Posted on 08/15/2003 9:10:56 AM PDT by bedolido
Genetic engineering of food crops has been a stealth technology, introduced with little public debate and arriving on grocery shelves unlabeled. Now another application of genetically engineered (GE) agriculture is sneaking up on us - the production of transgenic trees by paper and lumber companies. The possibility that the new genes spliced into GE trees will interfere with natural forests isn't a hypothetical risk but a certainty.
During our lives, genetic transgenic trees by paper and lumber companies. The possibility that the new genes spliced into GE trees will interfere with natural forests isn't a hypothetical risk but a certainty. During our lives, genetic engineering may do as much damage to forests and wildlife habitat as chain saws and sprawl.
This is not to say that every application of GE is bad. Sierra Club has taken no positions regarding genetic engineering done in labs or in indoor manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. But common sense should warn us that commercial development of out-of-doors applications in the absence of environmental safeguards is a prescription for disaster. Sierra Club opposes the out-of-doors deployment of genetic technologies because the genes are free - as free as pollen on the wind - to invade nature, and because once this has happened they can't be recalled. The arguments below are not intended to be inclusive but only to illustrate the nature of the problem.
Corporations, as Milton Friedman pointed out, exist not to be ethical but to make money. And from the standpoint of a forestry company, wildlife habitat has very little value. "Growing the bottom line" is what such companies try to do, and among their strategies are clear cutting and replanting with uniform and fast growing trees (tree plantations). An optimal match between the manufacturing process (cutting lumber and making paper goods) and the inputs can add to profits.
These companies now see an opportunity to engineer trees which grow faster, contain less lignin, are more uniform in their characteristics, are more resistant to disease and so forth. And unfortunately, if this is the way to make money, this is where corporations are headed. Sierra Club believes that pressure from society in the form of legal prohibitions and restraints, stringent regulations and liability laws, and environmental and consumer activism must be brought to bear in order to hold the industry in check and safeguard the public good.
We are often told that commercialization of genetically engineered (GE'd) trees is at least several years away. This is also part of the "stealth" referred to above. GE'd stands of papaya trees are yielding commercial crops in Hawaii. The tip of the iceberg is already under our prow, not on the distant horizon. But it is for the traditional forestry industries of paper and lumber making that most research is presently being done. This is also an area which poses the greatest risk to nature.
The threat of GE'd trees interbreeding with wild trees is extreme. While many agricultural varieties are already quite different from their ancestors of thousands of years ago, this isn't the case with trees. And genetically engineered trees could easily become invasive. Faster growing, limp, low-lignin trees resistant to common pests could easily become a kudzu-like threat, moving into our national parks and forests and changing their character forever.
Should we object if forestry companies do genetic engineering on their own land? Sierra Club opposes GE'd tree plantations on private land for all the same reasons we oppose other tree plantations. To put it briefly, tree plantations are not forests. This will be even more true of GE'd tree plantations.
For instance, GE'd pines might be grown without all those "useless" pine cones. They may be herbicide resistant so that competing undergrowth can be eliminated. They may produce their own pesticides so that many of the insects which live in association with trees are poisoned.
The result, then, may be a silent forest, one which doesn't support chipmunks or snakes at ground level, holds no birdsong in its branches, has no raptors soaring above. Clearly, such a stand of trees is not really a forest. And worse, the damage can't be confined to private property as trees live for many years and can't be closely observed; "birth control" among trees is less reliable than among people and even genetic engineering can't guarantee that a branch won't decide to manufacture pollen. Pine pollen can blow hundreds of miles on the wind.
Should we oppose genetic "improvements" to trees on public lands? Sierra Club believes that we can't allow the industry to be judged by its hype and that patented genes are not an improvement over nature. We also must avoid only judging what one gene may do, because once hundreds of different fragments of hacked, patented genetic code are allowed access to public lands, the consequences of unintended combinations will be unpredictable. GE trees will also be a danger in other nations, particularly in the underdeveloped world where conditions for effective regulation often don't exist.
For all of the above reasons, action is needed both at home and internationally to create a worldwide moratorium on the further development and planting of GE trees at least until an effective framework for public debate, unbiased scientific evaluation, and regulation in the public interest - with the goal of preserving biodiversity - can be brought into being.
If you agree with the above, does this make you a Luddite? This is an unfair characterization by our opponents. Sierra Club does not oppose the use of genetic science in indoor research or medical applications. Our policy about genetic research is that there should there should be more of it, more of it aimed at answering questions about long term effects on health and the environment, and less of it shielded as "confidential business information" as at present. We believe genetic technology belongs indoors, with containment, not outdoors in fields and forests.
We would also point out that the United States is using twice as much paper per capita as other highly civilized nations (Europe, Japan). Let us not ask genetic engineering to do what could be accomplished by lower-tech means like putting a surcharge on junk mail.
Just as there are powerful economic incentives behind logging on public lands, sprawl, and other activities which Sierra Club opposes, there are similar incentives behind genetically engineered sylviculture. Not only are landed property rights and business rights involved, but also the patent rights to genetic code which are now privatizing the genetic heritage of our planet. It is Sierra Club's task, as always, to oppose such interests and to fight for the right of nature to exist for itself, and of future generations to enjoy and be inspired by it.
Which means that the US is doing twice as much as the other civilized nations to reduce global warming. Paper (and the CO2 it takes to grow it) that ends up in landfills is removed from the biosphere for quite a long time. What we NEED to be doing is RECYCLING LESS PAPER, and land-filling MORE.
Excellent. Maybe they can resurrect the American chestnut.
That's a lot of hypotheticals. Here's another: GE'd trees may be designed to be so radioactive that they glow in the dark -- to make clear-cutting easier at night. It could happen! Yikes!!!
Huh? Are you trying to say that because we use more paper, we grow more trees, which reduces CO2? Or that we should simply remove the carbon from the system, via a landfill.
Heck, I think I'd like it. At least the part about picking dinner out the window. Now if you could only make the fruit taste like beef...
I was riding a bus from my house in the Scottish Borders up to Edinburgh once and was reflecting on the idea during the ride. That idea (growable tree house) came to me after giving considerable thought to a new mode of transportion- an animal that was engineered genetically to be dependent upon a computer CPU for its brain. You could combine all the best features of antelope, horse, cheetah, kangaroo etc and design the rib cage of the creature to form a sort of cockpit for you to nestle down in. The animal would still have a vestigal brain perhaps- a little node at the top of the spinal cord that did the little tedious things that keep an organism going (crapping, heart rate that sort of thing) while the computer would take over higher functions like vision, course determination, specific commands (like "Speed up!" "Stop" "Trample that Democrat") etc. You could design the creature to break down just about any plant matter- grass, leaves, fruit whatever- just open up a port on the creature's side and shovel the stuff in...
It would keep you warm if you were cold, respond to verbal commands and be fueled by whatever you could find along the way. You could perhaps even add a compressor to the rear end of the varmint and compress all that methane produced, bottling it for later use as a fuel source at home...
~Rush....
Too limited. How about branches that grow 18" in length, 4" in diameter uniform to the end [which is flat], and break off at the junction with the trunk so easily a child could do it so splitting for the stove is unnecessary. The branches would regrow fast enough that it would be unnecessary to harvest the tree itself, just break off the kindling branches and pile them in cord piles so they have time to dry before use. Or, design the trees so the branches fall naturally into cord piles without the necessity of reaching up to break off a branch and carrying it over to a pile.
This is a true American endevor. We should patent this right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.