GMW: GM trees are being grown secretly in UK

[Guest guest]

GMW: GM trees are being grown secretly in UK

" GM WATCH " <info

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:37:47 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http;//www.gmwatch.org

---

1.GM trees are being grown secretly in UK

2.Briefing Paper on Transgenic Trees

 

for lots of links to resources on GM trees:

http://globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?name=getrees & ID=379

---

1.GM trees are being grown secretly in UK

They are 'somewhere in Dundee'. But they won't say where. Could it be

because of a damning UN verdict?

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

The Independent on Sunday, 30 April 2006

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article361056.ece

 

Governments worldwide have issued an unprecedented warning about the

greatest biotech hazards so far: GM trees. Trees modified to grow faster,

yield better wood, produce whiter paper, resist pests and disease and

tolerate herbicides are increasingly being cultivated.

 

Elms resistant to Dutch elm disease are being grown in Dundee,

Scotland. But the scientists involved will not say precisely where

they are, or

even exactly how many of them are being grown.

 

The Government was forced to admit for the first time last week that GM

poplar, apple and eucalyptus trees have been cultivated outdoors in

Berkshire, Derbyshire and Kent.

 

The admission came after warnings about such trees from ministers from

over 100 countries at a UN conference in Curitiba, Brazil. They urged a

" precautionary approach " towards them after hearing that they could

" wreak ecological havoc throughout the world's forests " .

 

Some 16 countries around the world are developing GM trees, and more

than a million have already been planted in China. At least 24 species,

from papaya to silver birch, from olive to teak, have already been

modified; the most commonly treated are poplar, pine and eucalyptus.

 

The process can speed growth: GM poplars can grow four times faster

than traditional softwood trees used for timber and paper. It has also

reduced their content of lignin, which strengthens trees but make the

wood

harder to pulp and whiten for paper.

 

Other modifications enable them to produce their own pesticides to

fight off insects, to resist diseases and to enable them to endure heavy

doses of herbicides so that plantations can be drenched to kill weeds

without harming the trees.

 

A GM orange tree, developed in Spain, bears fruit after only one year

of life, instead of six. Danish scientists have worked on modified

Christmas trees, with a view to developing specimens whose needles do not

fall off. And in the boldest suggestion yet, an American professor has

suggested that trees could be modified to make the moon habitable by

growing " huge greenhouses over their heads " .

 

But the ministers in Brazil were concerned that genes from the modified

trees could spread great distances on the wind and across national

boundaries. Tree pollen can travel up to 2,000 km. And, because trees can

live for centuries, modified examples pose a long-term threat to the

world's forests.

 

Contamination by genes conferring fast growth, for example, could make

some forest trees crowd out other species; genes that produce

insecticides could decimate rainforest ecosystems, the richest on

earth; and

genes that reduce lignin could make trees more vulnerable to pests.

 

The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs denied late

last week that GM trees had ever been grown in the open in Britain,

until given details by The Independent on Sunday.

 

All the plantations have either been destroyed by protesters or cut

down at the end of the experiments. Britain's only GM trees are now elms,

resistant to Dutch elm disease and being grown in " a controlled

environment " somewhere in Dundee.

 

The scientists developing them say they will not plant any outside

because they fear " terrorism " by protesters. They will not disclose

precisely where they are or give details of the numbers, but confirm that

there are " more than a hundred " of them.

 

Elm

 

Being grown at a secret indoor location by Abertay University

scientists and modified to be resistant to Dutch elm disease. The

scientists

hope the trees will in time replace the 20 million taken from the British

landscape by the disease.

 

Poplar

 

Grown at Jealotts Hill Research Station at Bracknell, Berks, and

modified so that the wood is whiter for making paper. Most, grown by the

biotech firm Zeneca, were destroyed by protesters, but a few were

successfully harvested.

 

Eucalyptus

 

Grown by Shell Research Ltd at Sittingbourne and West Malling, both in

Kent. The tree was modified to resist the use of herbicides, as in most

current GM crops. The experiment is now over.

