Genetically modified trees sow seeds of growing conflict The planting of genetically modified (GM) trees crafted to increase forest productivity has expanded dramatically in recent years. In recent months, vandalism against research laboratories has been on the rise, and the debate over whether the environmental benefits of these trees outweigh tiieir potential ecological cost has grown more heated. In a report published last November, die World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) called for a moratorium on the commercial release of Cjjvi trees until more research has been conducted. The report, which used public data from organizations like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the European Commission's environment directorate, documented that 116 trials evaluating whedier different species of GM trees can thrive in the outside environment have been conducted to date. Aldiough the report confined itself to verifiable trials, there are unconfirmed reports that large-scale plantings are being conducted in China. "We are not against biotechnology," stressed Stewart Maginnis, senior forest officer for WWF International. "We're concerned about the reckless use of the technology when there are so many unknowns." According to the WWF report, which was written by an independent scientist not affiliated with the organization, there is inadequate research into such topics as whether the insertion of a new gene will result in unintended side effects that may not be expressed for years, the consequences of genetic pollution and whether GM tree plantations could accelerate die degradation of land on which they are planted "Transgenic plants pose some risks for plantations and associated
ecosystems," acknowledged members of die International Union of Forestry Research, die largest group of scientists studying molecular biology and biotechnology, in a statement published in the December issue of Nature Biotechnology. But the statement stressed that many viable options exist for mitigating the environmental impacts of GM trees and faulted environmentalists for failing to recognize the trees' potential benefits. "Plantations of genetically engineered trees could help to increase wood production and thereby reduce pressure for exploitation of native forests," the researchers' statement explains. Researchers also are using genetic engineering to try to alter the composition of wood so that it requires smaller amounts of caustic chemicals to be converted into paper and to create trees that are able to sequester more carbon to combat global warming Although he did not debate the potential value of die envi-
ronmental benefits researchers are trying to achieve, Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, head of WWF's Forests for Life campaign, argued that there is currently no evidence to support the researchers' claims. According to die WWF report, "field trials must be redesigned to examine broader environmental impacts, and more research is required to fill gaps in our understanding of tree biology and ecology." The report also contends that "national and international regulation is wholly inadequate for long-lived organisms such as trees " "The environmental impacts of trees really haven't received any careful thought from the government, [which] is going to be regulating these crops in the near future," agreed Becky Goldburg, senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. EDF is not calling for a moratorium, but strongly supports the need for more research. For example, if a tree is genetically engineered to contain pesticides like Monsanto's Roundup or the natural soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), monitoring whether any pests are developing resistance to the ticide would be "extraordinarily difficult" because of the long life span of trees
GM tree planting is on the rise At least 24 species of GM trees are now being planted out of doors, according to a report by the World Wide Fund for Nature.
FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 6 9 A
Environmental News Environmentalists are overstating the risks, charged Steven Strauss, a professor of forest science at Oregon State University and coauthor of the Nature Biotechnology statement. Strauss called the WWF report "gravely disappointing," and he said that "there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that biotechnology can be used safely and should move forward." Strauss has publicly decried the growing vandalism and protests against GM forestry. Otiier scientists, like Vincent Chiang, director of the Michigan Technological University's Plant Biotechnology Research Center, stress mat they have been putting very careful thought into the risks of genetic pollution. In addition to creating sterile trees, Chiang, who has been working on a project to create GM aspen trees with very low lignin contents in hopes of reducing the amount of chlorine-containing chemicals
required in paper production, says that paper companies could easily prevent genetic pollution by harvesting GM trees before they flower. After all, he pointed out, trees do not normally flower for 5 or 7, sometimes even up to 20 years. Although Strauss stressed that "there's no grave danger out there," he acknowledged that many proposals he has made for studying the environmental effects of planting GM trees have not received funding from the National Science Foundation or USDA because the organizations are not supporting much basic research. "The research definitely needs to be done," he said. The USDA did not return phone calls regarding what GM tree research was being conducted. Both Strauss and Jeanrenaud expressed concerns about the anecdotal reports that large plots of GM trees are being planted in China. Jeanrenaud said there was
some evidence that they could represent commercial-scale plantings. Strauss disagreed that size was necessarily an indication of commercial status, countering that GM tree developers need to test on a large scale at the end of the development cycle. "I know that the crops [in die Chinese project] are not certified for commercial use by the government," he said. Because the Chinese project reportedly involves developing poplar trees that are resistant to a caterpillar pest, "the key question from a perspective of environmental safety is how are tiiey going to deploy and monitor mem?" Strauss said. "Are there any reasons to think there are ecological impacts mat are greater than whatever they're doing now to control their insect pests? Those are me kinds of questions you hope they're looking at. I don't know if they not." KELLYN S. BETTS
European governments urged to consider environmental benchmarks Europe's heads of government have failed to provide leadership in changing environmentally damaging trends in the agriculture, energy, and transport sectors claims the European Environment Bureau (EEB), the largest federation of environmental groups in Europe. European Union (EU) political leaders approved the strategies developed by these sectors to integrate environmental policy and sustainable development into their economic plans when they met in December in Helsinki, Finland. The summit called for "regular evaluation, followup, and monitoring . . . so that the strategies can be adjusted and deepened". But the EEB, which represents 139 environmental groups, says the strategies did not contain proper targets, timetables, or actions. "The political message, which is not good, is that Europe is not taking integration very seriously," said Christian Hey, EEB's
EU policy director, who added "We would have hoped that heads of government would have given a clear mandate for targetsetting." John Hontelez, EEB secretary-general commented that the leaders did not impress on the ministers of the relevant sectors that they should consider the environment a priority. "What we needed from the summit was the message about the directions to take and the urgency involved Someone must make an end to the complacency of ministers the EU's Environmental Council should become much more aggressive in challenging the business-asusual aDproach of their colleagues " Hontelez said However, the EEB was pleased that the summit requested that the European Commission prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy that dovetails economic, social, and ecological aspects of sustainable development policies for discussion at the summit in
7 0 A • FEBRUARY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
June 2001. Hontelez noted, "We are looking forward to an open and inclusive process to elaborate this strategy. [It] must be guided by a set of key targets and timetables, with a legally binding character. The strategy should lead to an EU that lives within its environmental space by the year 2030 and contributes positively to sustainable development globally." The EEB is hoping that its 10 Environmental Benchmarks for Sustainable Development, published last October, will feed through into debates within the commission. The benchmarks, which can be found at EEB's Web site (www.eeb.org), consist of targets, timetables, and indicators in 10 key areas: air quality, water quality, water use, climate change, hazardous substances, land use, biodiversity, material 1 JSP and sectoral targets for transport and agriculture. The EEB is convinced that most of the targets can be
