The Strongroup & WhiteMoose

[J-Desrochers]

http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1418

Genetically engineered trees are the new threat to Canada's forests

The debate over genetically modified plants is moving beyond the fields and heating up under the forest canopy. Research on genetically engineered (GE) trees is well under way in many countries and GE trees may soon be a familiar presence in our forests. Orin Langelle and Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology have embarked on a campaign to stop GE tree research. According to Petermann, "GE trees are the greatest threat to the native forest since the chainsaw."

Currently, genetic research on trees is largely focused on developing methods that will make growing, harvesting and processing trees and their fruits and nuts, more 'efficient.' Scientists are experimenting with increasing levels of BT (a naturally occurring pesticide) in trees, increasing trees' resistance to herbicides, reducing levels of lignin (the substance which promotes rigidity) in trees, and making trees sterile. Each of these characteristics will have devastating consequences on the environment, says Petermann. "Biotechnology is so revolutionary that we know almost nothing about it...but so far everything has been one problem after another." For example, trees with increased levels of BT are supposed to result in a decrease in sprayed pesticides, but the opposite has been the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Chainsaw
Genetically engineered trees are the new threat to Canada's forests

SOURCE: The Dominion, Canada, by Katie Shafley
http://dominionpaper.ca/environment/2006/05/20/the_new_ch.html
DATE: 20 May 2006


The debate over genetically modified plants is moving beyond the fields
and heating up under the forest canopy. Research on genetically
engineered (GE) trees is well under way in many countries and GE trees
may soon be a familiar presence in our forests. Orin Langelle and Anne
Petermann of Global Justice Ecology have embarked on a campaign to stop
GE tree research. According to Petermann, "GE trees are the greatest
threat to the native forest since the chainsaw."

Currently, genetic research on trees is largely focused on developing
methods that will make growing, harvesting and processing trees and
their fruits and nuts, more 'efficient.' Scientists are experimenting
with increasing levels of BT (a naturally occurring pesticide) in trees,
increasing trees' resistance to herbicides, reducing levels of lignin
(the substance which promotes rigidity) in trees, and making trees
sterile. Each of these characteristics will have devastating
consequences on the environment, says Petermann. "Biotechnology is so
revolutionary that we know almost nothing about it...but so far everything
has been one problem after another." For example, trees with increased
levels of BT are supposed to result in a decrease in sprayed pesticides,
but the opposite has been the case.

Trees with increased levels of BT result in the 'natural' selection of
insects that are more resistant to the BT pesticide. This, in turn,
necessitates higher pesticide levels, which can inadvertently kill non-
target species. In the film A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat,
Genetically Engineered Trees, David Suzuki explains that the BT
pesticide will also leach into the ecological cycle through the roots,
leaves, flowers, and pollen. "A forest that kills insects would be
catastrophic," says Suzuki.

Scientists are also working on creating sterile GE trees to prevent
pollination of native trees; however, according to the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), it is nearly
impossible to control gene flow through pollen and seed dispersal - even
at a 95 percent success rate. As Petermann points out, "the sterilized
trees are producing nothing, and the other 5% are still sending out
tainted genes--it's a lose-lose situation." By bearing no flowers, fruit,
or nuts, the sterile trees will offer little nourishment to the wildlife
around them, and accidental contamination of native forests by the non-
sterile - but genetically modified - trees will result in unforeseeable
upsets to the ecological balance. For example, according to Greenpeace's
website, "reduced lignin could speed up the decomposition of trees,
altering soil ecology, structure and fertility."

The Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science has already found genes
from the GE poplars in Xinjiang, China appearing in natural varieties,
and researchers have found backyard and organic papaya trees in Thailand
and Hawaii contaminated by pollen from nearby GE papaya plantations.

Despite the risks, the biotechnology industry is promoting genetic
modification as a way to clean up the environment by addressing problems
like climate change and soil contamination. Aziz Choudry, Board Member
of Global Justice Ecology, says this is simply a public relations move
meant to "make the insane palatable," and will not work.

"They say that they can engineer trees to suck mercury [from the soil],"
says Petermann, "but then the mercury is just displaced into the air."
As for global warming, GE trees could be engineered to take CO2 out of
the air faster than normal trees, but GE plantations would replace
native forestland, inhibiting biodiversity. "Studies done by the US
Environmental Protection Agency and the World Resources Institute found
that in tropical areas plantations at best sequester only 1/4 the carbon
as native forests," says Petermann. GE trees wouldn't offset carbon
emissions enough to make a serious impact on global warming, says
Petermann. A better response to global warming, she says, would be to
cut down on pollution.

On March 22nd, Langelle and Petermann attended the Convention on
Biological Diversity in Brazil to seek a moratorium on the research and
commercial use of GE trees. While they did not achieve an all-out ban,
the UN did recommend that the precautionary approach be used with GE
trees. The application of the precautionary principle would mean that GE
technology must be proven safe and necessary before being used. Canada
and the United States argued against the recommendation.

The United States has a large stake in biotechnology, with 150 test
plots conducting over two thirds of the world's GE tree research. The
Canadian government has not yet released genetically modified trees into
the commercial sector, but has been testing GE black spruce, white
spruce, and poplar in greenhouses and outdoors since 1997, with test
plots in Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Alberta.

So far, the only commercial GE tree plantations are in China, which
released BT poplar trees in 2001. A destructive cycle led to China's GE
forests, says Petermann. Initial deforestation in China led to
desertification, leading to poplar plantations to curb the
desertification. The poplar monoculture was vulnerable to insect
infestation, so insect-resistant BT poplars were planted, which China
did with the help of the UN Development Program and the FAO. "The
accurate area of GM plantations cannot be assessed because of the ease
of propagation and marketing of GM trees and the difficulty of
morphologically distinguishing GM from non-GM trees," says Huoran Wang
of the Chinese Academy of Forestry, "a lot of materials are moved from
one nursery to another and it is difficult to trace them."

"It's completely unregulated," Langelle says. "People can buy these
trees at any local nursery and plant them anywhere."

"Chile sees itself as a model for industrial forestry in the world,"
says Petermann, and may be next to commercialize GE trees. Genetic
research is currently focused on the eucalyptus, which occupies a large
portion of Chilean plantations. These plantations are already having
devastating impacts on the environment and indigenous communities.

Plantations are water-intensive, which means they deplete groundwater,
making it harder for other organisms and local communities to obtain
water. The trees leach nutrients from the soil, reduce biodiversity and
as monocultures, allow pests and diseases to flourish, requiring
increased use of pesticides and herbicides. "Timber plantations are a
scourge of the South," says Langelle, and combined with GE technology,
plantations could have even more destructive effects. As the Greenpeace
website reports, research is being done to create faster-growing trees,
which would exacerbate problems of nutrient depletion and groundwater
loss already present in plantations.

Petermann and Langelle are continuing their drive for a worldwide ban of
GE trees at the next UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2008. But
Langelle's expectations of the UN are minimal, noting that "the UN is
not really a body that's going to stop anything." Nevertheless, he
believes that "people have the power to stop this."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Genetic tinkering speeds tree maturation

SOURCE: Richmond Times-Dispatch, USA, by A. J. Hostetler
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/
MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137835812675&path=!
news&s=1045855934842
DATE: 05 May 2006



Genetic tinkering speeds tree maturation
Tech scientist is part of team that engineers early blooming poplar

In trees, as elsewhere in life, timing is everything.

Hordes descend upon the nation's capital to catch a glimpse of the
blooming Japanese cherry trees. Virginia's Bradford pears and dogwoods
herald springtime, and yellow forsythia presages suburbia's annual
battle against crabgrass.

However, some trees, such as poplars, resist flowering before they're
good and ready, remaining adolescents for decades before finally
blossoming into adulthood.

A Virginia Tech molecular geneticist, along with colleagues in Sweden
and Oregon, has identified a genetic mechanism that controls not only
when poplar trees flower but when they stop growing and set their buds
for winter.

The researchers also found that levels of a flowering gene increase with
age in the trees, somewhat akin to the hormonal surge in maturing teenagers.

In tinkering with this genetic control, the team created months-old and
weeks-old poplars that bloomed. The discovery of how to turn arboreal
slackers into adults is published online in Science.

"Flowerings are very complex processes," said the geneticist, Virginia
Tech's Amy Brunner, who studies how to make genetically engineered trees
sterile so they don't cross with wild trees. "This gradual increase
might be part of the mechanism by which trees become adults."

The research focused on the FT gene, which in such annuals as the
mustard plant partners with the CO gene to control flowering in response
to the length of daylight.

Poplar trees, grown for their wood and ability to remediate
environmental problems, have similar genes. Although poplar flowering
does not depend on day length, it can take eight to 20 years before the
trees bud.

That's a long time for tree farmers and breeders. They might want a
fully flowering fruit tree as soon as possible, or they might want to
suppress smelly flowers or put more of the tree's energy into vegetative
growth, Brunner said.

"If you could be able to control flowering or stimulate it and really
get it earlier . . . you can breed sooner and go through more
generations of breeding to get the trees you want," she said.

In addition to faster breeding, controlling this flowering mechanism
could enhance wood quality, increase disease resistance and even help
trees adapt to new climates, Brunner said.

The researchers infected poplar stem segments with a bacterium carrying
the FT gene and grew the resulting stems in greenhouses. A genetically
engineered male poplar produced flower structures within four weeks.
Other male stems made apparently normal pollen, and female stems created
the catkins in which flowers cluster in just a few months.

In North America, there are 15 poplar species, including aspens and
cottonwoods, and more than 30 species worldwide.

