Genetic engineering creeps closer and closer to what environmentalists care
about--natural ecosystems and wilderness.
Great observation in the intro, below by Dr. Jim Diamond:
"Just as with, say, nuclear power generation, industry tries to claim that it
knows the science and its critics don't. This is a way to hide an agenda of
greed behind a white lab coat."
Tom Mathews
Subj: GE tree article, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Date: 03-08-03 21:15:16 EDT
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]
Neil Carman (Ph.D. botany) of Sierra Club's national Genetic Engineering
Committee attended the APHIS meetings about GE trees last month, and Sierra
Club
submitted science-based comments to APHIS. Somebody seems to have taken
notice, which shows that we're doing something right, although I don't much
care for
the coverage below. The article tries to draw a line between
environmentalists and scientists. That's not where the real dividing line
is; it's between
environmentalists and industry. Just as with, say, nuclear power generation,
industry tries to claim that it knows the science and its critics don't.
This
is a way to hide an agenda of greed behind a white lab coat.
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/133321_trees01.html
Biotech trees get wooden response from Sierra Club
Friday, August 1, 2003
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
Roll over, John Muir, and tell Johnny Appleseed the news: Biotechnology is
coming to the forest and orchard.
Scientists are planting genetically engineered trees in dozens of research
projects across the country, ignoring the pleas of environmentalists who
fear dangerous, unintended consequences.
"When we're talking about changing the very makeup of wild forests, we
definitely need to apply caution," said Kathleen Casey, with the Northwest
office of the Sierra Club.
"Trees send their pollen huge distances, and the idea that this won't
contaminate the gene pool is ridiculous," said Phil Bereano, a University of
Washington professor of engineering. He serves on the United Nations'
"Biosafety Protocol" panel of experts recommending regulation of genetically
engineered agricultural products.
"It won't be as widespread as agricultural biotechnology, but it could be
much more destructive," said Jim Diamond, chairman of the Sierra Club's
genetic engineering committee. "Trees are what's left of our natural
environment and home to endangered species."
The Sierra Club wants a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered
trees outdoors until the science is better understood. But like a tree
falling deep in the forest, the organization's call for a suspension of
genetic tinkering in the woods has gone unheeded.
As the research has gone forward, the scientists have had to deal with a
different set of risks. The locations of the research projects are usually
not disclosed because of the possibility of violence, such as the
firebombing two years ago of the University of Washington's Center for Urban
Horticulture. The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility.
"That act of terrorism cost the university millions of dollars and destroyed
valuable research," said UW geneticist Toby Bradshaw, who was targeted for
the vandalism by the ELF based on a mistaken belief that he worked with
genetically altered poplars. Bradshaw's trees were genetic hybrids, but
created by traditional cross-pollination methods.
The tree scientists say the critics don't understand how science, even
biotechnology, also can give Mother Nature a fighting chance against ravages
natural and manmade.
Biotechnology, they say, may provide just what's needed to help reverse
global deforestation and industrial pollution while satisfying increased
demand for wood and paper products. Fruit-tree farmers could also benefit
from the creation of hardier crops.
Already, biotechnology has been credited with saving Hawaii's $14
million-a-year papaya industry. A virus had wiped out 40 percent of the crop
and threatened to destroy the rest before seeds engineered to resist the
virus were introduced in 1998.
Now, advocates of biotechnology say, Hawaii's papaya industry is thriving
again. Critics of the technology, however, contend the altered papaya tree
is weaker and requires heavier use of pesticides and fertilizer to survive.
Papayas are the only approved engineered tree for market. The rest are still
experimental.
About 230 notices of genetically engineered tree experiments have been filed
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture since 1989, with about half coming
since 2000.
"There is a lot of value in genetic engineering," said Oregon State
University researcher Steven Strauss, who tends to a few thousand engineered
trees.
Some researchers are infusing trees with genetic material taken from viruses
and bacteria that helps them grow faster and fatter and yield better wood.
Others are splicing mercury-gobbling bacteria genes into trees, enlisting
nature to help clean polluted soil.
Still others are inserting foreign genes that might reduce the amount of
toxic chemicals needed to process trees into paper.
Poplar, eucalyptus, apple and coffee trees are among those being engineered.
Researchers even hope to revive the cherished American chestnut, devastated
by blight a century ago. Few of the trees, once a dominant feature of the
eastern United States, grow higher than shrubs before succumbing.
The experimental tree plots are much smaller in scale than the 100 million
acres of genetically modified food crops planted last year.
Except for the Hawaiian papaya, no genetically modified tree is expected to
be commercialized for the next five to 10 years. Trees grow much slower than
crops, and genetic researchers need years to compare and contrast
generations.
But could biotech trees crossbreed with their natural brethren and ruin
forests' genetic diversity? The Sierra Club fears that, among other
ecological consequences.
Researchers hope to placate critics by engineering sterility into their
designer trees, so their effect on the environment can be contained. But
that technology remains elusive.
Many field trials are backed by paper and timber companies hoping to design
trees that yield more wood and paper.
Numerous projects are aimed at growing more wood on less land or making it
cheaper and less environmentally harmful to process trees in mills.
Fruit-tree farmers, such as those in Hawaii, are looking for hardier trees
with less reliance on chemical bug and weed killers.
The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency even awarded
Colorado State researchers $500,000 this year to develop a pine tree or
other plants that can change colors when exposed to a germ or chemical
attack.
All this is being done now because of better understanding of tree genomes.
The Dendrome Project at the University of California-Davis, mimics the Human
Genome Project, offering detailed genetic information on 100 trees on its
Web site.
Forestry researchers are proud of their work, but have learned to be
circumspect about disclosing where their genetically engineered trees are
growing.
In June, three protesters were arrested after chaining themselves inside a
UC-Davis science building to protest tree research.
Oregon State's Strauss says the protesters' legitimate concerns are
virtually identical to those of scientists. After all, he is working to
engineer sterility into poplars.
"The violent guys just don't understand the science," Strauss said. "Genetic
engineering is not one thing; it's a thousand things. But the extremes want
to stop it all."
© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
AND ANOTHER COMMENT: Don't you just love how they start off with John Muir
and Sierra Club and end up with "the violent guys. . ."?
Jim
Jim Diamond, M.D.
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee (chair)
[log in to unmask]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Make your voice heard! Find out how to get Take Action Alerts
and other important Sierra Club messages by email at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/email