ISIS Press Release 12/10/05
fishboyAi (rX-[21]:) | 12.10.2005 19:56 | Analysis | Bio-technology | Ecology
12 Oct 2005 14:01:29 -0000
Subject: [NanoTechnology] UN Cautions Over GM trees
The Institute of Science in Society Science Society
Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
General Enquiries
sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UNCaution.php
========================================================
ISIS Press Release 12/10/05
UN Cautions Over GM trees
*********************
Why there must be a moratorium on commercialisation of GM
trees. Sam Burcher
A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS
members’ website
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/UNCautionFull.php. Details here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php
GM trees untraceable
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has called for
an international framework to assess the safety of
genetically modified (GM) trees
The increasing use of biotechnology in the forestry sector
has led to the spread of GM tree planting in at least
thirty-five countries. According to the FAO, most research
is confined to the laboratories, but many millions of GM
trees have already been released in open field trials in
China, North America, Australia, Europe, and India, and to a
lesser extent, South America and Africa.
Pierre Sigaud, FAO expert in forest genetics, warns against
rushing into GM tree commercialisation before conducting
environmental risk assessments according to national and
international protocols. He says, "The issue goes beyond
country level since pollen flow and seed dispersal do not
take account of national boundaries and wood is a global
commodity." To counteract cross-contamination from GM trees
to native stands, a robust framework to govern research and
application is essential.
Concerns about contamination from GM pollen and seed drift
is shared by many forestry experts and sustainability groups
such as the Peoples Biosafety Organisation, the Union of
Ecoforesty, the Sustainable World Initiative and the
Independent Science Panel (see "Save our Forests" series SIS
26 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). Delegates from
these organisations lobbied hard for a moratorium on GM
trees at the UN Forest Forum in New York and the Meetings of
the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP-
2) in Montreal earlier this year, and at the UN Forest Forum
in 2004 ("GM trees lost in China’s forests" SiS 25
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php).
Too little, too late?
The FAO interventions may be too little, too late. In 2002,
China became the first country to release GM trees
commercially. The Chinese State Forestry Bureau is unable to
trace the 1.4 million GM poplars (Populus nigra) planted so
far. Nine smaller field trials are underway with Poplar –12
and Poplar –741, engineered to be infertile and pest
resistant.
Plans to increase GM tree plantations in China are being
considered. According to the Chinese Academy of Forestry,
environmental risks from the spread of seeds and shoots from
GM trees are unlikely. If this does happen shoots from
sprouting poplars would be eaten by passing cattle and sheep
or destroyed by farming. This "solution" implies that
transgenic poplars are planted in populated areas, not out
of the way in parched and remote regions of northern China
as a safety measure against contamination, as stated.
The US Department of Energy were first to sequence the whole
genome of the poplar tree. Three other GM tree species
dominate forestry biotechnology research: pine, eucalyptus,
and spruce (picea). These too have been widely planted in
open trials. Applications to field test GM trees in the US
have risen by over 70 percent in fifteen years.
Nano-GM trees next
The Institute of Paper Science and Technology collaborated
with the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge laboratory in
their latest genetic engineering project that uses carbon
nanofibres to inject synthetic DNA into plant cells. Carbon
nanofibres and nanotubes are molecular scale particles; one
nanometre is a billionth of a metre; and one grain of sand
is a million nanometres across.
This technique involves millions of carbon nanofibres grown
sticking out from silicon chips, on which strands of DNA are
attached. Living cells are then thrown against them and
pierced by the fibres, injecting DNA into the cells.
Following this process, the synthetic DNA can then express
new proteins and traits.
There has been a rush to commercialise carbon nanotubes
since their invention in 1991, but very few safety
assessments have been carried out until quite recently, when
they were found in laboratory experiments to be highly
toxic, producing inflammation of the lungs of mice
("Nanotubes highly toxic", SiS 22
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). A Royal Society report
in conjunction with the Royal Academy of Engineers stated in
July 2004 that there are uncertainties about the potential
effects on human health and the environment from
manufactured ultrafine nano-particles if they are released.
A EU Nanoforum report likens the shapes of nanofibres to
asbestos fibres and by implication to the morbid effects of
asbestos on human health.
A NASA study reported inflammation of lungs to be more
severe than in cases of silicosis, a respiratory disease
caused by breathing in silica dust. A European Commission
report chronicles the hazards of nanotechnology in detail
assisted by ISP toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard (see also
"Nanotox", SiS 21 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php).
Mapping out Nano Risks, explicitly recommends that genetic
modification using nano-technology should be limited to
micro-organisms, "for which containment is possible." Nano-
GM of larger organisms such as plants and animals, which
cannot be contained, must be avoided.
