sampson, Viola and Lohmann,
Larry, "Genetic Dialectic: The Biological Politics of Genetically
Modified Trees". The Cornerhouse, Briefings 21, 2000

Published in WRM Bulletin 56, March 2001

WRM International Secretariat
Maldonado 1858 CP 11200
Montevideo Uruguay
Tel: 598 2 413 2989 Fax: 598 2 418 0762
http://www.wrm.org.uy

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