Poplars at different latitudes in Europe are known to vary in the timing
of their winter preparations, when they halt their growth and set their
buds. In Germany, for example, an aspen winterizes when daylight gets
shorter than 16 hours. In northern Sweden, where summer days are
extremely long or even continuous above the Arctic Circle, the tree
prepares for an earlier winter when the days get shorter than 21 hours.

The researchers found that in late summer, as the days begin getting
shorter, the CO gene begins accumulating in these trees while turning
off the FT gene. The response occurs even when the tree is moved to a
different latitude.

By altering the levels of the FT gene, the scientists found they could
prolong or shorten the tree's growing season, setting the stage for
adapting genetically engineered trees to new climates.

Brunner's co-authors in the study were from Oregon State University, the
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Umea University, also in
Sweden.

[J-Desrochers]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Moratorium_on_all_GM_Trees.php

ISIS Press Release 18/02/07
Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees
Genetically modified (GM) trees have all the hazards of GM crops only worse, GM forest trees, in particular, are the ultimate threat to people and planet

Prof. Joe Cummins and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho update the ecological and health risks since ISIS' last comprehensive review ( GM Forest Trees - The Ultimate Threat , SiS 26)

A fully referenced version posted on ISIS members' website. Find out more about ISIS membership

An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk

A version of this article was submitted on behalf of ISIS to the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 26 November 2006 in support of a moratorium on the environmental release of GM trees. Please circulate widely.

Genetically modified trees without caution
There is growing pressure to commercialise the numerous GM tree species that have been modified with a variety of transgenes. One major reason is that GM trees have been proposed for plantations on the mistaken assumption that they can offset carbon emissions, and more so, qualify for subsidies under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism . At the same time, rising worldwide demand for biofuels has opened up an opportunity for proponents to rescue genetically modified (GM) crops from chronic market failure by promoting them as ‘energy' crops (see Box 1). Unfortunately, energy crops, including GM tree plantations, are far from sustainable or environmentally benign [1-3] ( Biofuels for Oil Addicts , SiS 30; Biofuels: Biodevastation, Hunger & False Carbon Credits , Biofuels Republic Brazil , SiS 33). But in the rush to exploit GM trees, caution will be scattered to the winds, like the pollen of the GM trees currently being tested.

Box 1

Industry's spin on GM energy crops for saving carbon emissions
Biotech industry sponsored International Service for the Acquisition of Agrobiotechnology Applications (ISAAA) continues its yearly inflated estimates of area planted with GM crops [4] ( Global GM Crops Area Exaggerated , SiS 33), and makes unsubstantiated, very likely false claims on how GM crops can contribute to saving greenhouse gas emissions on the coat tails of the Stern report on The Economics of Climate Change [5] ( SiS 33). To set the record straight, the Stern report does not support GM crops nor does it favour biofuels from energy crops, and for good reasons (see main text).

Nevertheless, the ISAAA says that GM crops save carbon emissions by reducing pesticide use through insecticidal Bt crops and by sequestering carbon in the soil through conservation tillage with herbicide tolerant crops [4]. In 2005, it claims, the combined savings were equivalent to 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or removing 4 million cars from the road. And looking to the future, even greater contributions could be made through cultivation of additional areas of GM energy crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel.


Commercial releases and field tests
Even though the first GM tree, papaya, was approved for commercial release more than ten years ago there have been only two petitions for non-regulated status, the first for another papaya GM event and the other for virus resistant plums [6, 7] ( USDA Proposes to Deregulate Its Own Transgenic Plum , SiS 31). However, the United States has undertaken about 264 field test releases of numerous GM trees spread over most of the states and possessions. Modified species include tropical trees (banana, avocado, grapefruit, lime, papaya and coffee), horticultural fruits (apple, plum, pear and walnut), and numerous forest and shade trees such as eucalyptus, American chestnut, American elm, poplar, cottonwood, aspen, white spruce and pine. Transgenic traits range from disease or insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, to lignin modifications, sterility, and bioremediation [8].

Canada has undertaken 33 field trial releases of GM trees mainly near Quebec City; and these are limited to insect resistant or herbicide tolerant poplar, black spruce and white spruce [9].

Of the 205 permit applications listed at the end of 2003, 73.5 percent originated in the USA, 23 percent in other OECD member nations (in particular, Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and 3.5 percent elsewhere (Brazil, China, Chile, South Africa and Uruguay) [10]. Four traits accounted for 80 percent of the permit applications: herbicide tolerance (32 percent), marker genes (27 percent), insect resistance (12 percent), and lignin modification (9 percent). Of the tree species involved, Populus , Pinus , Liquidambar (Sweet Gum Tree) and Eucalyptus account for 85 percent of applications.

Potential hazards of GM trees
Genetically modified (GM) trees have all the potential hazards of GM crops and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in general (Box 2) [11]( Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare ) , only worse.

Box 2

Potential Hazards of GMOs
Synthetic genes and gene products new to evolution could be toxic for humans and other animals or provoke serious immune reactions
The uncontrollable, imprecise process involved in making GMOs can generate unintended toxic and immunogenic products, exacerbated by the instability of the transgenic lines
Endogenous viruses that cause diseases could be activated by the transgenic process
The synthetic genes in GMOs, including copies of genes from bacteria and viruses that cause disease as well as antibiotic resistance genes, may be transferred to other species via pollen, or by direct integration into other genomes in horizontal gene transfer
Disease-causing viruses and bacteria are created by horizontal transfer and recombination of the synthetic genes and genetic modification is nothing if not facilitated and greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination
GM DNA are designed to invade genomes and insertion into the genome of animals including human beings results in insertion mutagenesis some of which may trigger cancer
Herbicide tolerant GM crops accumulate herbicide and herbicide residues that could be highly toxic to humans and animals as well as plants


Trees are larger and longer lived, and therefore can spread transgenes further and wider, while their extensive root systems are a hotbed for horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

Belated environmental impact studies show GM tree pollen cannot be contained
ISIS alerted the public to the serious health and environmental impacts of GM trees in forestry [10] ( GM Forest Trees - The Ultimate Threat , SiS 26) and earlier, in bioremediation and low lignin applications [12] ( GM Trees Alert , SiS 16). Numerous field releases were approved in the absence of information on the spread of pollen and seed in forest and orchard ecology. Only recently have models of pollen dispersal from forest trees begun to appear. Significant amounts of oak pollen were deposited up to 30 km downstream from a stand of oak trees, and lower quantities deposited up to 100 km [13]. It has been claimed that conifer pollen dispersed to between 6 and 800 m from a source; but a more comprehensive study revised this figure upwards to between 8 and 33 km [14, 15].

Eucalyptus pollen is spread by small insects, which can carry pollen to distances of 1.6 km, although most of the hybridisation is found within 200 m of the plantation [16]. It is essentially impossible to contain GM trees; the probability of spreading transgenes from GM conifers is 100 percent at a distance of one km from a source [17]. Pine seeds, too, are transported over great distances, the probability that seeds are transported further than one km from a source was nearly 100 percent [18]. Canadian regulators, recognizing that transgene containment is not possible for GM forest trees, are now suggesting that regulations should be altered to accommodate the uncontrolled release of GM trees with transgenes for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or low lignin content [19]!

The low lignin trait is one much desired by foresters as it provides greatly reduced costs in preparing fibre for paper. However, reduced lignin results in reduced strength to resist wind damage in the GM trees, and tends to make the trees susceptible to disease [20] ( Low Lignin GM Trees and Forage Crops , SiS 23). A recent field study showed that the trees with reduced lignin decomposed more rapidly in the soil and that decay was associated with major restructuring of the soil microbial communities, the adverse impacts of which have yet to be fully evaluated [21].

Terminator trees no answer to containment
‘Terminator trees' are trees genetically modified to produce either no flowers or no pollen. For the most part, the methods to control flowering interfere with the genetic programme for floral development, or kill cells involved in floral development [22] ( Terminator Trees , SiS 26). Controlled cell killing is achieved using an enzyme barnase that breaks down RNA, in combination with a specific inhibitor called barstar [23]. The barnase–barstar system has been approved for some transgenic food crops, but its toxicity and immunogenicity have been ignored or dismissed [24] ( Chronicle of An Ecological Disaster Foretold , SiS 1.

Much effort is dedicated to producing male-sterile or sterile modification events, which are supposed to prevent the spread of the transgenes. A male-cone specific promoter from Pinus radiata was used to drive a stilbene synthase gene from grape transferred to tobacco (as a first step to modifying pine), leading to greatly decreased pollen viability in the transgenic tobacco. The stilbene synthase inhibits flavonol synthesis resulting in sterile pollen [25]. The system is still in preliminary development and seems quite ‘leaky' in that viable pollen is produced. The killing gene used in this male-sterile system is far less toxic to humans and animals than are many of the others, but the male-sterility trait will more readily spread to contaminate non-GM crops and natural species.

If and when GM trees are released for commercial use, many releases are likely to use terminator genes. Such genes, regardless of their inherent toxicity, will produce trees that do not sustain many mammal, bird and insect species that eat seeds or pollen. The plantations and contaminated natural forests will both become huge green desserts.

There has been a suggestion of using old forests as buffer zones to ‘contain' GM trees [26], and Dr. Claire Williams at Duke University, North Carolina in the United States sees transgenic contamination as inevitable, and introducing GM forest trees as opening a Pandora's box in ecological term. It could be a recipe for disaster as GM pollen contaminates indigenous species in the old forest and undermine its tightly balanced circular ecology that's vital for regulating climate [27] ( Why Gaia Needs Rainforests , SiS 20).

