[Welcome, everybody !! This is the first message posted in Conference 2, which is expected to run until 25 June. We hope the conference will be interesting, constructive and enriching......The Moderator]
This is Dag Lindgren. I am a professor of Forest Genetics in northern Sweden.
Rotation time:
It is possible that many developing countries have one advantage for the application of radical biotechnology over many developed countries from one aspect, i.e. the often short rotation time. Forests around me have rotation time in the magnitude of a century. If genetics of such trees is changed, it may have consequences which do not become evident for many decades. I have trust in conventional forest tree breeding, the improved trees we plant will not be that different from "the best" of existing mature trees. But maybe conventional breeding progress offers sufficient opportunities for progress per forest rotation time, more dramatic progress than is possible with efficient conventional breeding could make the progress less safe because of lack of relevant field experience. There may be uncertainties on the effects of radical biotech because of our long rotation time. As reproduction is a strong force (the basis for evolution), there are reasons for suspicions about the reliability of claims of sterile ("safe", "terminator genes") trees unable to transfer their genes (and thus confining the genetic change to the planted forests), when then second half of the rotation time has not been seen.
Specific changes in end products (e.g. in wood quality) are of much interest only for short-rotation crops. For long-rotation forests the future market seems too uncertain (in particular considering that competing short rotation crops may achieve similar targets faster). Plans covering many decades have limited trust-worthiness, so even to carry out long term experiments with "new brave trees" will have its difficulties. Also species like Pinus radiata and Pinus taeda may have problematic long rotation time. Working with ten year rotation crops, the rotation time appears less problematic. Tests over a rotation period can be made, and will probably be brought to an end once initiated. Investments in breeding efforts of short rotation crops are more profitable and able to draw capital compared to long rotation crops, there the driving forces for tree improvement usually are more complex. As the rotation time of planted forests is often shorter in developing countries, the room for "radical" biotech may be larger in developing warm countries than in developed cool countries.
Dag Lindgren
[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-----
It has been developed in the Department of Forest Genetics with the advice
of Prof. Sara von Arnold, a method for regenerating Pinus sylvestris by
somatic embryogenesis. It was possible to get from 5 to 1500 mature
embryos for 77 genotypes out of 88, belonging to 19 out of 20 families
tested.
Now I am working with Pinus maximartinezii (a Mexican and endangered
species) in order to use the method developed for Pinus sylvestris. Later I
will work with elite material from timber pine trees (there are around 60
pine species in Mexico).
We have problems not with the rotation time period, the problem is that
we do not have practices for forest management. We are almost at the
begining. We have to
learn how to harvest the forest.
Carlos Ramirez Serrano,
[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 Steve Strauss, Oregon State University, USA,
Please consider these ideas for discussion.
1) KEEP LOCAL OPTIONS OPEN, AVOID BLANKET DECISIONS. Wise management seeks
to
have available as many tools as possible so that the right ones can be
chosen for specific circumstances. Genetically modified (GM) trees will be
suitable and safe in
some places and for some purposes, and inappropriate in others. As all
practitioners know, the only place they will find use, for the foreseeable
future, is in intensively managed plantations--whether they be industry or
community owned. Why do we seek some kind of global consensus about use of
genetically engineered plants and trees? Why not let decisions be made
locally as much as possible, based on local needs, economics, and
environmental considerations. 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 ? 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?
2) HERBICIDE RESISTANCE CAN BE USEFUL. Anyone who has managed a plantation
knows that efficient control of weeds is critical for survival and economic
return. As a result, herbicides are often used, including in the developing
world. Those that are inexpensive, have a broad spectrum of activity,
and that show low non-target toxicity and rapid breakdown in the environment
are preferred--and indeed are widely employed. Apart from gene escape in
cases where herbicide resistance would create significant problems
elsewhere, which can be considered on a case by case basis, is there
anything fundamentally wrong with herbicide resistant trees so that the
benefits of careful herbicide use can be maximized ?
3) FLOWERING CONTROL CAN BE BENEFICIAL. Plantations, even agroforestry or
multispecies plantations, have extremely low biological diversity compared
to the wild communities they replace. But they are very efficient producers
of wood. From an ecological viewpoint, we want as few of them as possible
on the global lanscape to grow the wood needed. In such places, are GM
trees, that are more efficient in their economic production, not desirable ?
