Frankenforests: GE Trees Threaten Ecosystem Collapse (AlterNet)

[marmar]

Frankenforests: GE Trees Threaten Ecosystem Collapse

By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted August 2, 2007.



Across the U.S. and the world, the timber industry is driving research behind genetically engineered forests. But environmentalists worry that it will open an ecological Pandora's Box.

In China, over a million poplar trees have been planted since 2002 to combat deforestation. But the move has not been widely applauded by everyone. The poplars, which are genetically engineered, are China's first foray into the world of transgenic forestry -- or "frankenforests" -- and other countries are not far behind.

As the biotech industry continues to lay the groundwork for genetically engineered crops -- poorly tested, widely debated and yet plugged as a technological wonder -- a potentially greater threat to biodiversity has begun to emerge. Pushed forward by biotech and the multibillion-dollar timber industry, genetically engineered trees are the latest invention.

"The industry has tried very hard to keep it quiet, or tout the technology as benign and beneficial to the environment," says Anne Petermann, co-founder of the Global Justice Ecology Project, a nonprofit established to advance global justice through ecological awareness. "The technology is moving forward very quickly, outpacing regulations. There are no controls in place to properly address or assess the risks -- which are major."

GE trees are planted in monoculture forests, which look more like plantations, and pose serious risks to the ecosystem. Trees live decades or centuries longer than plants, and their seeds can travel hundreds of miles, increasing the likelihood of gene contamination to wild species. The technology was created to optimize the manufacturing process, but environmentalists worry that it will open an ecological Pandora's Box and threaten the health of the forests we depend on for survival. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/58477/

[acmavm]

1. I always wonder if the friggin' bastards that are pushing this crap

and are killing everything ever think about their children and grandchildren. Do they think they'll escape the coming payback? Or do they just not care?

[Nihil]

11. Option 2 (IMHO)

They just don't care.

[msongs]

2. monsanto can claim patent violations after their toxic seeds contaminate everything nt

[Buzz Clik]

3. The monoculture approach is far more threatening than genetic engineering.

The impacts of planting a forest of identical trees at the same time are well known and are a serious detriment to a normally functioning forest ecosystem. However, there is no hint of evidence that a genetically engineered tree (much less a hybrid poplar) is a threat to anyone or anything.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Oops

Double post.

[The2ndWheel]

6. They're the same side of the same coin

One is the cause of the other. Why genetically engineer a tree? To plant a forest of identical trees that fit our needs. There is no other reason to do it.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Perhaps, but timber companies have been practicing monoculture for decades

Long before there was a single genetically engineered tree, old growth forests were being replaced by trees of the same species all planted at the same time. It's okay for lumber, but it's tough on the ecosystem. You don't need hybrids or engineered trees to make that mistake.

Simply producing genetically engineered trees to overcome pest problems or similar challenges is not the problem -- it's a management issue.

[The2ndWheel]

9. That they have

"old growth forests were being replaced by trees of the same species all planted at the same time."

Isn't that engineering the trees? Not manipulating the actual gene, but isn't the principle the same? It becomes a cycle. Practice monoculture, it's easier to do so if you can control the gene, which leads to more of a monoculture, which is easier to do if you control the gene, and on and on.

"Simply producing genetically engineered trees to overcome pest problems or similar challenges is not the problem -- it's a management issue."

I'd say that is the exact problem. Why do we call something a pest? Because it doesnt maximize the production process. So we genetically engineer the tree to give us the ability to manage a monoculture, since it's far easier to do so with only one variable. If there are 1000 different species of tree, you could have 1000 different pests. That's not maximizing production. Too much energy and effort would go into finding 1000 different pesticides. If you can create one kind of tree(killing diversity), you can eliminate many pests(killing diversity), and you can then take all your energy and effort into maximizing the output of that single tree(since it now only fits our needs), and spend less time worrying about pests and other challenges.

[The2ndWheel]

4. "created to optimize the manufacturing process"

aka, killing diversity.

That's what happens with mass production, centralization, etc.

The reason life on this planet is as diverse as it is is because no single species has a monopoly on energy. No single species is able to concentrate all the energy.

Obviously our species seems to want to do that. Hell, maybe we'll even be able to. If we can though, expect less actual diversity. In order to maximize the manufacturing process, there can be no diversity. There can't be real trees, since they don't exist only for us. There can only be a few crops, since that's maximizing production. Cows, chickens, and pigs cannot exist for their own sake, and they certainly can't have the ability to fight back in any way.

The more energy we want for ourselves, the less there will be for the rest of life.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Right, but commercially produced trees are a small fraction of the total.

Diversity still exists and is still the norm.

[The2ndWheel]

10. For now

Like you said, we just recently started the genetic engineering process. That process needs time to mature before we can cut waste(diversity) out of the equation completely.

[razzleberry]

12. the carbon-offset industry will benefit

even faster growing,
than the foreign species used now!

Everybody Wins.