 

Apple

 

Greensleeves and Jonagold apple trees, modified to resist insect pests

and fungal diseases, were grown by the University of Derby, but

destroyed by protesters.

---

2.Briefing Paper on Transgenic Trees for CBD

http://globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?name=getrees & ID=379

 

Briefing Paper Issued by Global Justice Ecology Project, EcoNexus,

Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition and World

Rainforest Movement:

 

Briefing Paper on Transgenic Trees - Agenda Point 26.1 - SBSTTA 11

recommendation

 

" We have no control over the movement of insects, birds and mammals,

wind and rain that carry pollen and seeds. Genetically engineered trees,

with the potential to transfer pollen for hundreds of miles carrying

genes for traits including insect resistance, herbicide resistance,

sterility and reduced lignin, thus have the potential to wreak ecological

havoc throughout the world's native forests. "

--Dr. David Suzuki, The Suzuki Foundation

 

Non-governmental organizations, social movements, scientists,

indigenous groups, farmers, foresters and others are raising the call

for a

global ban on the commercial release of transgenic trees into the

environment. Such release will inevitably and irreversibly contaminate

native

forest ecosystems, which will themselves become contaminants in an

endless cycle. The potential effects of commercial release of transgenic

trees include destruction of biodiversity and wildlife, loss of fresh

water, desertification of soils, collapse of native forest ecosystems,

major

changes to ecosystem patterns and severe human health impacts. Despite

all of these predictably disastrous consequences, thorough risk

assessments of transgenic tree release have not been done.

 

Rural and indigenous communities in and around countries advancing

transgenic tree plantations will bear the greatest burden of the negative

impacts of transgenic trees. In particular, GE tree development is

moving rapidly forward in Brazil and Chile. China already has

widespread and

undocumented plantations of transgenic Bt poplar in close proximity to

conventional poplar plantations. Experiments carried out by the Nanjing

Institute of Environmental Science show that contamination is already

occurring. The technology is also advancing in India, South Africa and

Indonesia, the U.S. and several countries in Europe. Because tree pollen

is known to travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers, countries

sharing their borders should also be concerned.

 

To further quote world renown geneticist Dr. David Suzuki:

 

" GE trees could also impact wildlife as well as rural and indigenous

communities that depend on intact forests for their food, shelter, water,

livelihood and cultural practices.

 

" As a geneticist, I believe there are far too many unknowns and

unanswered questions to be growing genetically engineered plants –

food crops

or trees - in open fields. GE trees should not be released into the

environment in commercial plantations and any outdoor test plots or

existing plantations should be removed. "

 

Human Health Impacts

 

Potential human health impacts are only beginning to be known. These

health risks include exposure to hazardous chemicals that are applied to

plantations of transgenic trees and harmful effects of inhaling pollen

from trees that produce a Bt toxin (a õ-endotoxin, such as Cry1Ab or

Cry1Ac (CHK).

 

Numerous studies have raised serious questions about the potential

health impacts of õ-endotoxins. Work in the U.S. involving farmworkers

exposed to Bt sprays found that 2 of 123 had antibodies to the

õ-endotoxins

Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac (Bernstein et al., 1999). A global expert consultation on

how to test for allergenicity of GM foods, held jointly by the Food and

Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) in

Rome in January of 2001, recommended that a first step in assessing

allergenicity of a transgenic protein should be a comparison of the amino

acid sequence of the transgenic protein with the amino acid sequence of

known human allergens (FAO/WHO, 2001). Dr. Steven Gendel of the US Food

and Drug Administration found that Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac have significant