Is prevention of flowering to increase wood production, to reduce the risk
of
the spread 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 for insect
pollinated/seed feeding species not likely to be tolerable in most places,
given the very low diversity already present in these tree-farms ? Isn't
the effective zoning of lands into wild/lightly managed vs. intensively
managed lands the best way to promote the joint goals of economic wood
production and regional and global ecological diversity in the developing
world ? Won't the higher cost of GM planting stock, and their specialized
value (e.g., herbicide resistance, modified wood for pulping), greatly limit
the extent to which such non-flowering trees are grown, especially in the
cash-poor developing world--avoiding the kind of "all forests are sterile"
scenario put forward by some parties ?
[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-----
I strongly concur with Dr. Lindgren's comments [May 4], and this fits well with
industry plans for use of GM trees.
It is only in the short rotations common in intensively grown plantation
trees in the developing world (e.g., eucalyptus in South America, Africa),
and in intensively managed plantations of the developed world (e.g., poplars
and pine plantations in New Zealand and the southeastern USA), that there
are serious plans to use GM trees. There, the shorter time frame (e.g., 6
to 30 years), rapid growth rates, and capacity for monitoring (e.g., to
assess stability of non-flowering trees, should they be deployed), are
reasonable to expect.
Steve Strauss, Oregon State University, USA
[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 Sam Johnston, San Francisco, CA, USA
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 [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 Dale Smith
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 ?
[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 Berthold Heinze, Vienna, Austria, [email protected]
Two comments on Sam Johnston's message of 11 May
A)
... And
> 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)
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.
[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-----
[Thanks to Rowland Burton for his clear thoughts on some important issues....Moderator]
From Rowland Burdon, New Zealand Forest Research Institute, [email protected]
1. Ecological risk factors:
It should also be remembered that new biotechnology, especially
genetic engineering, can serve as a research tool to guide the application of
more conventional technology, rather than having to be applied directly with the
risks that this would specifically entail.
2. Significance of short rotations (such as can often be achieved in developing
countries):.
3. Rejuvenation:
4. Political and Institutional aspects:
If it is not a wealthy foreign investor that is involved, but
essentially local institutions instead, there can arise a mismatch between
sophisticated laboratory work, conducted by young, overseas-trained personnel,
and a dearth of the field-based infrastructure that is needed as a platform for
successful, low-risk application of the technology. If, in a scramble for scarce
funds, the biotechnology drains money away from the infrastrucure the net
outcome could be downright deleterious.
Such problems in developing counties are not specific to new
biotechnology, but the advent of such technology is likely to make them more
acute.
[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-----
Forest Biotech and Forest Conservation are separate but inter-related
issues. I do not believe that it is possible to fully address one
without reference to the other, and that attempts to do so run the risk
of talking at cross purposes.
Firstly, before this discussion goes any further, I think it will be
useful to cover some of the background points and definitions that I
hope we can all agree on, so here goes (and maybe others can modify them
or add more) :
In no particular order
1. The world's wild forests are under immense and increasing
pressure, and are being destroyed at an accelerating and unsustainable
rate.
2. The term 'Forest' in English is confusing, as it does not
distinguish between native forests, ancient forests, virgin forests,
recreational forests, cultivated forests, and forestry plantations. For
the sake of argument I will either refer to 'wild forests' to mean all
of the above except 'cultivated forest' and 'forestry plantations'. The
term 'forest' alone refers to either type.
3. The world's forests (but most especially the wild forests) have a
major influence upon the atmosphere, climate and weather patterns, and
are major reservoirs of ecological diversity - the trees own, and the
other flora and fauna that are dependent upon them.
4. If the world's wild forests continue to disappear at the present
rate, there may well be severe and unpredictable consequences for us
all, besides any 'quality of life' issues relating to the degradation of
the environment - which are harder to quantify. These will be felt
first and foremost by the peoples currently living in or near such
forests.
5. Much of the surviving wild forests is in developing countries,
especially (but not only) in the tropical regions.
6. The demand for timber, and other forest products (e.g. pulp for
paper etc.) is increasing sharply - much faster than the current level
of sustainable supply. Note that in developing countries the demand for
simple firewood represents a major (if not the major) demand for forest
products.
7. It is not clear precisely who owns much of the wild forests of the
world (at an individual level), especially in developing countries -
although many people are dependent upon them.
8. Most timber and primary forest products are relatively bulky
compared to their value, making long distance transport before
processing (to higher value products) untenable.
9. Exports of high-quality timber from the wild forests of developing
countries to wealthier countries represents only a small percentage of
the total deforestation problem - although a much larger percentage in
terms of the monetary value accruing to those economies from such
practices.
10. In addition to the demand for forest products, there is a
accelerating demand for land (agriculture, housing, industry, roads)
that needs to be met, and is most severe in developing countries.
11. The human population of the world is now above 6 billion, and is likely
to at least double (and maybe treble) before levelling off. The bulk of
this population increase will occur in developing countries.