Gene therapy for trees could bring nightmares
Gene therapy uses vectors to deliver genes to treat disease or to enhance growth in humans or animals. Viral gene vectors have also been developed to rapidly produce large quantities of pharmaceutical proteins in plants. A locally replicating gene-silencing vector based on Poplar mosaic virus was developed to deliver gene-silencing RNA sequences [28]. Gene silencing provides a means of regulating metabolic pathways and controlling plant diseases, and small synthetic RNA molecules have been developed to control plant viruses [29, 30]. Such synthetic RNA molecules are readily delivered using viral vectors, which could be sprayed onto forest stands from helicopters, for example, similarly to the current delivery of herbicides and fertilizers. Small RNA molecules require careful and extensive safety evaluations, as mice receiving ‘gene therapy' from small interfering RNA died in droves [31, 32] ( Gene Therapy Nightmare for Mice , SiS 31 ) . Forests sprayed with small RNA vectors could have disastrous effects on bystander plants and animals including humans.

New modifications of forest trees
The main focus of genetic modifications in forest trees has been on herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and flowering discussed earlier [10, 20, 22], but there are some other new developments.

Transgenic poplar with enhanced growth was constructed using a maize uridinediphosphoglycosyltransferase gene accompanied by an Arabidopsis gene for acyl-CoA-binding protein, which enhanced the production of the growth hormone indoleacetic acid. The transgenic poplar grew much faster than the unmodified poplar [33].

An ethanol-inducible promoter from the fungus Aspergillus driving a GUS colour marker gene was used to transform aspen. Ethanol or ethanol vapour at concentrations as low as 0.5 percent induced the marker gene [34], and this presumably has applications in both the laboratory and in the field.

A bacterial gene for producing mannitol from fructose was used to induce salt- tolerance in Chinese white poplar ( Populus tomentosa ). The transgenic poplar grew about half as fast both in the presence and absence of high salt levels, but the untransformed poplar did not survive in the high salt environment [35].

Transformation of a poplar hybrid with the tryptophan decarboxylase gene from Camptotheca acuminate (tree of life, cancer tree) caused the gene to over-express. The tryptophan decarboxylase converts tryptophan into tryptamine, which provides resistance to caterpillars of Malacosoma disstria [36]. Excess of tryptamine may result in hallucinogenic tryptamines, but that aspect was not explored in the report.

A transcription factor from Capsicum annuum (pepper) transferred to pine trees resulted in enhanced multiple stress tolerance (drought, salt and freezing). The transcription factor increases polyamine biosynthesis [37-39]. But polyamines such as putresine and cadaverine are toxic to humans.

China has planted over one million transgenic poplars since 2002. The plantations are located mainly in the northwest regions of Xinjang province, while a further 400,000 trees are planted in the headlands of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers [40] ( GM Trees Lost in China's Forests , SiS 26). China has an extensive programme of poplar genetic improvement including transgenic technology and marker assisted selection. Poplars modified with the Bt Cry1Ac gene or with a Cry1Ac gene fusion with the cowpea protease inhibitor gene have been most extensively deployed in China. The level of resistance of the transgenic trees to the main target insects has not dropped since deployment, but some insect pests are tolerant to the transgenic trees [41]. There have been no reports on whether or not the resistant insect pests have proliferated since the transgenic trees were released.

Transgenic fruit trees
Fruit trees are much targeted by genetic engineers. Papaya and plum trees resistant to virus were the first trees approved, or petitioned for commercial release in the United States, with flagrant disregard of safety [6, 42] ( Allergenic GM Papaya Scandal , SiS 1.

A long term study of transgenic marker gene stability in Higan weeping cherry ( Prunus subhirtella ) showed that the markers were relatively stable but 91 percent of the transformation events also contained various lengths of the bacterial plasmid vector backbone, as Agrobacterium transformation is far from precise [43].

A grape stilbene synthase gene accompanied by a bar gene for herbicide tolerance was used to transform apple to enhance picied (reveratrol glucoside) production in the apple. Picied is both a phytoelexin for pest control and a health-promoting antioxidant [44].

Bacterial fire blight disease is a significant problem in pear and apple. Pears were transformed with a gene from a bacteria phage that dissolves the extracellular polysaccharide of the bacterial pest. The transgenic pears were only partially resistant to the bacterial pathogen but researchers thought improvements in the process might be possible [45].

In a pilot experiment, transgenic orange trees with a GUS marker gene driven by a CaMV promoter accompanied by a neomycin antibiotic resistance gene bore fruit that was harvested. The fruit was processed to make juice, to which was added bacterial plasmid DNA, yeast DNA and additional transgenic orange DNA. The orange juice-DNA soup was then pasteurized and stored. The pasteurization and acidic environment of the orange juice degraded all of the added and endogenous DNA molecules to molecular sizes smaller than the size required for bacterial transformation [46]. The experiment would have been more informative if the ability of the transgenic orange juice to actually transform bacteria were investigated. Transformation may well occur before all of the DNA was degraded.

Trifoliate orange ( Poncirus trifoliate ) is a member of the family Rutaceae closely related to Citrus, and sometimes included in that genus, being sufficiently closely related for it to be used as a rootstock for Citrus. The plant is fairly hardy and will tolerate moderate frost and snow, making a large shrub or small tree 4-8 m tall. Because of the relative hardiness of Poncirus , citrus grafted onto it are usually hardier than when grown on their own roots. A gene from Arabidopsis CiFT that promotes transition from vegetative to floral development was transferred to trifoliate orange. The transgenic trifoliate oranges flowered as early as 12 weeks of growth in a green house while the untransformed plants takes several years [47]. Reducing the generation time can greatly facilitate genetic improvement of the rootstock for commercial citrus production, subject to satisfactory safety assessment.

The biotechnology of temperate fruit trees and grapevines was reviewed in 2005 along with marker-assisted selection [48]. It seems likely that marker assisted selection may provide the most long lasting and best fruit-tree improvement.

Moratorium on releases of all GM trees and GM forest trees should be banned
In conclusion, even though most of the work on transgenic forest and fruit trees is well meant and promises rich financial reward, no GM trees should be commercialised or released at this time. A moratorium on release of all GM trees is essential, and GM forest trees, in particular, should be banned. The inevitable spread of transgenes in pollen and seed cannot be prevented. Sterile trees promise no real remedy, as sterile forests will be green desserts at best, at worst, it will turn them from effective carbon sinks into massive carbon sources, thereby greatly exacerbating global warming [10].

[J-Desrochers]

http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/weed-control-0327/


he days of backing up to the tank, filling up with glyphosate and spraying it on every Roundup Ready acre for excellent weed control are officially behind us now. According to west Tennessee weed scientist Larry Steckel, a new era of weed control has begun.

Two things will be driving the change, Steckel says — glyphosate-resistant weed species and a number of new herbicide trait technologies coming on line to help producers manage those resistant weeds.

“We now have eight glyphosate-resistant weeds in the United States, most in the Mid-South, Southeast and Midwest,” Steckel told producers attending the annual Cotton Focus held at the West Tennessee Experiment Station. “The two biggest in the Mid-South are horseweed and Palmer pigweed (Palmer amaranth).”

Cotton Incorporated and the National Cotton Council helped finance Steckel’s research, which in 2007 tracked down two new locations of Palmer pigweed with above average tolerance to glyphosate in Lake County. Tennessee now has six confirmed glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed sites in three counties. Steckel also confirmed the presence of resistant giant ragweed in Ripley, Tenn., that survived one 40-ounce and two 88-ounce applications of Roundup.

Glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed was discovered in Georgia in 2005, and Steckel noted many cotton fields in south Georgia now have it. “One of the most successful weed management strategies, according to (University of Georgia weed scientist) Stanley Culpepper’s work, shows that resistant Palmer pigweed can be managed in irrigated cotton if producers can get some activation on residual herbicides like Prowl, Dual, Reflex and Valor. But in dryland cotton, where pre-emergence herbicides have not been activated, they’re losing the battle.

“They’re starting to think a little out of the box in Georgia,” Steckel said. “They’re putting down a cover crop just to get some kind of mulch on there to help keep Palmer pigweed down. Roundup alone just isn’t doing it.”

Glyphosate-resistant horseweed continues to be a big problem for Mid-South producers, especially those in west Tennessee. Currently, for burndown when glyphosate-resistant horseweed is present, Steckel recommends a tank mix of glyphosate and dicamba.

But in 2006-07, this tank mix wasn’t as consistent “because No. 1, we had a very dry spring. Dicamba wasn’t getting picked up through the roots and the shoots because it was so dry. No. 2, our horseweeds were a lot larger in general at the time of application. It’s a lot harder to kill a large weed.”

Steckel also reports more overall horseweed pressure in west Tennessee fields. “In 2004-05, a heavy horseweed population was 10 plants per square foot. In 2006-07, we developed populations that were 20 to 25 plants per square foot. We’re still getting 85 percent control, but 25 plants is a major issue.”

Steckel says the optimum burndown timing for resistant horseweed is at the end of February or the first part of March. “The idea is to control it while it’s small. That’s where we’re missing them. Catch them at the rosette stage and you’ll do a pretty good job. Last year, we saw horseweed still surviving in fields, particularly when Clarity was applied on bigger horseweed.

Control options inside the 21-day window for Clarity “do not work as well as Clarity,” noted Steckel, who recommends 48 ounces of Gramoxone, with either Caporal, Cotoran or Direx. “Ignite is also an option, but I’m a little hesitant because it has such environmental sensitivity. Put it on when it’s warm, and you’ll get an easier kill.”

According to a recent survey conducted by Steckel with area retailers, 90 percent of cotton acres in the region received some kind of pre-emergence product for horseweed. “In one case, a grower burned down with glyphosate and dicamba and got 100 percent control. Then he dropped the planter in and banded Prowl, which held back the second flush of horseweed. Most residuals do a good job.”

