Spruce is one of the species of trees that is being genetically engineered.
But despite the severe warnings from scientists of the threat to
wildlife, biodiversity and ecosystems, Canada continues to permit
field tests of transgenetic forest trees. The fear is that these
tests are just a prelude to the commercialization of GE trees,
which could be catastrophic for the environment.
So far transgenic forest trees have only been marketed in China,
but over 250 experimental releases of GE forest trees have been
conducted worldwide. Canada has been field testing GE trees since
1997. The research is driven primarily by private business from
developed nations, including some of the world's largest pulp and
paper companies.
Greenpeace is calling for a ban on the release of transgenic
trees and, as an interim measure, recommends a global moratorium on
commercial and large scale experimental releases. In a submission
to the scientific body of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
Greenpeace provides evidence of the significant ecological risks
associated with transgenic forest trees, which are likely to prove
unmanageable and irreversible.
One of the biggest threats is that GE forest trees will take
over natural landscapes, irreversibly usurping the native
vegetation upon which a whole array of other plants and animals
depend. Although they are largely intended to be grown on
plantations, it is naïve (and irresponsible) to think GE trees will
be confined there. Trees typically produce a very large number of
seeds, and while most of these seeds are usually deposited in close
vicinity, smaller amounts can spread across very large distances.
Wind and water also can carry seeds and pollen from trees across
great distances, while birds, bats, and small animals help trees to
conquer distant habitats. In this way, conifer seeds can travel
dozens of kilometres and the seeds from pine trees - one of the
most widespread and invasive species as well as one of the species
subject to GE research - can be carried up to 30 kilometres by the
wind. In particular, trees that have been intentionally or even
unintentionally altered with genes to improve their fitness could
become more invasive, taking over new habitat and destroying
biodiversity and disrupting ecosystems.
The corporate counter to this problem of uncontrollable
propagation poses an even bigger risk. GE terminator trees,
designed to be sterile would mean no birds, no insects and no
mammals that rely on those seeds, pollen and nectar for food. The
impact on forest biodiversity would be catastrophic.
Trees also propagate from shoots, and because they breed
relatively easily with related species, they would inevitably pass
on their genes to wild relatives and transfer their transgenes to
micro-organisms.
A number of varieties of transgenic forest trees have been
developed to resist insects, including two species of poplar which
have been commercialised in China. Although there are no studies of
their potential effects on non-target organisms, the fact that they
can be affected is apparent from experiences with annual crop
plants. Similar effects have also been observed in the soil. GE
crops can affect the bacteria, earthworms and soil respiration
Compared to annual crop plants, insect resistant trees offer scope
for even more frightening scenarios. The leaves of GE trees planted
along a river or the shore of a lake could easily enter the
waterways with unforeseeable consequences for the aquatic life.
The other characteristic of forest trees that make them so
vulnerable to genetic engineering is their long life spans. All
sorts of unexpected changes could easily happen over the life time
of a tree, some of which live hundreds of years. The longevity of
trees also undermines the results of tests which cannot determine
the long-term affects. Ecological consequences may not be evident
until after several years of growth
In addition to ecological impacts, transgenic plantations will
also have social consequences. The technological and economic power
associated with transgenic forestry is likely to parallel those
experienced in agriculture. In that case the number of producers
typically declines and a few large corporations control the
production system. Ownership of gene technology will provide
forestry corporations with even greater decision-making powers than
today. Furthermore, being heavily mechanised and centralised,
transgenic plantations will offer little in terms of local
employment and profit. When commodities from natural forests and
transgenic plantations compete, the latter could actively undermine
wood prices and discourage incentives for natural forest
management. As indigenous people are often the largest landowners
of naturally managed forests, transgenic plantations could lead to
a decline in the income of poor people. Moreover, given that the
spread of transgenic seeds will be inevitable, the coexistence
between transgenic tree plantations and less intensively managed
public and private forestlands will pose new economic and liability
problems, especially in landscapes made up of a mosaic of public
forests, corporate timberlands, wildlife refuges and family
timberlands.
In an attempt to warn the Canadian government of these very real
risks, Greenpeace has submitted its report on GE trees to the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency as it currently consulting about
the latest round of field trials that would take place in open
air.