11.05.2000

From Sam Johnston, San Francisco, CA, USA
Forest Preservationist, batfish@earthlink.net

Comments on Steve Strauss's message of 10 May

>1) KEEP LOCAL OPTIONS OPEN, AVOID BLANKET DECISIONS.... chosen for specific circumstances. Genetically modified (GM) trees will be suitable and safe in some places and for some purposes

This is an unfounded assumption. For all we know, genetically engineered (GE) trees could be harmful to the environment in ALL cases. The way to find out is NOT by releasing such products to the market or to the environment before we know more.

>, and inappropriate in others................................... Why not let decisions be made locally as much as possible, based on local needs, economics, and environmental considerations.

Agreed - in which case all the risks and alternatives must be discussed alongside the possible benefits.

> Can the obvious goal of some organizations to stigmatize use of GM trees everywhere, as though they were a central ruling body and as though forests were one kind of entity managed for one kind of product, be considered useful and ethical ?

There is no central ruling body of environmentalists. However, the cartels, monopolies, and alliances of corporate elites will act as a central ruling body to extend their colonial empires through such means as transgenic technology. Example: terminator. What proponents of terminator technology (e.g. trees engineered not to flower) do not tell you is that the owners of the patents will have monopoly power to price-gouge and force the use of their own herbicide, as Monsanto typically does in contracts covering Roundup-ready (RR) soybeans. This hardly gives anyone more choice - rather, it marries consumers to the producers. What a brilliant marketing SCAM.

> Is it appropriate for the extremely risk-averse policies of some parties in the economically well-off developed world to drive the agenda for the developing world?

No less appropriate than untested marketing schemes and extreme profit-driven policies of big corporations. And I challenge the premise of "extreme risk-averse". The burden of proof is with the proponents of the technology to prove it safe before releasing it to market. Not extreme - common sense.

>2) HERBICIDE RESISTANCE CAN BE USEFUL. Anyone............. ................ is there anything fundamentally wrong with herbicide resistant trees so that the benefits of careful herbicide use can be maximized ?

Gene escape cannot be dismissed so casually. And what if problems do develop ? Are developing countries and their ecosystems to be guinea pigs like consumers of GE foods? Dont expect the public to roll over and embrace anything like the Orwellian fiction of "substantial equivalence" this time.

>3) FLOWERING CONTROL CAN BE BENEFICIAL. Plantations........... .......of exotic plantation species, and as a means to keep certain transgenes (e.g., herbicide resistance) within plantations, not also desirable ? Is the small additional reduction in diversity

Another assumption. Monoculture plantations of GE trees could very likely cause much more than a "small additional reduction in diversity." And unlike even nuclear waste, the GE genie can NEVER, EVER be put back into the bottle. We're proposing to mess around with a profound evolutionary balance worked out over millions of years for the sake of speculative benefits and at huge, in many ways unknown and perhaps unknowable, risks. Why? So that Monsanto and its minions can reap huge profits at the expense possibly of whole ecosystems?

> for insect pollinated/seed feeding species........... ...cash-poor developing world--avoiding the kind of "all forests are sterile" scenario put forward by some parties ?

There's another assumption implicit in this argument - that demand for wood products will remain constant or increase over time. This assumption ignores the significant and growing demand-side movement to protect forests. Alternatives to wood-based paper and lumber are presenting themselves as ecologically sound and economically viable products. If we in the developed world are to offer assistance to developing countries the least we can do is present the information we have about alternatives like hemp, kenaf, straw, and other tree-free paper sources, as well as recycled, reclaimed, and FSC-certified [FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council, is an international, independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation...Moderator] sustainable lumber, plus alternatives to wood lumber. But dont expect Westvaco Corporation et.al. to jump at this opportunity.

It is hypocritical to advocate choice for developing countries by touting the speculative benefits while dismissing the risks with a wave of the hand and ignoring alternatives to wood products. For more info on the risks of GE trees and the growing movement against the irresponsible application of this technology see http://www.nativeforest.org

Bottom line: prove to me it's safe and I'm all for it. Try to shift the burden of proof on those who advocate common-sense precaution and risk a backlash that will shut the whole thing down.

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org 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: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 6: Include rejuvenation in planning

From Dale Smith
MetaGenetics New Zealand, dalesmith@xtra.co.nz

I have 32 years of experience of research and development with cuttings, micropropagation, somatic embryogenesis, and genetic transformation for Pinus and Eucalyptus in New Zealand and the USA. My work has been largely with the New Zealand Forest Research Institute and Metagenetics New Zealand.

I offer a recommendation:

Planners reviewing options for forestry in developing countries should make provision for inclusion of rejuvenation technology. For pines at least, the technology should be universally available over the next 5-10 years.