New technologies will change weed control again in a few years, noted Steckel. DuPont’s GAT Optimum traits with glyphosate and ALS tolerance is targeted for commercialization in 2009. “So you can mix Harmony or Express in the tank mix. It will be available for corn and soybeans in 2009, but could be a couple of years down the road on cotton.”

Bayer CropScience’s version of glyphosate tolerance technology, Glytol, will also be available, soon. “What this means with Optimum GAT and Glytol, Monsanto is going to have competition with its Roundup Ready trait for the first time.”

LibertyLink soybeans are expected to enter the market in 2009, “which will give us a post option for horseweed that we currently don’t have,” Steckel said.

Dow AgroSciences is expected to release a 2,4-D tolerance gene for cotton, corn and soybeans, according to Steckel. “This trait will also be linked to ACCase inhibitor tolerance, so corn is going to have tolerance to Fusilade and Assure. This technology is expected to hit the market in soybeans in 2010, followed a year later by cotton.”

Monsanto is developing a trait for dicamba tolerance which could be stacked with the Roundup Ready and LibertyLink traits and incorporated in cotton, soybeans and corn, Steckel said. “We’ve seen this technology in soybeans this past year, and it has very good tolerance. We’re looking at 2011 or 2012 on soybeans and cotton.

“Five or six years out, we’re going to see HPPD resistant traits (for pigment synthesis inhibitors) incorporated into a lot of our crops,” Steckel said. “This will provide resistance to a lot of the bleaching herbicides used in corn like Callisto. They’re excellent on small-seeded broadleaves. They have a very good environmental profile, and currently there is no known resistance to them.”

While these new tools are going to enhance the management of glyphosate resistant weeds, there can be concerns with drift and tank contamination. “The 2,4-D and dicamba traits are not interchangeable. If you spray your cotton that’s 2,4-D tolerant and move into another variety that’s dicamba tolerant, you’re going to have to rinse the tank out thoroughly. That’s a real concern. The best way to clean 2,4-D out of the tank is to put tank cleaner in there and let is sit for a day.”

Other issues include “controlling volunteer crops from the previous year when they have all these traits in them,” Steckel said. “And of course, anytime you throw one of these genes in there, it’s costing another $5 or $6 an acre. So costs are going up.”

e-mail: erobinson@farmpress.com

[J-Desrochers]

Glyphosate resistant weeds a growing concern

By DALE HILDEBRANT, Farm & Ranch Guide
Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:07 AM CDT


NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Glyphosate was once considered the silver bullet when it came to weed control. But glyphosate-resistant weeds have begun cropping up across the agricultural areas of the U.S.

Since Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced in 1996, there has been an increase in the incidence of glyphosate-resistant weeds each year, according to Kevin Bradley, weed scientist at the University of Missouri.

Bradley, in his presentation to the Bayer CropScience Ag Issues Forum in Nashville, traced the growth of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. and outlined methods producers can use to slow the growth of this problem.

Mares tail was the first incident of a glyphosate-resistant weed in the U.S., and was found in Missouri in 2005, according to Bradley.

“Now, by the end of 2007, we have several varieties of rye grass, Palmer amaranth (pigweed), common waterhemp, and now giant ragweed that are showing signs of resistance to glyphosate, in addition to the common ragweed,” he said. “The glyphosate resistance is showing up first in areas of heavy glyphosate use - the corn belt and cotton producing areas.

“Weed scientists have to jump through quite a few hoops to confirm that something is officially resistant. But it doesn't mean a hill of beans to a farmer whether it's resistant or not. If they can't control it, it doesn't matter who calls it what,” he continued.


*

“If you don't get anything else from this presentation, I want to make sure you leave with this: glyphosate resistance is a concern and we want people to be proactive and we want farmers to change their ways. I am equally concerned about multiple resistances as I am about glyphosate resistance.”

So, how does a weed species develop resistance to a certain herbicide mode of action?

Bradley is quick to note that the herbicide does not create a resistant biotype, rather it exists within the natural population. As an example, he used the illustration of a field that had 100 million waterhemp plants and, just like all humans are different, there is a good possibility that at least one plant out there, for some reason, will have a resistance to the herbicide being used.


“What we do wrong is we continue to use the same herbicide over and over and allow that plant, which was originally resistant, to survive,” he said. “Suddenly you have a patch of weeds that the herbicide won't control and eventually, over a few years, the entire field will be affected.”

Bradley points out that Missouri is about 20 percentage points behind many other areas of the nation in the use of Roundup Ready corn. The Missouri usage is around 32 percent, while the average across the nation is 52 percent. He predicts that within the next three to four years that national average will exceed 80 percent. The country is currently planting about 90 percent of its soybean acres to Roundup Ready varieties.

“It's these continuous glyphosate systems that we are worried about,” he said. “Can we do it, make it work and not have resistance? Yes, but it is a concern and one that we need to be aware of when we are using glyphosate as a post-emergence treatment year after year.”

What's even more concerning is that some weeds have developed resistance to more than one mode of action. Bradley used waterhemp for an example, where its control in soybeans is becoming a challenge since it shows resistance to three modes of action, or, as he termed it, a “triple stack resistanc.”

Almost all waterhemp is ALS resistant and now some is showing up with glyphosate and PPO resistance.

“What this means is that we have effectively eliminated all post emergence options for waterhemp in soybeans,” he said. “So what do you do? You go get the cultivator out of the fence row, or you don't do anything, you just live with it, because cultivation is your only option.

“There is no going back from Roundup Ready. We have really taken on this technology and widespread glyphosate resistant weeds will really change how we do business.”

Bradley predicts a widespread outbreak of glyphosate resistant weeds will impact the soybean grower more than the corn grower, since there are limited alternatives for soybeans.

Some growers are figuring that there will soon be a new herbicide coming out that will have a new mode of action to take care of these resistant weeds. However, to his knowledge, Bradley said there is no new mode of action ready to be released, and it takes many years to develop a herbicide before it's ready to hit the market. For those reasons, he feels farmers are at least a few years away from seeing a new mode of action herbicide, especially for soybeans.

Recommendations to slow the

spread of herbicide resistant weeds

Bradley had suggestions on how farmers could slow the spread of herbicide resistant weeds:

- Start with a clean field and control weeds early by using a burndown treatment or tillage in combination with a pre-emergence residual herbicide as appropriate.

- Apply an integrated weed management practice.

- Use multiple herbicide modes of action with overlapping weed spectrums in a rotations, sequences or mixtures.

- Use cultural practices such as cultivation and crop rotation where appropriate.

- Use full recommended herbicide rates and proper application timing for the hardest to control the weed species present in the field.

- Scout fields after herbicide application to ensure weed control has been achieved. Avoid allowing weeds to reproduce by seed or to proliferate vegetatively.

- Use good agronomic principles that enhance crop competitiveness as well as scouting, monitoring and cleaning equipment between fields.

For more information on glyphosate resistance in weeds growers can go to the website: www.glyphosateweeds

crops.org.

[J-Desrochers]

From: Mail Manager [mailto:mail@sendervalidated.com] On Behalf Of The David Suzuki Foundation
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:15 AM

Subject: {Disarmed} Science Matters: The ugly truth about cosmetic pesticides


Dear Friend:
Here's your weekly Science Matters column by David Suzuki with Faisal Moola.
The ugly truth about cosmetic pesticides
A real estate agent once visited me at home and offered to sell my house. I was tempted for about a nanosecond before turning him down cold.
The house where I’ve lived for decades in Vancouver is not just a property to me. My home - especially the backyard - means so much more.
The backyard isn’t just my own private place of refuge in the summer. It’s a sacred place for my family as well.
It’s where my kids played tag as children and where they now socialize with their friends as adults. It’s where my wife and I hold family barbecues and dinners in the summer. And it’s where my father-in-law gets down on his hands and knees to pull weeds and tend to the St. John’s Wort and tulips. Our pet dog, Huckleberry, was even buried in the backyard when he died.
I wouldn’t trade any of my memories that have taken place on that small stretch of grass for anything in the world. I know I’m not alone in my passion. Our yards and gardens are a symbolic zone, a private sanctuary. Our public parks are also treasured spaces: they’re the public commons where we can throw Frisbees, play volleyball, read a book, or (my favorite) take a nap.
There’s been a tremendous amount of interest in green spaces recently. And with good reason. Many of the private yards and public parks that we enjoy are coated with toxic chemical pesticides to kill weeds. The problem is that they work too well, and exposure to them can damage our health.
In 2003, the Ontario College of Family Physicians published a scientific literature review that showed "consistent links to serious illnesses, such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases" associated with chronic pesticide exposure.
It stands to reason that children and pets are often more exposed since they’re the ones most likely to be found rolling playing on the grass during the summer months. Children are also more vulnerable to the health effects of pesticide exposure because their young bodies are still developing.
So what exactly are we spraying on our lawns? At least 50 active pesticide ingredients registered for use in Canada have been banned in other countries due to health or environmental concerns. One popular lawn herbicide called "2,4-D", can easily be found in products lining the garden care section of your local hardware store. But don’t look for it in Denmark, Norway or Sweden. The herbicide, 2,4-D, is no longer sold in Scandinavia because of health and environmental concerns.
Another report, published by my foundation, showed that more than 6,000 cases of acute pesticide poisoning occur in Canada [L1] each year. Even more frightening, half of those poisonings involve children under six.
Despite the clear evidence against chemical pesticides, more than 30 per cent of Canadians with gardens still use them. But there is evidence that this practice may be coming to an end. Many cities have passed bylaws banning the use of these lawn and garden pesticides. We can look forward to the day when a neighbour applying these chemicals to their yards will seem as out-of-place as a smoker lighting up a cigarette on a transatlantic flight.
That day may be just around the corner - at least in some parts of Canada. In 2003, Quebec banned the use and sale of many lawn pesticides. Now the Ontario government is proposing similar legislation. The Government of PEI also recently held hearings on a potential province-wide ban. Provincial action is important, because while cities and towns can restrict the use of these chemicals on public and private property, provincial governments have the power to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides. Pulling the prohibited products from store shelves is the best way to make sure they aren’t used.
I hope that residents across Canada - especially in Ontario and PEI - make their voices heard on this issue.
Remembering the great times I’ve had in my backyard, like watching my kids play, chatting with my father-in-law while he tends the garden, and having friends over for a summer dinner are incredible experiences. I’m sure most Canadians have similar memories that have taken place in their own backyards. We should be able to enjoy these green sanctuaries without worrying about chemicals. And so should our children.
Take David Suzuki's Nature Challenge and learn more at MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "marquimail.marqui.com" claiming to be www.davidsuzuki.org.