12. The populations of developing countries naturally and justifiably
have an expectation for improving their standard of living, besides the
needs of mere survival during times of crisis. If people's short term
needs cannot be made compatible with preserving wild forest areas, then
such forests are most unlikely to be preserved, or in fragmented forms
at best.
13. Even at current levels of consumption (for all of the above
reasons), the world's forests are only able meet to demand by 'mining out'
of the wild areas - a trend that is likely to increase, unless the
problems are addressed seriously.
I will not say much more in this mail, for fear of making it too long,
but I think that it is clear that (a) time is not on our side, (b) doing
nothing is not an option, and (c) proposed solutions must answer the
requirements and problems listed above, otherwise they will fail (and
are failing) - however well intentioned. The ultimate price of this
failure(s) will be high.
I see no contradiction in considering myself an environmentalist and a
forest biotechnologist. I do not believe that effective conservation of
the earths remaining wild forests can be achieved without the
application of forest biotechnology, but equally forest biotechnology in,
and of, itself does nothing to guarantee the protection of wild forests -
without addressing the other issues and problems involved.
Dr Trevor Fenning.
p.s. my current project here involves the transformation of Norway spruce
(Picea abies) for modified terpenoid bio-synthesis, to study the
ecological and defence role of the compounds in conifers. Previously, I
have been associated with programs to transform elms (Ulmus spp.) for
Dutch elm disease resistance (c/o The University of Abertay-Dundee,
Scotland) and wild cherry (Prunus avium, c/o HRI, UK).
[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-----
Most of the pertinent points in this debate have already been made by
others. I'll just throw in my 2 cents.
I do forest biotech research, and (like every other forest biotech person
I know) consider myself an environmentalist.
I'm operating from the following premises.
1. World human population will grow to at least 10-12 billion. This is
unfortunate, and I don't know anyone personally who looks forward to
having more people in the world. Nevertheless, that is the probable
reality which must be faced.
2. The average world standard of living, measured in the economic terms
now used (which don't account for all costs, especially
environmental) will increase.
3. Demand for wood products will increase. Substitution of other
materials is technically possible, but the cost and environmental impacts
of the current alternatives to wood and wood-based fiber (e.g., steel for
construction; kenaf, hemp, straw for fiber) do not make them clearly
superior to wood, mainly because inputs (energy, nutrients, water, and/or
high quality land) are higher for steel or annual fiber crops than for
equivalent yields of wood from trees.
4. Demand for food will also increase, very likely more than doubling.
Currently, 11% of the Earth's land surface is used for
agriculture, 26% is pasture, and 30% is forested.
5. Demand for energy will increase. Petroleum will cease to be the
cheapest source of energy sometime between 2025 and 2050. Alternatives
will include energy from biomass, which will further increase demand for
plant matter, competing with food and fiber uses.
There are two basic ways to meet the demand for wood/fiber/biomass. One
is to spread the harvest out over native forests, in a strategy very much
akin to 'hunter-gatherer' foraging for food. The other is to intensify
wood production in the same way that agriculture intensifies food
production -- by co-opting a sizeable land area and dedicating it to
high-yield mechanized production. By analogy to agriculture, this latter
alternative will include the domestication of trees, monocultures (always
more productive when resources other than light are not limiting), and
genetic engineering.
Personally, I would prefer that a portion of land be dedicated to maximum
wood production along agricultural lines, by converting some pastureland
into plantation forests, thereby eliminating (or at least greatly
curtailing) any logging in natural forests. Since plantation forests are
5-10 times as productive (measured in wood volume) as the *best* natural
forests, intensive forestry will have a relatively small footprint.
While there certainly are risks (actual and potential) associated with
genetic engineering, monocultures, and intensive agriculture/forestry,
there are also risks associated with NOT exploring or adopting these
technologies. We already see the consequences of low-yield agriculture in
the clearing of forests for food production (note that most deforestation
is for agriculture, and the wood is not even used but is burned as part of
the clearing operation). Proponents of lower-yielding agriculture and
forestry
technologies must be forthright in counting the costs of increased land
areas subject to more human influence, just as they demand (rightly) that
proponents of intensification account for the environmental consequences
of water use, nutrient runoff, and the potential for gene escape from
transgenic crops/trees.
Toby Bradshaw | (206)616-1796 (voice)
[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-----
[Although this joint contribution exceeds the normal maximum length for this
conference (600 words) and does not directly address the situation of the
forestry sector in developing countries, we will, in this special case, post
it to stimulate debate on the subject of transgenic plantations in
developing countries. The message also gives a very clear background to
genetic modification of forest trees and the factors that should be included
when considering how acceptable the use of GM trees might be....Moderator]
The current Society of American Foresters (SAF) Code of Ethics says that
"stewardship of the land is the
cornerstone of the forestry profession" and that "member[s] will advocate
and practice land management consistent with ecologically sound principles."
