I would like to comment on the genetic diversity in Mexico. Here, there are several pine species and some trees look like hybrids. According to the taxonomists they know there is crossing among species - that could be a problem to deliver transgenic trees in our forests lands.
Moreover, maize, beans, tomatoes, cacao, papaya, etc., have all of them wild relatives.
Even using cloning propagation has to be planned in order to maintain the genetic diversity.
The risk could be high in countries like Mexico. Before delivering any transgenic plant in places with wild relatives, any eventuality and risk must be evaluated.
Carlos Ramirez Serrano
Departamento de Botanica y Zoologia
CUCBA Universidad de Guadalajara
AP. 139
45101 Zapopan Jalisco, Mexico
Tel: +52 36 82 00 03
Fax: +52 36 82 01 20
E-mail: [email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:29 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: The need for Forest Biotechnology: 20
Trees are relatively slow-growing, long-lived organisms. Current forestry practice is failing to meet demand for forest products the world over, that much is clear, with the balance being taken from 'wild' forests. So, something has to change. Forest biotechnology in it's widest sense has a role to play here. It will not on its own solve the world's environmental or consequent social problems, but it is hard to see how they can be reduced without meeting people's needs for wood and wood products first. Doing nothing (or just too little) is not an option. I wish there was more time for dealing with all the issues involved, but there isn't.
A big issue is whether the environmental risks from forest biotechnology can be minimized, while maximizing the gain (whoever it is who is planting the forests), and whether the some risks are sufficiently small to be outweighed by those benefits. The potential gain is biggest in tropical regions, as trees grow much faster than in temperate regions and simultaneously the need for improvements is forestry productivity is also the most acute, primarily to meet the needs of the people living there. Although significant, the commercial (export?) interests of multinational companies are a relatively small part of the equation, and probably far less significant than the various forestry programs designed to meet local needs conducted by Governments.
Technology is about doing more with less. I believe that forest biotechnology has a role to play here, when judged appropriate and safe - as already discussed by others. Incidentally, I would also include 'conventional' breeding in the definition, which itself is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and is aimed at skewing the traits of a population towards a desired end that would probably not occur spontaneously otherwise. Neither is it free of the potential to impact 'wild' populations, or running the risk of allowing exotic species or genotypes to escape into new areas.
If genetic engineering of trees can be used to reduce these risks further, or is deemed safer (at least under some circumstances) than 'conventionally' bred trees, and still contribute to meeting global demand, then it would be negligent not to use them where appropriate.
Dr. Trevor Fenning.
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
[email protected]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]