[J-Desrochers]

Genetically modified trees planted in Quebec

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2003/10/20/gm_trees031020.html


Last Updated: Monday, October 20, 2003 | 1:41 PM ET
CBC News


The federal government is funding a field trial of genetically modified trees near Quebec City. Researchers with the Canadian Forest Service say it will help protect the country's natural forests.
Researchers have planted a plot of 400 genetically modified spruce and poplars in the woods near Val Cartier.

Trees are genetically modified to resist spruce budworm, seen here

INDEPTH: GMO Primer

Research scientist Armand Séguin of the Canadian Forest Service says it is the only field trial of transgenic trees in the country.

The trees look normal, he says, but they have an extra gene to protect them from spruce budworm and other insects without resorting to pesticides.


Séguin says there's no chance the modified trees will cross-pollinate with their neighbours either during or after the field test.

"We have to monitor for five years after the end of trial to make sure there is no trace of that material in the environment, and everything has to be destroyed by burning," says Séguin.

He acknowledges genetically modified plants are a controversial subject. If the trees are mass produced, researchers won't follow the same path as the agriculture industry, which Séguin says caught Canadians off guard.

"For me, it looks more like playing with genetics for the fun of playing with genetics because you're able to do it," says Louis Bélanger of the Quebec's Union for Nature Conservation.

Bélanger says there should be further public consultations before more federal government money is spent on the research, no matter what the potential benefits are.

-----------------------------

Notes: Cross polination can occur by animals, insects, birds, and wind drift. We are risking all of Canada's forests ...

[J-Desrochers]

No chance of cross polination? No risk? Has our government been completely bought off ???

http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/articletopic/37

Points of view: genetically modified trees and clearcutting
Article Date: 2004-09-01


For the Record
Canadians have a high regard for forests, and we have a natural interest in keeping them healthy and abundant. In recent years, Canadian newspaper articles and television and radio broadcasts have focused on controversial issues related to our forests and forest management practices. Important facts have been presented and spirited public discussions have ensued. But media coverage has not always looked into these issues in depth, and discussions have not always been based on knowledge necessary for complete understanding. Consequently, media attention and public response may inadvertently have spawned various myths and misperceptions.

This section of the report aims to clear up some of these misunderstandings. Canadians need to know that the organizations responsible for forest management policies and practices are dealing with our finest resources in a careful and responsible manner. To explain current knowledge and handling of two complex, often misunderstood and sometimes controversial issues, this section records explanations from specialists in the field.

Genetically modified plants constitute one area where misunderstandings may have arisen due to incomplete understanding of the complex issues involved. Dr. Ariane Plourde is Research Director of Forest Biology at the Canadian Forest Service's Laurentian Forestry Centre. We asked her about genetically modified trees:

"Do genetically modified trees pose a threat to our forests and the environment?"

Dr. Plourde's response follows:

While one can appreciate people's concern over the use of genetically modified trees, there is insufficient evidence at this time to suggest that genetically modified trees pose a threat to Canada's forests or the environment. Genetic engineering research on trees is in the early stages and there are no commercial genetically modified forest plantations in Canada.

In fact, the Canadian Forest Service is doing targeted research on the potential effects of genetically modified trees to ensure that the public's concerns are addressed. Research scientists are examining the impacts of genetically modified trees on the diversity of populations of the same and other species, as well as the direct or indirect impacts on other organisms.

These effects are being studied through four self-contained and highly controlled genetically modified trees field trials in Quebec. All four field trials are subjected to careful scrutiny of disposal of material and land use following field tests, and are monitored for long-term containment of genetic material. Research is also being conducted on persistence and degradation of the introduced DNA segments over time. This research will provide support for the development of scientifically sound regulatory guidelines in Canada.

To protect the surrounding area, the trial site is clearly delineated and guard rows of non-modified trees have been established. Moreover, the site is separated by a buffer zone of at least 10 metres from other trees of related species. Flowering is rigorously monitored and precautions are taken each year to prevent pollen and seeds from being released into the environment. This field study will help answer many environmental questions.

Five targeted research areas of applied biotechnology are being studied by the Canadian Forest Service. These include identifying genetically superior trees and genetic diversity; regenerating trees through tissue culture, including somatic embryogenesis (a form of tree propagation); improving trees through genetic engineering; protecting forests using biological control methods, including genetically engineered insect viruses; and assessing environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived products.

CFS researchers are conducting studies on gene traits of particular interest: control of resistance to insects and disease, resistance to abiotic stresses like drought, and lignin content. (Lignin, a component of tree cells that gives rigidity to the plant, is closely associated with cellulose and must be dissolved in the process of paper production.) Other genes of public interest are the regulatory genes, such as those involved in the expression of traits in different parts of the trees over time. A new science called functional genomics will help to explain why certain trees exhibit particular traits and others do not, and will assist in selecting superior genotypes. In the future, it may be possible to switch on insect- or disease-resistant genes that are naturally silent in certain tree species. Genetically modified trees may also form an integral part of Canada's solution to the potentially devastating effects of foreign invasive insects and diseases.

Clearcutting is another area of forest management that is often misunderstood. In the past several decades we have seen images in the media of once lush forested areas that have been laid waste, and many Canadians have become concerned about how Canada's natural forests are being harvested. To provide clarity with regard to clearcutting, we asked Hans Ottens, Coordinator of Forestry Practices in the Science Programs of CFS:

"Is clearcutting an acceptable forestry practice?"

This was his response to our question:

It is difficult to provide a clearly positive answer, because this question often evokes images of barren wastelands, based on media coverage. There is no denying it—areas that have been clearcut are unattractive. And many of the concerns Canadians have voiced over the years relate to very large clearcuts which have sometimes resulted in soil erosion, landslides or inadequate natural reforestation. However, these situations are exceptions.

Today natural resource managers pay a great deal of attention to the aesthetic and environmental impacts of clearcutting. Through advanced clearcutting practices and techniques, they attempt to emulate natural disturbances such as wildfire and blowdown. This kind of modified clearcutting has become an integral part of Canada's sustainable forest management. For example, the Ontario government's guideline, The Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation, advises forest managers on how to size and arrange harvest areas and regeneration activities to simulate the way in which natural fire disturbs the forest.

Selecting an appropriate harvesting practice is important. The forest manager must balance the sustainability of social, economic and environmental elements. Decreasing availability of commercial wood, increasing demands for recreational and non-timber values, dramatic increase in scientific knowledge and ecological awareness, and livelihood of rural communities often result in competing interests.

From a forest management perspective, clearcutting is one of two main silvicultural systems aimed at maintaining even-aged forests. The other is the Shelterwood System, used for species of intermediate shade tolerance like white pine and red oak. Under even-aged systems, an entire forest (or a component thereof) is harvested in a single operation. A third, the Selection Silvicultural System, used in Canada and around the world, is employed to maintain uneven-aged forests.

Of the three systems, clearcutting remains the dominant forest operation for about 85 percent of the million or so hectares harvested in Canada annually. However, regeneration treatments are part of this system: artificial regeneration, such as tree planting and seeding, and natural regeneration, where seed and cones in logging debris, seed trees and standing timber are left to flourish naturally.

In boreal conifer forests, clearcutting is usually the most appropriate harvesting technique. Here clearcutting comes closest to mimicking natural disturbances. In the more southerly mixedwood and hardwood forests, some form of selection or partial harvesting may be preferred, because it comes closer to natural disturbance effects common in these sorts of forests. The forests we now have are the result of human and natural influences, and proper management of forests with even-aged stands can prevent catastrophic fire or insect outbreaks.

So is clearcutting an acceptable forestry practice? It all depends on the type of forest you are working with. Clearcutting is one method used by professional foresters to harvest, salvage and renew most types of Canadian forest. Where uneven-aged management is appropriate, increasingly selection silviculture is practised. But Canada continues to refine its harvesting and tending practices, guided by the principles of sustainable development, so that all systems will have positive effects for all forest stakeholders.

[J-Desrochers]

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/trees/index.php

GENETICALLY MODIFIED TREES

Will the Irish government allow GMO trees to be planted here? Its pro-GM track record leads one to fear the worst.

Coillte Teoranta (The Irish Forestry Board - www.coillte.ie) is the state-owned forestry business responsible for the monoculture Sitka spruce plantations which blight the Irish landscape. These are widely seen as ecologically unsound, since they provide no habitat for wildlife, reduce biodiversity, and contaminate groundwater with acid runoff and toxic chemicals. The resulting timber is useless for construction and can only be used for making pallets. It therefore boggles the mind that Coillte has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org), an independent, membership-based organisation that brings people together to promote responsible management of the world's forests through developing standards, a certification system and trademark recognition. However, FSC certification prohibits GMO trees.