sequence similarity to vitellogenin, a known egg allergen, and concluded

that " the similarity between Cry1A(b) and vitellogenin might be

sufficient to warrant additional evaluation " (Gendel, 1998b: 60). A

series of

studies published by scientists from Cuba and Mexico found that Cry1Ac

is a potent systemic immunogen (e.g. evokes an immune response), as

potent an adjuvant as the cholera sub-toxin, binds to gut cells and is

capable of causing changes in the permeability of the gut (e.g. Vasquez-

Padron et al., 1999a, 1999b, 2000). They concluded, " We think that

previous to commercialization of food elaborated with self-insecticide

transgenic plants it is necessary to perform toxicological tests to

demonstrate the safety of Cry1A proteins for the mucosal tissue and

for the

immunological system of animals " (Vazquez-Padron et al., 2000b: 58). A

study by Dutch scientists, utilizing the methodology for sequence

similarity recommended by the FAO/WHO 2001 Expert Consultation, found

sequence

similarity between Cry1Ac and cedar pollen allergen (Kleter and

Peijnenburg. 2002). Finally, the risk of immune response via

inhalation is

larger than the response from ingestion as inhaled substances are not

exposed to gut digestive enzymes as they go directly into the circulatory

system. In addition, some of the inhaled proteins can make it to the

digestive system via the connection between the nasal passage and the

esophagus. Unfortunately, implications of all these studies have not been

pursued.

 

Engineering trees to produce Bt toxin could be far more dangerous.

Pines are known for heavy pollination, spreading pollen for hundreds of

kilometers. Establishment of plantations of pines that produce Bt pollen

could potentially lead to widespread outbreaks of sickness.

The impacts on wildlife and humans from consuming Bt plants have not

been thoroughly researched. However, animal studies of the effects of Bt

published in Natural Toxins found that Bt remains active in mammals

that have eaten it and may in fact bind to the intestines, leading to

" significant structural disturbances and intestinal growths. "

 

Trees engineered to resist glyphosate-based herbicides (e.g. RoundUp)

also pose a threat. Charles Benbrook found use of glyphosate-resistant

crops resulting in 300-600% increases in the use of the herbicide.

Studies in Oregon found that glyphosate exposure significantly

increased the

risk of late term spontaneous abortions and De Roos and other authors

found an association between glyphosate use and the cancers non-Hodgkins

lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

 

RoundUp is known to persist for up to 360 days in some ecosystems, and

is commonly found as a contaminant in rivers. Additionally, studies

have found that inhaling RoundUp is much more dangerous than ingesting it

orally. RoundUp is commonly sprayed from the air where it can drift

into nearby communities.

 

Effects on Forests and Ecosystems

 

Trees are being primarily engineered for insect resistance (with the Bt

gene), tolerance to glyphosate, reduced lignin, and faster growth. The

escape of any of these traits into native forests (considered

inevitable given the unreliability of sterility technologies), is

likely to

unleash devastating impacts on native forest ecosystems. Potential

impacts

include: Contamination with the Bt-toxin insect resistance will

decimate insects sensitive to Bt-toxin, such as Lepidopterae

(butterflies and

moths), and potentially their predators (Hilbeck, 1998) and further

impacting on bird populations, ultimately disrupting forest ecosystems

for

which insects are an integral component. Contamination with the

low-lignin gene resulting in forest trees that cannot resist insects,

disease

or environmental stresses like wind. Escape of the gene for faster

growth leading to transgenic trees out-competing native trees and plants

for light, water and nutrients and leading to soil loss and

desertification.

 

Claire Williams, a transgenic tree researcher at Duke University in the

U.S. discusses the ramifications:

 

" …The pursuit of genetic engineering in forest research is principally

corporate, shaped by the imperatives of private investment, market

forces and government regulatory institutions. Novel forest tree

phenotypes

are created as a means to increase shareholder value of investor

companies. And although potential benefits will accrue to

shareholders, it is

clear that ecological risks of certain transgenic traits engineered

into trees are likely to be shared by all. Private investment in forest

biotechnology is … fueling the creation of novel transgenic phenotypes in

trees at a rate that is outstripping public policy deliberation and

scientific assessment of environmental concerns specific to trees.

