if a tree falls in the forest, is it genetically modified?

[Guest guest]

Genetically Engineered Trees:

The Greatest Threat to the World's Forests Since the Chainsaw

 

by Brad Hash

 

As the industry of genetic engineering (GE) aggressively propels itself along a highly controversial highway fraught with myriad social, environmental, and ethical implications, it has unleashed a host of poorly understood and inadequately tested "advancements". Such has been the case for a variety of GE agricultural products from Starlink corn contamination to the Bt toxin/Monarch butterfly disaster. And so will be the case with genetically engineered trees, leaving the earth with a new disease and the public with the onus of stuffing the genie back into the bottle.

 

Currently, trees are being researched and developed to express a multitude of traits, solely for increasing productivity to fuel the $400 billion global wood products market, of which the U.S. consumes 25%. Traits such as insecticide production, glyphosate resistance, reduced lignin , and sterility along with industry's ace-in-the-hole, intellectual property rights, will very likely spell the annihilation of native forests across the planet.

 

To vividly paint a picture of the potential catastrophe from this laboratory concoction known as GE trees, we begin with the ubiquitous tree plantation. Even without the addition of GE trees, the tree plantation is deadly enough voraciously gobbling native forests worldwide leaving in its wake homogenized, monocultured, biodiversity exclusion zones that are only 2-3 rotations away from becoming virtual lunar landscapes. Consider, satellite images analyzed in the 1980's found that 75% of new plantations in the Global South stand where native forest existed only 10 years prior. Additionally, there is loss of indigenous peoples lands, disruption of water tables, and 70-80% loss of CO2 absorbing plantlife leading to increases in global warming. And that is just the beginning. Now add to the mix, Bt-toxin....

 

Bt, or Bacillus Thurengiensis - a naturally occurring bacteria, secretes a toxin that is engineered to be expressed in every cell of a tree from roots to trunk to limbs to leaves. For industry, this becomes a much more efficient method of insect control compared to aerial spraying. "Target" insects that ingest any part of the tree die. However, many non-target insects are victims as well and so are many insects that feed on the insects that consumed the Bt-toxin. Biomagnification of Bt-toxin has also been found in bird species that feed on affected insects.

Current studies of Bt-toxin corn point to the plants' roots transferring the toxin's gene sequence to other soil bacteria that then also secrete the toxin. Some of the results of this process, known as horizontal gene transfer, are appearing in river sediment near agricultural lands where abnormally high concentrations of Bt-toxin are being discovered. It is important to understand here that impacts from Bt-toxin corn are just emerging and that those of Bt-toxin trees could prove to be on a much greater scale. The reason? Size and longevity. Corn plants are typically 5-7 feet tall, have a diameter of a couple inches, a relatively shallow root system and live for about 5-6 months per year. Compare this with a plantation spruce tree at 60+ feet, a diameter of at least 12 inches, an extensive, deep root system and a lifespan even in plantation forestry of 20+ years. Now imagine rows and rows of Bt-toxin spruce trees exuding this insecticide from their roots day-in day-out, year-in year-out. Imagine blowdowns and deadfalls, branches and needles dropping to the ground all transferring Bt-toxin into the soil and water as they decompose while the toxin remains lethal and active for at least 7 months. The magnitude of Bt-toxin entering the environment from engineered trees will be unprecedented even when compared to amounts from Bt-toxin corn. Overall, very little is known about the long term impacts of Bt-toxin, but the available evidence proves very alarming.

 

Trees are also engineered to be herbicide resistant. Specifically, resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, the number one selling herbicide in the world. A glyphosate resistant gene allows for indiscriminate spraying of Roundup without risking damage to the cash crop. Although industry claims that this is to reduce the amount of herbicide sprayed, we find 2 disturbing developments: 1) in glyphosate resistant agricultural crops, Roundup spray has increased on average 11% with some cases as high as 60%, and 2) according to industry analyst Roger Sedjo, "the cost reducing nature of the herbicide tolerance gene, glyphosate, suggests that its application alone would increase the level of plantation establishment in the range of 78,700 to 225,000 hectares (197,000-562,500 acres) annually over what would have been established on a worldwide basis without the innovation."

 

This not only spells the loss of additional native forest but also brings with it the deadly impacts of glyphosate. Glyphosate is documented to damage or reduce the populations of insects, fish, birds and earthworms. As it contaminates soils, in many cases persisting for over a year, glyphosate also reduces the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen-fixing bacteria and increases plants' susceptibility to diseases.

 

Another trait being expressed in trees is reduced lignin. Lignin, the structural glue or binder that gives a tree strength and rigidity, is reduced in order to process wood fiber to paper fiber more economically. However, less lignin creates weaker trees thus compromising the trees' ability to withstand infestations, heavy winds and other natural encounters.

 

Finally, trees are engineered to be sterile to prevent contamination with native species. Which begs the question, if this is such a safe technology, why then is industry trying to keep it from cross-pollinating wild relatives? Nevertheless, sterility will not be achieved. Industry researcher Toby Bradshaw states, "I would like to know that there isn't a lot of gene flow from poplar plantations to native species." To put this in perspective let's say that 95% of trees in a pine plantation of 10,000 were successfully sterilized. This leaves 500 trees to spread pollen up to 400+ miles in any direction, theoretically putting 500,000 sq. miles at risk of contamination from a single tree. When contamination does occur, it will imperil ecosystems with the aforementioned effects of Bt-toxin, glyphosate resistance, reduced lignin, and no method of containment.

 

Adding fuel to this laboratory concocted fire is the double-edged sword known as intellectual property rights. GE trees are patented organisms that are -- and will remain -- the "intellectual property" of the patent-holding corporation. Thus, when GE trees' progeny appears outside of the plantation or test plot, that DNA is still viewed as the property of the corporation. Now envision GE tree contamination of public lands. Lands previously off-limits to logging. Lands such as wilderness areas, refuges, national parks, and reclamation sites on national forests. Air-borne pollen and vegetative propagation don't recognize boundaries. So, will a corporation sue the government for patent violations when this occurs? Regardless of the answer or even the outcome of a suit, the real issue boils down to two scenarios: 1) the GE trees will either be removed via logging, which would certainly require new logging roads in cases, or 2) they will be left in the affected area to destroy the ecosystem while repeatedly propagating new territory across the land...not unlike the European invasion 500 years ago. Either way, the Earth loses.

 

However, THERE IS GOOD NEWS...commercial production is still 5-10 years away, which means there is time to stop this experiment in destruction before it is unleashed on the planet. To find out how you can help stop the biotech forestry steamroller, please contact me at the address below.

 

gaaget

www.asej.org