Dr Richard Smalley, a Nobel laureate and chairman of Carbon
Nanotechnology Inc, has ignored these early warnings and is
adamant that his technique poses no threat to health. He
said, "We are confident there will prove out no heath
hazards, but this toxicology work continues."
Micropropagation produces clones
Researchers in India use "micropropagation" to clone plants
from tiny pieces of tissues. Micropropagation is a method
of in vitro vegetative multiplication that bypasses sexual
reproduction and allows selected individuals to be precisely
replicated in vast numbers. The production of millions of
identical genetically engineered plants constitutes the
largest area, 34 percent, of experimental biotechnology
activities in forestry throughout sixty-four countries.
The ultimate goal of this research is to produce patented
manufactured seeds from clones of "model species" that will
enable the quick and easy global delivery of GM tree
products.
Negative impact of monoculture plantations
What environmental impact has replacing diverse native
forests with monoculture plantations had? In Brazil,
ecosystems and traditional ways of life are threatened by
water guzzling tree plantations that pollute and destroy
clean water, habitats, medicinal plants and sacred realms
that intrinsically link all living systems ("GM trees the
ultimate threat", SiS 26) (see box).
A Brazilian government project to sequence the entire genome
of the eucalyptus tree is financed by companies that topped
a poll representing the worst carbon sink project at the
COP9 conference in Milan in 2003. The FAO however,
misguidedly describes the "Genolyptus" project in Brazil as
"cutting edge biotechnological research."
The Brazilian Network Against the Green Desert and their
partner the Latin American Network Against Monoculture Tree
Plantations have designated every 21 September as National
Tree Day since 2004, in support of rural communities that
have been displaced, destroyed or exploited by monoculture
plantations.
In Chile, around one hundred indigenous Mapuche Indians face
trial and prison, due to their actions against forestry
company plantations.
No future for GM trees
The FAO surveyed 65 countries involved in forest
biotechtology, and their responses gave undue emphasis to
the perceived benefits and future of GM trees. Of over four
hundred questionnaires sent out, forty-nine responded, of
which twenty three had conducted research on GM trees.
Respondents felt that the cost of GM trials, intellectual
property rights, and regulations were significant obstacles
to the future of GM trees. Consumer rejection and unease
with GM products were also cited as problems.
Benefits of GM trees were perceived as easier pulping
methods and reduced use of chemicals for the timber
industry, pest and disease resistance, phyto-remediation of
mercury in soil, secondary compounds to pharmaceuticals, and
potential to withstand extreme environmental conditions such
as drought and heat. All of these perceived benefits are not
without problems and require many years of careful
biological and environmental assessment before
commercialisation could be justified (see box). Benefits to
human health scored lowest of all.
The final consensus was that forestry biotechnology
excluding genetic modification is far less costly and
requires much less regulation than traditional means of tree
improvement. The FAO’s proposed framework to assess the
safety of GM trees therefore must acknowledge the
megadiversity of existing forests and the increasing trend
towards recognizing the benefits of multiple uses of forests
that preserves that diversity ("Multiple uses of forests",
SiS 25 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php).
The FAO should support the global moratorium on further
releases of GM trees that has been already launched by a
coalition of civil society organisations
( http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantaciones/RECOMA.html and also ban
the creation of GM trees by means of carbon nanotubes or
other nanoparticles.
Why not GM trees? Break with the Cartegena Protocol on
Biosafety – the first international law to control
transportation of Living Modified Organisms (LMO’s) across
national boundaries Disrupt ecosystems and pose similar
environmental, health and economic risks as GM crops, but on
a larger scale Replace and threaten natural biodiverse
forests that are crucial to stabilising climate and
regulating rainfall Produce faster growing trees that speed
up the return of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and use up
much more water When used to phyto-remediate land actually
re-locate soil mercury from contaminated sites in the south
and deposit them in the north. And return expelled mercury
to the soil in its original toxic state Manipulate synthetic
genes and toxins to alter seed and flowering production
posing threats to human and animal health, as well as
natural biodiversity Increase productivity for timber and
pulp in monoculture plantations that destroy natural
habitats and rural communities which depend on native
forests for food and a multiplicity of other uses Less
fibrous content of trees (lignin) reduces strength,
resistance to pests, and disease. Increased lignin leads to
a build-up of undigested plant material in the soil.
Sources: Save our Forests series, Science in Society 2005,
issue 26 p 14-24 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php
========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UNCaution.php
If you like this original article from the Institute of
Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving
articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation
or purchase on our website
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.
ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation
dedicated to providing critical public information on
cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability
and ecological sustainability in science.
If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML
please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our
mailing list unsubscribe at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/unsubscribe.php
========================================================
CONTACT DETAILS
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London
NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20
7272 5636]
General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List
press-release@i-sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.
FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT enquiries@i-sis.org.uk
Subject: [NanoTechnology] UN Cautions Over GM trees
The Institute of Science in Society Science Society
Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk General Enquiries
sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UNCaution.php ========================================================
ISIS Press Release 12/10/05
UN Cautions Over GM trees
*********************
Why there must be a moratorium on commercialisation of GM
trees. Sam Burcher
A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS
members’ website
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/UNCautionFull.php. Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php GM trees untraceable
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has called for
an international framework to assess the safety of
genetically modified (GM) trees
The increasing use of biotechnology in the forestry sector
has led to the spread of GM tree planting in at least
thirty-five countries. According to the FAO, most research
is confined to the laboratories, but many millions of GM
trees have already been released in open field trials in
China, North America, Australia, Europe, and India, and to a
lesser extent, South America and Africa.
Pierre Sigaud, FAO expert in forest genetics, warns against
rushing into GM tree commercialisation before conducting
environmental risk assessments according to national and
international protocols. He says, "The issue goes beyond
country level since pollen flow and seed dispersal do not
take account of national boundaries and wood is a global
commodity." To counteract cross-contamination from GM trees
to native stands, a robust framework to govern research and
application is essential.
Concerns about contamination from GM pollen and seed drift
is shared by many forestry experts and sustainability groups
such as the Peoples Biosafety Organisation, the Union of
Ecoforesty, the Sustainable World Initiative and the
Independent Science Panel (see "Save our Forests" series SIS
26
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). Delegates from these organisations lobbied hard for a moratorium on GM
trees at the UN Forest Forum in New York and the Meetings of
the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP-
2) in Montreal earlier this year, and at the UN Forest Forum
in 2004 ("GM trees lost in China’s forests" SiS 25
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). Too little, too late?
The FAO interventions may be too little, too late. In 2002,
China became the first country to release GM trees
commercially. The Chinese State Forestry Bureau is unable to
trace the 1.4 million GM poplars (Populus nigra) planted so
far. Nine smaller field trials are underway with Poplar –12
and Poplar –741, engineered to be infertile and pest
resistant.
Plans to increase GM tree plantations in China are being
considered. According to the Chinese Academy of Forestry,
environmental risks from the spread of seeds and shoots from
GM trees are unlikely. If this does happen shoots from
sprouting poplars would be eaten by passing cattle and sheep
or destroyed by farming. This "solution" implies that
transgenic poplars are planted in populated areas, not out
of the way in parched and remote regions of northern China
as a safety measure against contamination, as stated.
The US Department of Energy were first to sequence the whole
genome of the poplar tree. Three other GM tree species
dominate forestry biotechnology research: pine, eucalyptus,
and spruce (picea). These too have been widely planted in
open trials. Applications to field test GM trees in the US
have risen by over 70 percent in fifteen years.
Nano-GM trees next
The Institute of Paper Science and Technology collaborated
with the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge laboratory in
their latest genetic engineering project that uses carbon
nanofibres to inject synthetic DNA into plant cells. Carbon
nanofibres and nanotubes are molecular scale particles; one
nanometre is a billionth of a metre; and one grain of sand
is a million nanometres across.
This technique involves millions of carbon nanofibres grown
sticking out from silicon chips, on which strands of DNA are
attached. Living cells are then thrown against them and
pierced by the fibres, injecting DNA into the cells.
Following this process, the synthetic DNA can then express
new proteins and traits.
There has been a rush to commercialise carbon nanotubes
since their invention in 1991, but very few safety
assessments have been carried out until quite recently, when
they were found in laboratory experiments to be highly
toxic, producing inflammation of the lungs of mice
("Nanotubes highly toxic", SiS 22
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). A Royal Society report in conjunction with the Royal Academy of Engineers stated in
July 2004 that there are uncertainties about the potential
effects on human health and the environment from
manufactured ultrafine nano-particles if they are released.
A EU Nanoforum report likens the shapes of nanofibres to
asbestos fibres and by implication to the morbid effects of
asbestos on human health.
A NASA study reported inflammation of lungs to be more
severe than in cases of silicosis, a respiratory disease
caused by breathing in silica dust. A European Commission
report chronicles the hazards of nanotechnology in detail
assisted by ISP toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard (see also
"Nanotox", SiS 21
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). Mapping out Nano Risks, explicitly recommends that genetic
modification using nano-technology should be limited to
micro-organisms, "for which containment is possible." Nano-
GM of larger organisms such as plants and animals, which
cannot be contained, must be avoided.
Dr Richard Smalley, a Nobel laureate and chairman of Carbon
Nanotechnology Inc, has ignored these early warnings and is
adamant that his technique poses no threat to health. He
said, "We are confident there will prove out no heath
hazards, but this toxicology work continues."