SAF ethics imply a responsibility both for active care of natural processes
of the land and for scientifically-based forestry that enhances the value of
the land to people while maintaining and promoting land health. Most
foresters would probably agree with these principles, however, they are not
practical guidelines for making decisions about the most appropriate forms
of management or technology to employ. These decisions are difficult
because every alteration of the land intended to enhance some aspect of
economic production involves trade-offs with other economic and ecological
values.
Foresters and landowners often choose to segregate land uses to varying
degrees to minimize inherent conflicts. These choices can be made at the
stand, landscape, or regional scales toward a variety of goals, including
protection of areas rich in biological diversity, preservation of indigenous
cultural diversity, and promotion of commodity production. Where intensive
forestry is practiced and wood production is emphasized, land is often
allocated to plantations that are managed much like agricultural crops.
This is where foresters are most likely to be interested in utilizing
genetic modification (GM).
GM is the insertion of new, human-modified genes into chromosomes to impart
specific new traits that cannot be readily achieved through conventional
breeding. The traits that have been demonstrated in trees that might
justify commercial uses are herbicide resistance, insect resistance,
increased growth rate, enhanced bioremediation of polluted soil, and
modified chemical composition of wood. The trees produced by this process
are referred to as "transgenic" though only a minute fraction of their DNA
is new (e.g., 10 parts per million in poplar). The genetic considerations
that are important in GM, concern the genes inserted, the traits they
impart,
and the physiological processes affected. Ecological considerations include
the prediction and monitoring of the environmental consequences of the new
genes, both inside and outside of plantations. Social considerations
include the distribution of risks, costs, and benefits that result from
using these new kinds of trees, and the extent of public acceptance for
their introduction on the landscape.
Although the question has been raised as to whether transgenic plants are
unacceptably "unnatural," and thus cannot be used ethically in agriculture
or forestry, it is our belief that it is impossible to make such a
categorical judgment based on science alone. Nearly all facets of modern
life depend upon a vast array of technologies that have little precedent in
the non-human world. Moreover, all human cultures have modified their
environments to varying degrees, using tools that they have devised for this
purpose. Some of our crops have been so extensively modified via breeding
that they little resemble their wild relatives. In plantation forestry,
many unnatural genetic technologies are currently employed, including
selective breeding, exotic species, interspecific hybridization, population
movement, and cloning. Given these precedents, how are we to decide where,
or if, transgenic trees should be used? We do not think it is possible to
circumscribe, technically, what kinds of practices are ethical and what are
not in using GM trees. The numerous combinations of genes, species,
environments, and management regimes present new and distinct benefits,
ecological risks, and social contexts. Instead, we propose that certain
conditions should be met for any use to be ethically acceptable.
First, the process of evaluation is critical. Because these trees will
occupy the environment and they or their transgenes may persist and spread
irreversibly outside of plantations, their use should be agreed to by the
public - either directly or indirectly (e.g., via representative democracy).
This also means that use should be preceded by scientific research,
education, and open, public discussion. Moreover, the interest groups,
companies, governments, citizens, and scientists that participate in this
discussion have an ethical obligation to back up their views with credible
information that promotes rational debate. Public evaluation of GM that is
informed by sound scientific principles is required for determining whether,
when, and where the use of GM trees is appropriate.
Second, the economic, utilitarian values of the transgenic traits to be
introduced, including the sustainability and distribution of benefits and
costs, should be studied to inform social evaluations. The extent to which
the technology will materially affect multinationals, regional companies,
rural economies, and citizens are important dimensions of benefit evaluation
for any technology, but it is especially critical for GM because its
patent-intensive nature tends to favor very large companies. This generates
concerns that decisions will be made with insufficient regard to the needs
of local economies and environments.
Third, the environmental impacts and risks from use of transgenic trees
should be evaluated prior to commercial deployment. These assessments
should carefully separate risks that are inherent to the technology (e.g., a
result of specific genes) from those that transcend the technology (e.g.,
impacts of plantations), and consider how methods of deployment can
aggravate or mitigate risks. For example, single gene forms of pest
resistance in trees might be used sustainably if part of an integrated pest
management system, but are likely to be ecologically unacceptable without
such a system. Because uncertainties about ecological effects will
necessarily persist, adaptive management associated with ongoing public
research should continue if commercial introduction occurs.