GM FOREST TREES - THE ULTIMATE THREAT

By Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Professor Joe Cummings

Download this paper as a printer-friendly PDF file.
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/science/ISP/GM%20Forest%20Trees.pdf

[J-Desrochers]

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/trees/index.php

GM FOREST TREES - THE ULTIMATE THREAT

By Dr. Mae Wan Ho and Professor Joe Cummings

Download this paper as a printer-friendly PDF file.

About the authors

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is a renowned geneticist and biophysicist, Director of the Institute of Science in Society (www.i-sis.org.uk), co-founder of the International Science Panel on GM (www.indsp.org), a member of the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Scientific Advisor to the Third World Network, visiting Professor of Biophysics at the University of Catania (Sicily), former Senior Research Fellow at the Open University, and author of The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World which you can download as a 408kb PDF file.

Dr. Ho warned of the risks of genetic engineering and the cover-up of these risks by biotech companies and governments at the National Future of Food Forum chaired by Nobel Peace Laureate John Hume and hosted by Euro-Toques Ireland on 4th July 2004 at Brook Lodge, Macreddin, Co. Wicklow. Press release. Dr. Ho's speech.

Joe Cummings is Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, =Canada, is one of the earliest critics of genetic engineering. He obtained BS Horticulture, Washington State University 1955 and PhD Cellular Biology, University of Wisconsin 1962. Carried out postdoctoral research at Edinburgh, Palermo, Stockholm (Karolinska) and the Macardle Laboratory for Cancer Research University of Wisconsin. Taught genetics at Rutgers and the University of Washington, Seattle before joining University of Western Ontario in 1972. Became involved in environmental issues from 1968 including mercury, asbestos, PCB and pesticide pollution along with waste sites and incinerators. His critiques of genetic modification began in 1988 when he encountered the power of multinational corporations over the Canadian federal government, and their refusal to face serious risk evaluations.

He has published over 200 scientific and popular articles, the most recent papers appearing in Nature Biotechnology, The Ecologist, and Biotechnology and Development Review. He is also a regular contributor to the Institute of Science in Society's website and quarterly magazine, Science in Society. He has advised a number of citizen's groups, given public lectures, and served on environmental advisory panels advising the Canadian and Ontario governments in environmental issues.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate threat

Genetically modified (GM) forest trees do not attract the same immediate health concerns as GM food crops. But in reality, they pose an even greater threat than GM crops because they impact directly on natural forests that are essential for the survival of our planet.

World status of GM forest trees

Most genetic modification of forest trees have been done by Agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer; but bombardment with DNA-coated particles, or "biolistic transformation', has also been used. Of the 205 permit applications listed at the end of 2003, 73.5% originated in the USA, 23% in other OECD member nations (in particular, Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and 3.5% elsewhere (Brazil, China, Chile, South Africa and Uruguay) [1]. Four traits account for 80% of the permit applications: herbicide tolerance (32%), marker genes (27%), insect resistance (12%), and lignin modification (9%). Of the tree species involved, Populus, Pinus, Liquidambar (Sweet Gum Tree) and Eucalyptus account for 85% of applications.

Although commercial interest was low during the first ten years of GM trees development, it has steadily increased since the late 1990s. By the end of 2003, 45% of the permits submitted were from industry, mostly for transgenic poplars. But to-date there has not been a concerted push for commercialisation of GM trees except in China, where more than one million GM trees have been planted in "reforestation" initiatives since commercialisation was approved by The Chinese State Forestry Administration in 2002 (see "GM trees get lost", this series).

Several companies, including Weyerhaeuser, Shell and Monsanto, at one time involved in GM tree research have since pulled out because it was not economically attractive [2]. However, the decision reached in December 2003 at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to allow Northern companies and governments to establish plantations of GM trees in the South under the "Clean Development Mechanism" might be the subsidy that GM proponents need to make GM trees seem economically attractive.

The overriding importance of forests

Forest trees are long-lived. Their root system is extensive, interacting with countless species in the soil biota that are crucial for recycling, storing and keeping nutrients within the forest ecosystem. Above ground, forest trees provide shelter, home and food for indigenous peoples and between 1.5 to 2 million species of insects, birds, mammals, other plants, epiphytes, fungi and bacteria.

All human beings are dependent on forests in one way or another, for clean water, habitat, food, medicinal plants, and as recreational and spiritual sanctuaries.

Most of all, forests, especially the tropical rainforests, are essential for the water cycle that brings rain to crops; and for regulating the temperature of the earth, preventing places from getting too hot or too cold. Forests absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen; in that respect they are the "lungs" of the living earth (see "Why Gaia needs rainforests", SiS 20).

Losing forests to GM tree plantations would spell ecological disaster for our planet, especially as global warming is fast accelerating.

GM trees anathema to forest ecosystems

GM trees are designed for large monoculture plantations anathema to the bio-diverse natural forest ecosystems. Local people's names for industrial tree plantations are revealing [2]. Eucalyptus is the "selfish tree", because eucalyptus plantations remove nutrients from the soil and consume so much water that farmers cannot grow rice in neighbouring fields. Mapuche Indigenous People in Chile refer to pine plantations as "planted soldiers", because they are green, in rows and advancing. In Brazil, tree plantations are "green deserts", and in South Africa, "green cancer". Throughout the Global South, organisations and networks are actively opposing industrial tree plantations on their land. GM trees will intensity both the problems of industrial plantations and the opposition from indigenous peoples.

A joint report by the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) and Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) [2] says that the scientists claiming to "improve" trees by genetic modification are in reality working to "improve the profitability of the businesses" funding their research. It continues:

"But from a biological perspective there is no improvement whatsoever. Is a tree with less lignin better or worse than a normal one? It is clearly worse, given the resulting loss of structural strength, which makes it susceptible to extensive damage during windstorms. Is an herbicide-resistance tree an "improvement"? It is not, for it allows extensive herbicide spraying that affects the soil on which it stands, at the same time as it destroys local flora and impacts on wildlife. Is a flowerless, fruitless and seedless tree of any use to living beings? It does not provide food to myriad species of insects, birds and [other] species that depend on these as food. Is a tree with insecticide properties an improvement? It is a dangerous hazard to many insects species, which are themselves part of larger food chains."

GM trees violate international conventions

The WRM report points out that GMOs in general and GM trees in particular, are a clear violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which obliges governments to take a precautionary approach towards GMOs that may cause serious damage to biodiversity. GM trees also violate the spirit of the United Nations Forum on Forests, which was set up to protect the world's forests.

Unfortunately, the inclusion of GM trees within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism means that the Climate Change Convention not only supports the expansion of monoculture tree plantations, but GM tree plantations supposed to act as better "carbon sinks".

The WRM, FoEI International and ECOTERRA Intl. are calling on all governments, especially the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, to ban the release of GM trees. The campaign to ban GM trees was launched in January 2004 by the Finnish People's Biosafety Association and the Union of Ecoforestry (see "No to GM Trees", SiS 23).

Transgene contamination inevitable and unavoidable

Forest trees are tall, long-lived and produce abundant pollen and seeds that can be carried far and wide. Forest trees also reproduce asexually, sending out clones that spread long distances from the mother plant, thus promoting further transgene contamination. Contamination of native trees by GM trees is hence inevitable and unavoidable.

Low lignin GM trees increase destruction of forests & livelihoods

Low lignin trees are more susceptible, not only to storm damage but also to attacks by insects, fungi and bacteria (see "Low lignin GM trees and forage crops", SiS 23).

The reduced-lignin trait spreading to native forest trees will make them susceptible to storm, attack by pests, and fungal and bacterial diseases. Insect pest populations will also increase as a result.

While low lignin GM tree plantations may benefit the paper industry, they will destroy local livelihoods, forcing people to move away, some of them to new forests where they clear more land for farming [2]. Tree plantations often follow the destruction of native forests. In Sumatra, for example, vast areas of forests have been cleared to feed pulp and paper mills; the clear-cut forests being replaced by acacia plantations. The argument that planting faster growing GM trees is "growing more wood on less land" is misleading. Producing more fibre for the pulp industry will not change the demand for high quality decorative tropical hardwoods for the construction industry, which come largely from native forests. Also, the demand for timber is not the only cause of deforestation; road-building, dams, cash crops (such as soya in Brazil and Argentina) or cattle ranging, mining and oil extraction all contribute to destroying native forests, and creating GM tree plantations will do nothing to stem the destruction.

Fast growing GM trees will consume even more water than current industrial tree plantations, draining the already depleted aquifers and impacting on surrounding forests.

Most of the pulp produced in the South is exported to the North. Per capita paper consumption in Germany is 70% that in the US. Vietnam consumes on average 2% of the amount of paper consumed in the US, despite the fact that literacy rates in the US, Germany and Vietnam are almost identical [2]. Nearly 40% of the paper is used for packaging, and 60% of the space in the US newspaper is taken up by adverts. According to Jukka Hamala, CEO of Stora Enso - the second biggest paper, packaging and forest products company in the world, whose sales totalled 12.4 billion in 2004 - the key factor in increased paper demand was increased spending on advertisements in newspapers and magazines. Thus, increasing paper consumption is neither necessary nor desirable.

Fast growing GM trees exacerbate climate change

The argument that planting GM trees can reverse climate change is also fallacious. Japanese car manufacturer Toyota started field trials of trees genetically modified to absorb more carbon in 1993. Unfortunately, while carbon absorption increased, it was accompanied by a dramatic increase in water consumption.

Tree plantations are much less effective in sequestering carbon than the native forest ecosystem. The biodiverse native forest ecosystem is an effective carbon sink. It has been estimated that the neo-tropical forests of Central and South America sequesters at least one tonne of carbon per hectare per year in biomass increase above ground. (It is possible that additional carbon is sequestered in the soil.) In contrast, destroying a hectare of forest releases 200 tonnes of carbon (see "Why Gaia needs rainforests", SiS 23).

