UN Convention Calls for Moratorium on Genetically Engineered Trees
-
UN Convention Recognizes GM Tree Threat
By Prof. Joe Cummins
ISIS Press Release, 5-30-2006
A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS membersÂ’
website. Details here
The threat of GM trees recognised
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) passed a formal declaration
at its Eighth Conference of the Parties (COP-8) in Curitiba, Brazil on
31 March 2006 to recognize the threats posed by genetically modified
(GM) (same as genetically engineered (GE)) trees, and urging all
countries to approach the technology with caution [1].
This important declaration came in support of the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) call for an international framework to assess the
safety of GM trees in 2005 [2]. Many groups are hoping that the UN
involvement will finally address the environmental and socio-economic
impact of GM trees on global forest diversity, and on local and
indigenous communities.
Pierre Sigaud, FAO expert in forest genetics, warned against rushing to
commercialise GM trees before conducting environmental risk assessments
in accordance with national and international biosafety protocols. He
said, “The issue goes beyond country level since pollen flow and seed
dispersal do not take account of national boundaries and wood is a
global commodity.” To counteract the contamination of native stands by
GMtrees, a robust framework to govern research and application is
essential, Sigaud added.
Moratorium backed by developing countries
The increasing use of biotechnology in the forestry sector has led to
the spread of GM treeplanting in at least thirty-five countries.
According to the FAO, mostresearch is confined to the laboratories, but
many millions of GM trees have already been released in open field
trials in China, North America, Australia, Europe, and India, and to a
lesser extent, South America and Africa [3].
Nine developing countries supported calls for a moratorium on GM trees
proposed by government representatives of Iran and Ghana [4]. Among
these countries are Ecuador, Egypt, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal and
Madagascar, and Malawi, some of whom are home to the richest, most
biodiverse forests on Earth. The motion was opposed only by Canada and
Australia, both governments having vested interests in biotechnology.
But they too agreed that a detailed investigation into the impact of GM
trees is needed.
Contamination from GM pollen drift
The latest evidence suggests that pollen can travel up to 1 200 km in
North America.
Concerns about contamination from GM pollen and seed drift, and the
impact on local/indigenous communities are shared by many forestry
experts and civil society organisations around the world, such as the
World Rainforest Movement, the Union of Ecoforesty, the Global Justice
Ecology Project, Via Campesina, the Independent Science Panel (see “Save
our Forests” series SIS 26) and the International Forum on Biodiversity.
Delegates from these organisationshad lobbied hard at international
meetings leading up to the latest CBD declaration, which is part of a
wider commitment to a road map that significantly reduces the rate of
biodiversity loss by 2010, in line with the 2002 World Summit for
Sustainable Development (WSSD).
Women destroy GM seedlings
Feelings are running high in developing countries. On 8 March 2006, 2
000 Brazilian women destroyed an estimated eight million low-lignin
eucalyptus seedlings destined for plantations and the greenhouse of the
worldÂ’s largest pulp producer, Aracruz Cellulose. Another company
ArborGen has targeted Brazil as an important site to develop huge
plantations of GM eucalyptus, and International Paper owns 200 000
hectares in Brazil.
The Brazilian Network Against the Green Desert and their partner the
Latin American Network Against Monoculture Tree Plantations have
designated 21 September as National Tree Day since 2004 in support of
rural communities that have been displaced, destroyed or exploited by
monoculture plantations.
In Chile, around one hundred indigenous Mapuche Indians face trial and
imprisonment, due to their actions against forestry company plantations.
Too little, too late?
The UN interventions may be too late, but better late than never! In
2002, China became the first country to release GM trees commercially
(See “GM trees lost in China’s forests” SiS 25)[5]. The Chinese State
Forestry Bureau is unable to trace the 1.4 million GM poplars (Populus
nigra) planted so far.
Nine smaller field trials are underway with Poplar –12 and Poplar –741,
engineered with a Bt toxin (from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis)
to be pest resistant. There is sufficient evidence to argue that
engineered sterility cannot contain the spread of GE material [6] and
that Bt toxin cause allergic reactions in humans and non-target pests
and that Bt toxin cause allergic reactions in humans and non-target
pests [7].
Plans to increase GM tree plantations in China are being considered [8],
and the Chinese delegation kept a low profile at the CBD meeting in Brazil.
On the big Island of Hawaii, contamination of organic papaya stocks by
GM papayas is already at fifty percent [9]. Organic produce needs to be
restocked with certified non-GM seeds.
Who leads in GM trees?
The US Department of Energy was first to sequence the whole genome of
the poplar tree. Three other GM tree species dominate forestry
biotechnology research: pine, eucalyptus, and spruce (Picea). These too
have been widely planted in open trials. Applications to field test GM
trees in the US have risen by over 70 percent in fifteen years.
ArborGen leads the research and development of GM trees. It states its
primary aim as a “commitment to sustainability” on the company’s website
[10]. It receives funding from three corporate partners – International
Paper, MeadWestvaco, and Rubicon [11]. This perspective of
“sustainability” is clearly not something that indigenous communities in
Chile and Brazil are happy about.
A day of protest will be held 8 May, 2006 outside International PaperÂ’s
headquarters highlighting the dangers of GM trees (see “A silent
forest”, this series) and to scrap their research and development
programme in time for their next annual shareholders meeting in 2007.