Finally, evaluations of all risks, costs, and benefits--economic, social,
and environmental--need to be integrated and holistic in nature. For
example, if there were stand-level reductions in biological diversity
associated with transgenic plantations, they may be socially acceptable if
they translate into greater net ecological and economic benefits at regional
or national levels (e.g., if transgenic plantations were to help make
renewable bioenergy crops economically competitive for the benefit of rural
economies, or promote global carbon sequestration). Likewise, while the use
of GM plantations may be socially or ecologically unacceptable if their
economic efficiency promotes the large scale conversion of wild forests to
plantations, they may be supported if they are introduced in concert with
land use controls that maintain critical habitat.
The challenges to ethical uses of GM trees in forestry reside not in the
process by which they are created, but rather in how their new
characteristics and use will affect the environment and society.
Substantial benefits have been documented in laboratory and field
experiments. However, there are reasonable ecological and social concerns
based on precedents from other kinds of agricultural technology. The key
problems are deciding when our knowledge base is adequate, when there has
been sufficient public discussion, and when there is adequate social
consensus that the net effects for proposed uses are positive. If the
process of public evaluation is scientifically sound and democratically
rigorous, it should be possible to enjoy a continuing flow of new products
from this rapidly maturing technology for the benefit of forestry in coming
decades. If it is not, the technology may remain on the shelf in spite of
its technical merits.
From Steven H. Strauss, Kenneth F. Raffa and Peter C. List.
Steve Strauss ([email protected]) and Peter List ([email protected]) are
Professors in Forest Science and Philosophy, respectively, at Oregon State
University in Corvallis, USA. Ken Raffa ([email protected]) is a
Professor of Entomology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, USA.
[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 ]
Professor- Forest Genetics
Dept of Forest Genetics and Plant Breeding
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Umeå, Sweden
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:28 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 2: Somatic embryogenesis / Mexico / Pinus
Departamento de Botanica y Zoologia
CUCBA, Universidad de Guadalajara
AP. 139,
45110 Zapopan Jalisco
MEXICO
TEL&FAX: +52 36 82 00 03
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:28 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 3: Empower local decisions about GM plantations / Why give up tools ?
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:41 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 4: Re: Rotation time and biotechnology for developing countries
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 10:57 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 5: Re: Empower local decisions about GM plantations / Why give up tools ?
Forest Preservationist, [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:30 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 6: Include rejuvenation in planning
MetaGenetics New Zealand, [email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:13 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 7: Re: Empower local decisions about GM plantations / Why give up tools ?
Institute of Forest Genetics - Federal Forest Research Centre
> >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
> 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
"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. "
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 8:30 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 8: Ecological risk /rotations /rejuvenation /investors
Further to Sam Johnston's contribution [11 May], I agree that there are risks.
However, they must be weighed up against not just expected benefits but
also the risks associated with use of alternative technologies, which could
easily be greater, in terms of a function of probability and potential severity.
Some of the risks are indeed remote possibilities and, as pointed out by Berthold Heinze [11 May],
must be weighed against the role of natural selection in conferring resilience.
While I have never engaged closely with the Gaia hypothesis, I would see natural
selection as being a powerful force against the effects of anything less than
high levels of adverse genetic contamination in organisms.
I agree with Dag Lindgren [4 May] that length of rotation can be important.
But in respect of both genetic engineering and the use of QTL markers its
significance is indeed ambiguous. Short rotations (or short generation cycles),
while reducing the risks associated with genetic engineering and favouring the
detection of QTL, can also allow spectacular rates of genetic gain through
conventional breeding.
I endorse Dale Smith's position [11 May] on the specific question of the
potential benefits of rejuvenation. I have long seen it as a much undervalued
goal, which could feed into a range of technological applications. Intriguingly,
if developed reliably it could feed back into propagation technology that would
typically fit very well with developing countries.
Much may depend on the agencies involved. If large foreign investors
are involved, they can in principle put in place a well-balanced technological
base, whereby the biotechnology is properly coupled with complementary,
field-based programmes in which there is a proper infrastructure of genetic
management. However, for such an organisation, the operation in a single
developing country may be a small part of a global risk spread, in contrast to the
the risk exposure for the individual country and especially the local
community(ies). In this situation there will also be Intellectual Property
issues, while the regulatory mechanisms for risk management (which is not
straightforward anywhere) are likely to be weak.
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 4:44 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 9: Forest Biotech vs Forest Conservation ?
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
[email protected]
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:22 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 10: Will forestry follow the agricultural model ?
College of Forest Resources | (206)685-2692 (FAX)
University of Washington | http://poplar2.cfr.washington.edu/toby
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 1:54 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 11: Ethics and transgenic plantations