 

" In contrast to seasonally harvested crops, pollen and seeds from trees

disperse without hindrance into their surroundings for many years. As

seed and pollen production increase with the age and height of a tree,

each year more seed and pollen travel progressively farther by a process

known as long-distance dispersal. Most commercially cultivated tree

species have many wild relatives that grow in similar locations; thus

there is a high potential for mating. Biocontainment zones suited to

transgenic food crops cannot deter escape of seeds or pollen...

Reproductive

sterility research for conifers, a complex problem, remains in its

infancy.

 

" At present, we remain ignorant on numerous aspects of tree biology and

ecology that affect whether or not we should proceed. A singular

priority for forest research is determining the scale of regulatory

oversight

for transgenic forest trees. The genetic composition of [the world's]

indigenous forests is at issue. "

 

G. Sing et al. (1993) found pine pollen in Northern India more than

600km from the nearest pines. Pollen models created in 2004 by Duke

University researchers demonstrated pollen from native forests in North

Carolina in the U.S. traveling in air currents for more than 1,200km

north

into eastern Canada. This means that transgenic trees cannot be

regulated only at the national level. Transboundary contamination of

native

forests with transgenic traits is virtually assured. Commercial

release of

transgenic trees must be addressed at the international level.

 

Transgenic Trees & Risk Assessment

 

In July, 2005 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) published a report entitled " Preliminary Review of Biotechnology in

Forestry Including Genetic Modification. " They report 225 outdoor field

trials of transgenic trees in 16 countries, with 150 in the United

States. The remainder are mostly in Europe: France, Germany, Britain,

Spain, Portugal, Finland and Sweden, as well as in Canada and Australia.

Field tests in the developing world are listed in India, South Africa,

Indonesia, Chile and Brazil. China is the only country known to have

developed commercial plantations of transgenic trees, with well over one

million trees planted across ten provinces.

 

In the FAO study, transgenic tree researchers were surveyed for their

opinions about economic, health and environmental risks associated with

transgenic trees. Over half of researchers surveyed reported the

environmental threat of escape of transgenic pollen or plants into native

ecosystems and forests and their impacts on non-target species as a major

concern. The FAO's report concludes,

 

" New biotechnologies, in particular genetic modification, raise

concerns. Admittedly, many questions remain unanswered for both

agricultural

crops and trees, and in particular those related to the impact of GM

crops on the environment. Given that genetic modification in trees is

already entering the commercial phase with GM populus in China, it is

very

important that environmental risk assessment studies are conducted with

protocols and methodologies agreed upon at a national level and an

international level. It is also important that the results of such

studies

are made widely available. "

 

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency selected the

Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative at Oregon State

University to assess the risks of transgenic trees. The head of this

program is

Steven Strauss, the leading advocate for GE trees in the U.S. and an

advocate for the deregulation of GMOs. The impartiality of the risk

assessment of this organization is clearly questionable.

 

Conclusion

 

The damaging effects of conventional industrial mono-culture tree

plantations is already well-documented. The addition of transgenic tree

plantations can only worsen these existing problems. Add to this the

utter

lack of credible risk assessment of transgenic tree release, especially

on a global scale, and it becomes a matter of common sense that there

must not be any further forward motion in the commercial development of

transgenic tree plantations. The UN CBD must impose a moratorium on the

technology and launch a thorough and global examination of the risks of

this technology.

 

In conclusion, Dr. Suzuki states, " The rush to apply the ideas of

genetic engineering is absolutely dangerous because we don't have a clue

what the long-term impact of our manipulations is going to be. "

 

CBD COP8 – Agenda point 26.1 - (Forest biodiversity: implementation of

the programme of work)

 

Consideration of SBSTTA recommendation XI/11 (contained in

UNEP/CBD/COP/8/3). Recommendation XI/11, paragraph 9 states:

 

Takes note of the potential impacts of genetically modified trees on

forest biological diversity and suggests a process on how to address this

issue.