Micropropagation produces clones
Researchers in India use "micropropagation" to clone plants
from tiny pieces of tissues. Micropropagation is a method
of in vitro vegetative multiplication that bypasses sexual
reproduction and allows selected individuals to be precisely
replicated in vast numbers. The production of millions of
identical genetically engineered plants constitutes the
largest area, 34 percent, of experimental biotechnology
activities in forestry throughout sixty-four countries.
The ultimate goal of this research is to produce patented
manufactured seeds from clones of "model species" that will
enable the quick and easy global delivery of GM tree
products.
Negative impact of monoculture plantations
What environmental impact has replacing diverse native
forests with monoculture plantations had? In Brazil,
ecosystems and traditional ways of life are threatened by
water guzzling tree plantations that pollute and destroy
clean water, habitats, medicinal plants and sacred realms
that intrinsically link all living systems ("GM trees the
ultimate threat", SiS 26) (see box).
A Brazilian government project to sequence the entire genome
of the eucalyptus tree is financed by companies that topped
a poll representing the worst carbon sink project at the
COP9 conference in Milan in 2003. The FAO however,
misguidedly describes the "Genolyptus" project in Brazil as
"cutting edge biotechnological research."
The Brazilian Network Against the Green Desert and their
partner the Latin American Network Against Monoculture Tree
Plantations have designated every 21 September as National
Tree Day since 2004, in support of rural communities that
have been displaced, destroyed or exploited by monoculture
plantations.
In Chile, around one hundred indigenous Mapuche Indians face
trial and prison, due to their actions against forestry
company plantations.
No future for GM trees
The FAO surveyed 65 countries involved in forest
biotechtology, and their responses gave undue emphasis to
the perceived benefits and future of GM trees. Of over four
hundred questionnaires sent out, forty-nine responded, of
which twenty three had conducted research on GM trees.
Respondents felt that the cost of GM trials, intellectual
property rights, and regulations were significant obstacles
to the future of GM trees. Consumer rejection and unease
with GM products were also cited as problems.
Benefits of GM trees were perceived as easier pulping
methods and reduced use of chemicals for the timber
industry, pest and disease resistance, phyto-remediation of
mercury in soil, secondary compounds to pharmaceuticals, and
potential to withstand extreme environmental conditions such
as drought and heat. All of these perceived benefits are not
without problems and require many years of careful
biological and environmental assessment before
commercialisation could be justified (see box). Benefits to
human health scored lowest of all.
The final consensus was that forestry biotechnology
excluding genetic modification is far less costly and
requires much less regulation than traditional means of tree
improvement. The FAO’s proposed framework to assess the
safety of GM trees therefore must acknowledge the
megadiversity of existing forests and the increasing trend
towards recognizing the benefits of multiple uses of forests
that preserves that diversity ("Multiple uses of forests",
SiS 25
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php). The FAO should support the global moratorium on further
releases of GM trees that has been already launched by a
coalition of civil society organisations
(
http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantaciones/RECOMA.html and also ban the creation of GM trees by means of carbon nanotubes or
other nanoparticles.
Why not GM trees? Break with the Cartegena Protocol on
Biosafety – the first international law to control
transportation of Living Modified Organisms (LMO’s) across
national boundaries Disrupt ecosystems and pose similar
environmental, health and economic risks as GM crops, but on
a larger scale Replace and threaten natural biodiverse
forests that are crucial to stabilising climate and
regulating rainfall Produce faster growing trees that speed
up the return of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and use up
much more water When used to phyto-remediate land actually
re-locate soil mercury from contaminated sites in the south
and deposit them in the north. And return expelled mercury
to the soil in its original toxic state Manipulate synthetic
genes and toxins to alter seed and flowering production
posing threats to human and animal health, as well as
natural biodiversity Increase productivity for timber and
pulp in monoculture plantations that destroy natural
habitats and rural communities which depend on native
forests for food and a multiplicity of other uses Less
fibrous content of trees (lignin) reduces strength,
resistance to pests, and disease. Increased lignin leads to
a build-up of undigested plant material in the soil.
Sources: Save our Forests series, Science in Society 2005,
issue 26 p 14-24
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php ========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/UNCaution.php If you like this original article from the Institute of
Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving
articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation
or purchase on our website
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations. ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation
dedicated to providing critical public information on
cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability
and ecological sustainability in science.
If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML
please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our
mailing list unsubscribe at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/unsubscribe.php ========================================================
CONTACT DETAILS
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London
NW1 OXR
telephone: [44 1994 231623] [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20
7272 5636]
General Enquiries
sam@i-sis.org.uk Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION.
FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT
enquiries@i-sis.org.uk
fishboyAi (rX-[21]:)