Background:

I fully endorse the review by Haines and Martin [Biotechnology and the Sustainable Production of Tropical Timber, 1997] in http://www.fao.org/forestry/FOR/FORM/FOGENRES/genresbu/125/125e/arte11.stm Their recommendations are true in large part for temperate forestry as well. I do believe however that the focus in tree biotechnology is now about to change.

The current industrial vegetative propagation paradigm is centered on large-scale vegetative amplification of untested juvenile genotypes, with maintenance of the juvenile state in stool-beds, cool stored micropropagated shoots, or cryopreserved tissue. This technology is in use for conifers in Australia, Canada, USA, and New Zealand. However there are very high initial capital costs, and maintenance of field trials and records over a sustained period requires the long-term commitment of management.

These costs are probably beyond reach in most developing countries except where carried out by multinationals.

Selection of mature trees in the field with desirable wood properties and deployment of rejuvenated clones is now a viable option in forestry. The concept is not new, and is discussed in some detail by Haines and Martin. There have been reports from Europe (e.g. Paques from AFOCEL [Association Foret Cellulose, a French study and research organisation, whose goal is to improve competitiveness of the forest resources and the supply of wood and paper industries...Moderator] of success with spruce rejuvenation.

In New Zealand, fully rejuvenated planting stock originating from select, 20-year-old ortets [the original individuals that are vegetatively propogated...Moderator] of Pinus radiata has been planted in field trials. Industrial evaluation of the technology is now under way.

The set-up costs for rejuvenation are much lower than for micropropagation or somatic embryogenesis. When a spreadsheet comparison is made of the relative economic benefits of testing juvenile clones versus rejuvenated clones, the latter wins by a large margin.

I personally believe an argument can be made for integrating rejuvenation technology into a gene conservation program for a relatively modest cost. This could be applied to a "crash" program to both conserve genes and begin production of indigenous species with newly discovered benefits. A prime candidate for this approach might be Prunus africana, currently alleged to be under threat to meet the demand in the West for a "natural" cure for prostate problems ( http://www.envirolink.org/archives/enews/0721.html ). What better industry for a developing economy than one based on the advantages of the indigenous flora ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 7: Re: Empower local decisions about GM plantations / Why give up tools ?

From Berthold Heinze, Vienna, Austria, Berthold.Heinze@FBVA.BMLF.GV.AT
Institute of Forest Genetics - Federal Forest Research Centre

Two comments on Sam Johnston's message of 11 May

A)
> >3) FLOWERING CONTROL CAN BE BENEFICIAL. Plantations...........
> >.......of exotic plantation species, and as a means to keep certain
> >transgenes (e.g., herbicide resistance) within plantations, not also
> >desirable ? Is the small additional reduction in diversity

... And
> unlike even nuclear waste, the GE genie can NEVER, EVER be put back into
> the bottle. We're proposing to mess around with a profound evolutionary
> balance worked out over millions of years for the sake of speculative
> benefits and at huge, in many ways unknown and perhaps unknowable, risks.
> Why? So that Monsanto and its minions can reap huge profits at the expense

> possibly of whole ecosystems?

Evolution does not work for the benefit of private (or be it, public) enterprises. If the genes introduced into trees were so malign for the "balance worked out over millions of years ...", natural selection would extremely quickly do away with them. It is difficult do conceive how such organisms that depend so much on ecological interaction, as trees do, would possibly survive even only one short rotation cycle if their genes were so harmful for their own environment. This is a fundamental difference to annual seed crops, I think. The "profound evolutionary balance .." is stable because it has proven stability in the past. Trees trying to maximize their own share of the ecosystem by killing it would not be evolutionary stable (I'd rather call them suicidal).

B)
"Alternatives to wood-based paper and lumber are presenting themselves as ecologically sound and economically viable products. If we in the developed world are to offer assistance to developing countries the least we can do is present the information we have about alternatives like hemp, kenaf, straw, and other tree-free paper sources, as well as recycled, reclaimed, and FSC-certified sustainable lumber, plus alternatives to wood lumber. "

One drawback of hemp, kenaf, straw etc. is that they grow in a "tree-free" landscape, whereas even timber production forests serve to fulfill at least some environmental benefits for the surrounding ecosystems in most situations I can think of ... The key is the concept of multi-purpose forests, as we try to implement it in densly-populated Central Europe. Economical, ecological and other aspects, such as landslide or erosion protection or water purification, have to be balanced against each other in many countries. In a mosaic of forest patches each having different individual priorities, there will also be a place for high production forests and even biotechnology.

Return to Logs of Conference 2 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.