Nanotech-engineered GM trees
The Institute of Paper Science and Technology collaborated with the US
Department of EnergyÂ’s Oak Ridge laboratory in their latest genetic
engineering project that uses carbon nanofibres to inject synthetic DNA
into plant cells [12]. Carbon nanofibres and nanotubes are molecular
scale particles; one nanometre is a billionth of a metre; and one grain
of sand is a million nanometres across.
This technique usesmillions of carbon nanofibres grown sticking out from
silicon chips, on which strands of DNA are attached. Living cells are
then thrown against them and pierced by the fibres, injecting DNA into
the cells. Following this process, the synthetic DNA can then express
new proteins and traits.
There has been a rush to commercialise carbon nanotubes since their
invention in 1991, but very few safety assessments have been carried out
until quite recently, when they were found in laboratory experiments to
be highly toxic, producing inflammation of the lungs of mice [13]. (See
also “Nanotubes highly toxic”, SiS 22; “Nanotoxicity a new discipline”,
SiS 28 [14]).
A Royal Society report in conjunction with the Royal Academy of
Engineers stated in July 2004 that there are uncertainties about the
potential effects on human health and the environment from manufactured
ultrafine nanoparticles if they are released [15]. Professor Ann
Dowling, who chaired of the working group that produced the report, said
of nanoparticles, “…it is vital that we determine both the positive and
negative effects they might have.”
Effects of nanofibres similar to asbestos
A 2004 EU Nanoforum report likens the shapes of nanofibres to asbestos
fibres, and by implication to the morbid effects of asbestos on human
health [16].
A NASA study [17] reported inflammation of lungs to be more severe than
in cases of silicosis, a respiratory disease caused by breathing in
silica dust.
A European Commission report chronicles the hazards of nanotechnology in
detail assisted by ISP toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard [18] (see also
“Nanotox”, SiS 21 [19]). Mapping out Nano Risks, explicitly recommends
that genetic modification using nano-technology should be limited to
microorganisms, “for which containment is possible.”
Dr Richard Smalley, a Nobel laureate and chairman of Carbon
Nanotechnology Inc, has ignored these early warnings and is adamant that
his technique poses no threat to health [20]. He said, “We are confident
there will prove out to be no heath hazards but this [toxicology] work
continues.”
Micropropagation produce clones
Researchers in India use “micropropagation” to clone plants from tiny
pieces of tissues [3]. Micropropagation is a method of in vitro
vegetative multiplication that bypasses sexual reproduction and allows
selected individuals to be precisely replicated in vast numbers. The
production of millions of identical genetically engineered plants
constitutes the largest area (34 percent) of experimental biotechnology
activities in forestry throughout sixty-four countries.
The ultimate goal of this research is to produce patented manufactured
seeds from clones of “model species” that will enable the quick and easy
global delivery of GM tree products.
Such cloned trees are genetically identical and will be completely wiped
out in case of disease or pests, as past experience has demonstrated so
clearly.
No future for GM trees
The FAO surveyed 65 countries involved in forest biotechtology, and
their responsesgave undue emphasis to the perceived benefits and future
of GM trees. Of over four hundred questionnaires sent out, forty-nine
responded, of which twenty-three had conducted research on GM trees.
Respondents felt that the cost of GM tree trials, intellectual property
rights, and regulations were significant obstacles to their future
Consumer rejection and unease with GM products was also cited as problems.
The benefits of GM trees were perceived as providing easier pulping and
reduced use of chemicals for the timber industry, pest and disease
resistance, phyto-remediation of mercury in soil, secondary compounds to
pharmaceuticals, and thepotential to withstand extreme environmental
conditions such as drought and heat. All of these perceived benefits are
not without problems and require many years of careful biological and
environmental assessment before commercialisation could be justified
(see box). Benefits to human health scored lowest of all.
Why not GM trees?
·Break with the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety – the first
international law to control transportation of Living Modified Organisms
(LMOÂ’s) across national boundaries. And under the Forest Biological
Diversity Decision in Brazil 2006 UNEP/CBD/COP8/WG.1/L3
·Disrupt ecosystems and pose similar environmental, health and economic
risks as GM crops, but on a larger scale
Replace and threaten natural biodiverse forests that are crucial to
stabilising climate and regulating rainfall
Produce faster growing trees that speed up the return of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere and use up much more water
·When used to phyto-remediate land actually re-locate soil mercury from
contaminated sites in the south and deposit them in the north. And
return expelled mercury to the soil in its original toxic state
Manipulate synthetic genes and toxins to alter seed and flowering
production posing threats to human and animal health, as well as natural
biodiversity
Increase productivity for timber and pulp in monoculture plantations
that destroy natural habitats and rural communities which depend on
native forests for food and a multiplicity of other uses
Less fibrous content of trees (lignin) reduces strength, resistance to
pests, and disease. Increased lignin leads to a build-up of undigested
plant material in the soil.
Source: Save our Forests series, Science in Society 2005, 26, p 14-24
The FAOÂ’s proposed framework to assess the safety of GM trees therefore
must acknowledge the megadiversity of existing forests and theincreasing
trend towards recognizing the benefits of multiple uses of forests that
preserves that diversity (“Multiple uses of forests”, SiS 25) [21].
The declaration of the UN CBD to take a precautionary approach to GM
trees is a helpful step towards the proposed moratorium on GM trees.
****************************************************************************
****************************
This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association. Please join us and become a member at
www.eco-farm.org http://www.eco-farm.org/ . To be removed from this list,
reply to any email with "remove" in the header.
****************************************************************************
****************************