Fast-growing reduced-lignin trees will also rot more readily, returning carbon dioxide more rapidly to the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating global warming instead of ameliorating it.

Researchers used a NASA thermal infrared multispectral scanner from the air to assess energy budgets of experimental forests in Oregon in 1989 [3]. They found that a clear-cut forest area had a surface temperature of 51.8C, hotter than a nearby quarry, which registered 50.7C. The Douglas fir plantation with mature trees registered 29.9C, compared to 29.4C over the natural Douglas fir forest regrowth; while the coolest temperature of 24.7C was found over the 400 year-old forest. The cooling effect of the natural forest ecosystem is not only important for alleviating global warming; it is also a significant indicator of sustainability [4].

Insecticidal GM trees destroy biodiversity

There is no doubt that the insecticidal GM trees will kill many insects, both target pest species and non-target species; that is, until the pests develop resistance within six or seven years, according to the estimate of Liu Xiaofeng from Henan Agriculture Department, a scientist critical of the GM cotton planted in China (see "GM cotton fiascos around the world", SiS25). At that point, more insecticides will have to be used, especially as new kinds of pests will have appeared.

The far greater threat to biodiversity is the spread of the insecticidal traits to natural forests. Laboratory feeding experiments have shown that Bt toxins produced in GM crops can harm beneficial predators that feed on insect pests, even when the pests themselves are not affected by the toxins [5]. One class of Bt toxins (Cry1A) was found to harm butterflies, lacewings and mice. Another class (Cry3A) acts against insects belonging to the Order Coleoptera (beetles, weevils and stylopids) [6], which contains some 28 600 species. Bt toxins are known to leach out of the roots into the soil, with potentially huge impacts on the soil biota. Reduction of insect populations will in turn impact on birds and mammals that feed on insects.

Herbicide-tolerant GM trees make green deserts

GM trees have been made tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides that kill all other plants. If that is not bad enough, they are also harmful to all species of animal wildlife including human beings (reviewed in The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, ISP Report www.indsp.org ). Plantations of herbicide-tolerant GM trees are really green deserts, and collateral damage to nearby forests and crops from spraying herbicides is inevitable, as is the pollution of drinking water.

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK. Disturbances of many body functions have been reported after exposure at normal use levels. It nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users had elevated neurobehavioral defects. Roundup (Monsanto's formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancer. Glyphosate caused retarded development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats. It inhibits the synthesis of steroids and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs. It is lethal and highly toxic to earthworms.

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities and birth defects in humans. It is toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia, some fresh water fish such as the rainbow trout. It inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.

Health hazards

The health hazards of GM trees are common to those of other GM crops, but they will be exaggerated. Two of these in particular are worth mentioning. Agrobacterium, used in the vector system for creating many GM trees, is a soil bacterium that causes tumours to grow on infected plants and is now known to be capable of transferring genes into animal and human cells (See "Common plant vector injects genes into human cells" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Agrobacterium.php). Scientists have warned that the Agrobacterium is extremely difficult to eradicate from the transgenic plants created, and can therefore serve as a potential vehicle for unintended horizontal gene transfer to soil bacteria and all other species, including human beings, that come into contact with the transgenic crops. This danger is greatly increased in GM trees, especially on account of its extensive root system. The rhizosphere ‚ plant root system - is a known hotspot for horizontal gene transfer.

The potential of Agrobacterium to mediate horizontal gene transfer, and the resulting hazards of spreading antibiotic resistance marker gene to pathogens; creating new bacteria and viruses that cause diseases; and causing cancer in animals including humans were reviewed in Chapter 11 of ISP report (www.indsp.org ).

Another source of health hazard is the Bt toxins and other transgenes, which could be spread far and wide in the pollen of GM trees. All Bt toxins used as transgenes as well as the transgenes conferring glyphosate tolerance were found to have similarities to known allergens, and are hence suspected allergens (see "Are transgenic proteins allergenic?" ISIS report 05/01/ 2005 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ATPA.php).

References

1. Lang C. Genetically Modified Trees The ultimate threat to forests. World Rainforest Movement and Friends of the Earth, December 2004 http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/text.pdf

2. Van Frankenhuyzen K and Beardmore T. Current status and environmental impact of transgenic forest trees. Can J For Res 2004, 1163-1180.

3. Luvall JC and Holbo HR. Measurements of short term thermal responses of coniferous forest canopies using thermal scanner data. Remote Sensing and the Environment 1989, 27, 1-10.

4. Ho MW. Are sustainable economic systems like organisms? In Evolution, Development and Economics (P. Koslowski, ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998b.

5. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea", Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.

6. Wu S-J, Koller CN, Miller DL, Bauer LS and Dean DH. Enhanced toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A d-endotoxin in coleopterans by mutagenesis in a receptor binding loop. FEBS Letters 2000, 473, 227-232.

7. Reviewed in Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, ISP Report, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sponsored by Global Vision Corporation

© 2004 - 2005 Global Vision Consulting Ltd • updated 5 March 2005
Privacy policy
For enquiries contact mail@gmfreeireland.org
URL of this page: www.gmfreeireland.org/trees


The ultimate threat

Genetically modified (GM) forest trees do not attract the same immediate health concerns as GM food crops. But in reality, they pose an even greater threat than GM crops because they impact directly on natural forests that are essential for the survival of our planet.

World status of GM forest trees

Most genetic modification of forest trees have been done by Agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer; but bombardment with DNA-coated particles, or "biolistic transformation', has also been used. Of the 205 permit applications listed at the end of 2003, 73.5% originated in the USA, 23% in other OECD member nations (in particular, Belgium, Canada, France, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) and 3.5% elsewhere (Brazil, China, Chile, South Africa and Uruguay) [1]. Four traits account for 80% of the permit applications: herbicide tolerance (32%), marker genes (27%), insect resistance (12%), and lignin modification (9%). Of the tree species involved, Populus, Pinus, Liquidambar (Sweet Gum Tree) and Eucalyptus account for 85% of applications.

Although commercial interest was low during the first ten years of GM trees development, it has steadily increased since the late 1990s. By the end of 2003, 45% of the permits submitted were from industry, mostly for transgenic poplars. But to-date there has not been a concerted push for commercialisation of GM trees except in China, where more than one million GM trees have been planted in "reforestation" initiatives since commercialisation was approved by The Chinese State Forestry Administration in 2002 (see "GM trees get lost", this series).

Several companies, including Weyerhaeuser, Shell and Monsanto, at one time involved in GM tree research have since pulled out because it was not economically attractive [2]. However, the decision reached in December 2003 at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to allow Northern companies and governments to establish plantations of GM trees in the South under the "Clean Development Mechanism" might be the subsidy that GM proponents need to make GM trees seem economically attractive.

The overriding importance of forests

Forest trees are long-lived. Their root system is extensive, interacting with countless species in the soil biota that are crucial for recycling, storing and keeping nutrients within the forest ecosystem. Above ground, forest trees provide shelter, home and food for indigenous peoples and between 1.5 to 2 million species of insects, birds, mammals, other plants, epiphytes, fungi and bacteria.

All human beings are dependent on forests in one way or another, for clean water, habitat, food, medicinal plants, and as recreational and spiritual sanctuaries.

Most of all, forests, especially the tropical rainforests, are essential for the water cycle that brings rain to crops; and for regulating the temperature of the earth, preventing places from getting too hot or too cold. Forests absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen; in that respect they are the "lungs" of the living earth (see "Why Gaia needs rainforests", SiS 20).

Losing forests to GM tree plantations would spell ecological disaster for our planet, especially as global warming is fast accelerating.

GM trees anathema to forest ecosystems

GM trees are designed for large monoculture plantations anathema to the bio-diverse natural forest ecosystems. Local people's names for industrial tree plantations are revealing [2]. Eucalyptus is the "selfish tree", because eucalyptus plantations remove nutrients from the soil and consume so much water that farmers cannot grow rice in neighbouring fields. Mapuche Indigenous People in Chile refer to pine plantations as "planted soldiers", because they are green, in rows and advancing. In Brazil, tree plantations are "green deserts", and in South Africa, "green cancer". Throughout the Global South, organisations and networks are actively opposing industrial tree plantations on their land. GM trees will intensity both the problems of industrial plantations and the opposition from indigenous peoples.

A joint report by the World Rainforest Movement (WRM) and Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) [2] says that the scientists claiming to "improve" trees by genetic modification are in reality working to "improve the profitability of the businesses" funding their research. It continues:

"But from a biological perspective there is no improvement whatsoever. Is a tree with less lignin better or worse than a normal one? It is clearly worse, given the resulting loss of structural strength, which makes it susceptible to extensive damage during windstorms. Is an herbicide-resistance tree an "improvement"? It is not, for it allows extensive herbicide spraying that affects the soil on which it stands, at the same time as it destroys local flora and impacts on wildlife. Is a flowerless, fruitless and seedless tree of any use to living beings? It does not provide food to myriad species of insects, birds and [other] species that depend on these as food. Is a tree with insecticide properties an improvement? It is a dangerous hazard to many insects species, which are themselves part of larger food chains."

GM trees violate international conventions

The WRM report points out that GMOs in general and GM trees in particular, are a clear violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which obliges governments to take a precautionary approach towards GMOs that may cause serious damage to biodiversity. GM trees also violate the spirit of the United Nations Forum on Forests, which was set up to protect the world's forests.

Unfortunately, the inclusion of GM trees within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism means that the Climate Change Convention not only supports the expansion of monoculture tree plantations, but GM tree plantations supposed to act as better "carbon sinks".

The WRM, FoEI International and ECOTERRA Intl. are calling on all governments, especially the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, to ban the release of GM trees. The campaign to ban GM trees was launched in January 2004 by the Finnish People's Biosafety Association and the Union of Ecoforestry (see "No to GM Trees", SiS 23).