 

Benbrook, CM. Rust, Resistance, Run Down Soils, and Rising Costs –

Problems Facing Soybean Producers in Argentina. Benbrook Consulting

Services, Ag BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No. 8, Figure 7.

(January 2005)

http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/715238/0/test.pdf

 

Bernstein, et al. 1999. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure

to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health

Perspectives, 107(7): 575-582

 

Connor, S., McCarthy, M. & Brown, C., The End for GM Crops: Final

British Trial Confirms Threat to Wildlife, 3/22/05,

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=622479 & host=3 & dir=58

 

De Roos, AJ et al. Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as

risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med

2003,

60, E11

 

De Roos, AJ, et al. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide

applicators in the agricultural health study. Environ Health Perspect

2005, 113, 49-54.

 

FAO/WHO. 2001. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of

Foods Derived from Biotechnology, January, 2001, at

http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/risk_biotech_allergen_es.stm

 

Gendel, S.M. 1998. The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess

potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods.

Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 42: 44-61.

 

Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. " Exposure to pesticides as risk

factor for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma among men, " Occup. Environ. Med 2003 60,

E11

 

Hilbeck A, Baumgartner M, Fried PM and Bigler F (1998). Effects of

transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and

development time of immature Chrysoperia carnes (Neuroptera:

Chrysoptidae).

Environmental Entomology 27:480-496.

 

Katul, G., from Spacial Modeling of Trangenic Conifer Pollen, a

presentation at Landscapes, Genomics and Trangenic Conifer Forests, The

Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University,

11/18/04

 

Kleter, G.A. and A.A.C.M Peijnenburg. 2002. Screening of transgenic

proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short

amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear

epitopes of

allergens. BMC Structural Biology, 2: 8. At

www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6807/2/8

 

Pearce F., " Altered Trees Hide Out With the Poplars, " New Scientist,

9/19/04 p.7

 

Rubicon CEO Luke Moriarity's July, 2005 address to shareholders.

www.nx.com/market/market_announcements/by_company?id=108584

 

Savitz, D.A., Arbuckle, Kaczor D., Curtis, K.M., " Male Pesticide

Exposure and Pregnancy Outcome, " Am. J. Epidemiol., 2000, 146, pp.

1025-36.

 

Singh, G. et. al., " Pollen-Rain from Vegetation of Northwest India. "

New Physiologist, 72, 1993, pp. 191-206.

 

Suzuki, David. Personal communication, 2/23/05 to Orin Langelle, Global

Justice Ecology Project.

 

Traavik, T. " Bt-Maize During Pollination May Trigger Disease in People

Living Near the Cornfield, " Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,

terjet -

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Bt-Corn-Human-Disease24feb04.htm

 

UN Food and Agriculture Organization Report, Preliminary Review of

Biotechnology in Forestry, Including Genetic Modification, December,

2004,

Sections: 2.3.3.4; 1.5.1; 2.3.2

 

Vazquez-Padron, RI, et.al. 1999a. Intragastric and intraperitoneal

administration of Cry1Ac 1999a. Intragastric and intraperitoneal

administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces

systemic

and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sciences, 64(21): 1897-1912.

 

Vazquez-Padron RI, et.al. 1999b. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin

is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandinavian J Immunology

49: 578-584

 

Vazque-Padron, R.I., et al. 2000. Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus

thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse

small

intestine. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 271, pp.

54-58

 

Wilson A., Latham J., Steinbrecher R. " Genome Scrambling - Myth or

Reality? Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic crop plants. "

Technical report, EcoNexus 2004, www.econexus.org

 

Woods, C., " Here Come the Super Trees: Chile's Genfor Bets that GM

Pines can Boost Latin American forestry's Bottom Line, " Latin Trade, May,

2002, v10;5 p.24

 

Briefing Paper Issued by Global Justice Ecology Project, EcoNexus,

Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition and World

Rainforest Movement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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