Transgene contamination inevitable and unavoidable

Forest trees are tall, long-lived and produce abundant pollen and seeds that can be carried far and wide. Forest trees also reproduce asexually, sending out clones that spread long distances from the mother plant, thus promoting further transgene contamination. Contamination of native trees by GM trees is hence inevitable and unavoidable.

Low lignin GM trees increase destruction of forests & livelihoods

Low lignin trees are more susceptible, not only to storm damage but also to attacks by insects, fungi and bacteria (see "Low lignin GM trees and forage crops", SiS 23).

The reduced-lignin trait spreading to native forest trees will make them susceptible to storm, attack by pests, and fungal and bacterial diseases. Insect pest populations will also increase as a result.

While low lignin GM tree plantations may benefit the paper industry, they will destroy local livelihoods, forcing people to move away, some of them to new forests where they clear more land for farming [2]. Tree plantations often follow the destruction of native forests. In Sumatra, for example, vast areas of forests have been cleared to feed pulp and paper mills; the clear-cut forests being replaced by acacia plantations. The argument that planting faster growing GM trees is "growing more wood on less land" is misleading. Producing more fibre for the pulp industry will not change the demand for high quality decorative tropical hardwoods for the construction industry, which come largely from native forests. Also, the demand for timber is not the only cause of deforestation; road-building, dams, cash crops (such as soya in Brazil and Argentina) or cattle ranging, mining and oil extraction all contribute to destroying native forests, and creating GM tree plantations will do nothing to stem the destruction.

Fast growing GM trees will consume even more water than current industrial tree plantations, draining the already depleted aquifers and impacting on surrounding forests.

Most of the pulp produced in the South is exported to the North. Per capita paper consumption in Germany is 70% that in the US. Vietnam consumes on average 2% of the amount of paper consumed in the US, despite the fact that literacy rates in the US, Germany and Vietnam are almost identical [2]. Nearly 40% of the paper is used for packaging, and 60% of the space in the US newspaper is taken up by adverts. According to Jukka Hamala, CEO of Stora Enso - the second biggest paper, packaging and forest products company in the world, whose sales totalled 12.4 billion in 2004 - the key factor in increased paper demand was increased spending on advertisements in newspapers and magazines. Thus, increasing paper consumption is neither necessary nor desirable.

Fast growing GM trees exacerbate climate change

The argument that planting GM trees can reverse climate change is also fallacious. Japanese car manufacturer Toyota started field trials of trees genetically modified to absorb more carbon in 1993. Unfortunately, while carbon absorption increased, it was accompanied by a dramatic increase in water consumption.

Tree plantations are much less effective in sequestering carbon than the native forest ecosystem. The biodiverse native forest ecosystem is an effective carbon sink. It has been estimated that the neo-tropical forests of Central and South America sequesters at least one tonne of carbon per hectare per year in biomass increase above ground. (It is possible that additional carbon is sequestered in the soil.) In contrast, destroying a hectare of forest releases 200 tonnes of carbon (see "Why Gaia needs rainforests", SiS 23).

Fast-growing reduced-lignin trees will also rot more readily, returning carbon dioxide more rapidly to the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating global warming instead of ameliorating it.

Researchers used a NASA thermal infrared multispectral scanner from the air to assess energy budgets of experimental forests in Oregon in 1989 [3]. They found that a clear-cut forest area had a surface temperature of 51.8C, hotter than a nearby quarry, which registered 50.7C. The Douglas fir plantation with mature trees registered 29.9C, compared to 29.4C over the natural Douglas fir forest regrowth; while the coolest temperature of 24.7C was found over the 400 year-old forest. The cooling effect of the natural forest ecosystem is not only important for alleviating global warming; it is also a significant indicator of sustainability [4].

Insecticidal GM trees destroy biodiversity

There is no doubt that the insecticidal GM trees will kill many insects, both target pest species and non-target species; that is, until the pests develop resistance within six or seven years, according to the estimate of Liu Xiaofeng from Henan Agriculture Department, a scientist critical of the GM cotton planted in China (see "GM cotton fiascos around the world", SiS25). At that point, more insecticides will have to be used, especially as new kinds of pests will have appeared.

The far greater threat to biodiversity is the spread of the insecticidal traits to natural forests. Laboratory feeding experiments have shown that Bt toxins produced in GM crops can harm beneficial predators that feed on insect pests, even when the pests themselves are not affected by the toxins [5]. One class of Bt toxins (Cry1A) was found to harm butterflies, lacewings and mice. Another class (Cry3A) acts against insects belonging to the Order Coleoptera (beetles, weevils and stylopids) [6], which contains some 28 600 species. Bt toxins are known to leach out of the roots into the soil, with potentially huge impacts on the soil biota. Reduction of insect populations will in turn impact on birds and mammals that feed on insects.

Herbicide-tolerant GM trees make green deserts

GM trees have been made tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides that kill all other plants. If that is not bad enough, they are also harmful to all species of animal wildlife including human beings (reviewed in The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, ISP Report www.indsp.org ). Plantations of herbicide-tolerant GM trees are really green deserts, and collateral damage to nearby forests and crops from spraying herbicides is inevitable, as is the pollution of drinking water.

Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK. Disturbances of many body functions have been reported after exposure at normal use levels. It nearly doubled the risk of late spontaneous abortion, and children born to users had elevated neurobehavioral defects. Roundup (Monsanto's formulation of glyphosate) caused cell division dysfunction that may be linked to human cancer. Glyphosate caused retarded development of the foetal skeleton in laboratory rats. It inhibits the synthesis of steroids and is genotoxic in mammals, fish and frogs. It is lethal and highly toxic to earthworms.

Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities and birth defects in humans. It is toxic to butterflies and a number of beneficial insects, also to the larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia, some fresh water fish such as the rainbow trout. It inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen.

Health hazards

The health hazards of GM trees are common to those of other GM crops, but they will be exaggerated. Two of these in particular are worth mentioning. Agrobacterium, used in the vector system for creating many GM trees, is a soil bacterium that causes tumours to grow on infected plants and is now known to be capable of transferring genes into animal and human cells (See "Common plant vector injects genes into human cells" http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Agrobacterium.php). Scientists have warned that the Agrobacterium is extremely difficult to eradicate from the transgenic plants created, and can therefore serve as a potential vehicle for unintended horizontal gene transfer to soil bacteria and all other species, including human beings, that come into contact with the transgenic crops. This danger is greatly increased in GM trees, especially on account of its extensive root system. The rhizosphere ‚ plant root system - is a known hotspot for horizontal gene transfer.

The potential of Agrobacterium to mediate horizontal gene transfer, and the resulting hazards of spreading antibiotic resistance marker gene to pathogens; creating new bacteria and viruses that cause diseases; and causing cancer in animals including humans were reviewed in Chapter 11 of ISP report (www.indsp.org ).

Another source of health hazard is the Bt toxins and other transgenes, which could be spread far and wide in the pollen of GM trees. All Bt toxins used as transgenes as well as the transgenes conferring glyphosate tolerance were found to have similarities to known allergens, and are hence suspected allergens (see "Are transgenic proteins allergenic?" ISIS report 05/01/ 2005 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ATPA.php).

References

1. Lang C. Genetically Modified Trees The ultimate threat to forests. World Rainforest Movement and Friends of the Earth, December 2004 http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/text.pdf

2. Van Frankenhuyzen K and Beardmore T. Current status and environmental impact of transgenic forest trees. Can J For Res 2004, 1163-1180.

3. Luvall JC and Holbo HR. Measurements of short term thermal responses of coniferous forest canopies using thermal scanner data. Remote Sensing and the Environment 1989, 27, 1-10.

4. Ho MW. Are sustainable economic systems like organisms? In Evolution, Development and Economics (P. Koslowski, ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998b.

5. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J and Bigler F. "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea", Ecological Entomology 2002, 27, 441-7.

6. Wu S-J, Koller CN, Miller DL, Bauer LS and Dean DH. Enhanced toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A d-endotoxin in coleopterans by mutagenesis in a receptor binding loop. FEBS Letters 2000, 473, 227-232.

7. Reviewed in Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, ISP Report, ISIS & TWN, London & Penang, 2003.

[J-Desrochers]

http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?id=1603

Savannah Morning News -- Green groups to discuss modified pines

by Mary Landers
September 19th, 2006



Speakers from Dogwood Alliance, the STOP GE Trees Campaign, ForestEthics and Global Justice Ecology Project discuss the threat to the forests and communities of the South from genetically engineered trees and industrial tree plantations.




Georgia's pine plantations are becoming a testing ground for genetically engineered trees, environmental groups charge.

Georgia has issued permits for at least six releases of genetically modified pitch and loblolly pine trees. Concerns about genetic engineering focus on the unintended transfer of modified traits, such as faster growth and insect resistance, to natural forests, according to the nonprofit Global Justice Ecology Project.

Speakers from that group, the Dogwood Alliance, the STOP GE Trees Campaign and ForestEthics bring their message to a public meeting at the Coastal Georgia Center tonight.

Steve McWilliams, the executive vice president of the Georgia Forestry Association, which represents foresters and forest land owners, said genetically engineered trees are important economically in increasing the quality of the wood and improving trees' growth.

Regardless of genetic modifications, the Dogwood Alliance opposes pine plantations. Ecologically, such tree farms don't qualify as forests, said Andrew Goldberg, campaign director for the Dogwood Alliance.

"Those are the result of artificial ditching and draining," he said. "They're intensely managed. That's good for fiber production, but it's not a natural forest."

More than 90 percent of Georgia's forested land is privately owned, making tree plantations a matter of choice, McWilliams said.