GM trees hazards posed by genetically engineered trees are somewhat more serious than those presented by such crops.
this because trees live longer than agricultural crops, and this means there may be changes not covered by your metabolism many years after being planted.
So far the debate on genetically modified organisms, also called GM-has focused primarily on agricultural crops and only to a lesser extent genetically modified trees. This is understandable, given that are already commercially planted GM crops such as corn and soybeans, which are intended to feed directly or indirectly to human beings, which constitutes a potential threat to their health.
However, that does not eat, does not mean that GM trees are less dangerous. By contrast, The hazards of GM trees are somewhat more serious than those presented by crops such as trees live longer than agricultural crops, and this means there may be unforeseen changes in your metabolism many years after they are planted.
For example, is already working on genetically engineered trees that do not flower, with the supposed aim of preventing possible contamination of natural trees with pollen from GM. The problem is that no one can say that 20 or 30 years after planting, one of the thousands or millions of GM trees can flourish and contaminate to normal trees of the same species, returning to their offspring sterile. The impact would mean on the species and the forest as a whole could be devastating.
On the other hand, the tree pollen can be carried by wind for long distances. This means that trees can easily become contaminated by GM pollen to trees located at great distances and to generate serious impacts on forests. For example, a transgenic radiata pine resistant to insect attack planted in Chile may eventually contaminate the pines of the same species in their home in the U.S., can wipe out a wide range of insects and have major impacts about food chains attached to them.
In the case of willows and poplars, is known the ability of different species cross each other, so that a genetically engineered species could contaminate many other species and pass on undesirable characteristics in terms of ecosystem functioning.
Despite the uncertainties and potential risks, scientists are still playing with genes to "improve" the trees. Of course they really do is change some of the characteristics of the trees to better serve the interests of those who fund their research, particularly large companies related to forestry, in order to improve the profitability of the businesses involved.
But from a biological perspective there is no improvement. Is it a tree with less lignin better or worse than a normal one? Is clearly worse, given the resulting loss of structural strength, making it susceptible to serious damage during wind storms.
Is "improvement" herbicide-resistant tree? It is not, because it allows extensive herbicide spraying that affects the soil where the tree, while destroying the local flora and impacts on wildlife and people's health. What use is having a tree no flowers, no fruits and no seeds to living beings, including humans? Do not provide food for numerous species of insects including bees include honey-birds and other species that depend on them for food. Is it an improvement in a tree with insecticidal properties? Is a danger to many species of insects which in turn are part of major food chains.
From an environmental perspective, transgenic trees are a very dangerous step and it is necessary to examine those who are driving and for what. In that sense, the forest industry has historically been more interested in adapting forests - received from his vision business as "untidy" and "unproductive" - \u200b\u200btheir commercial interests. It was then assigned to scientists and foresters with the task of "improving."
The answer was to establish plantations of single species in straight rows equidistant to obtain the maximum amount of wood per hectare. Thus forests and grasslands began to be progressively destroyed and replaced by monoculture timber producers exclusively.
But that was not enough forest and took various measures to "improve" these monocultures. The first step was to investigate what were the most appropriate trees for each country and for each environment and select the ones with better qualities for the intended purpose: the production of industrial wood. The United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had a central role in this regard, first defining these plantations as "forests" and basing the need to promote the planting of such "forests" in countries South. But the role of FAO does not stop there, but promoted the research on species considered suitable for planting, especially eucalyptus, and was one of the main vehicles to convince governments about the desirability of promoting this these plantations in their countries.
From the results of the first plantations were then selecting the most suitable species, especially taking into account rapid growth, straight stems, few and thin branches and adequate wood for industry.
The second step involved the gradual adoption of the whole package of the Green Revolution, also sponsored by the FAO: the increasing mechanization of forestry work, application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides to control pests and herbicides to prevent competition from other plants with trees planted.
The next stage was the traditional breeding to "improve" performance of plantations in terms of timber yield, which was soon followed by hybridization and cloning of the "best" trees. From this reductionist perspective, obviously the next step was genetically modified trees.
is important to note that the implementation of that model increasingly artificialised tree planting fast-growing large-scale has been accompanied by increasingly strong opposition and widespread local communities that were affected by it because of its serious social and environmental impacts.
However, despite this opposition and despite the potential dangers resulting from genetic manipulation of trees, scientists are continuing their investigations not only in the laboratory and controlled trial level but also in the field, as illustrated by the case of China, which already has planted well over a million insect-resistant transgenic poplar by inserting genes from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis).
But research is not limited to poplar, but a large number of species (willow, elm, fir, walnut, etc.), Of which, how could it be otherwise, are the favorite businesses bins: eucalyptus and pine.
This is not accidental, because precisely the pulp industry and the paper is one of the main stakeholders, and funding research into GM trees and aims to replace its existing tree plantations "normal"-if the existing plantations can be categorized as "normal - cloned transgenic trees:
- grow faster
- content more cellulose and less lignin
- are resistant to herbicides
- are resistant to insects and fungi
- are resistant to drought and low temperatures
-
not bloom the same time, the cellulose industry as the sector fuels, is also investigating the possibilities of genetic manipulation of trees and enzymes to convert cellulose into liquid fuel, ethanol, which could be used to replace oil in transport. This could result in the installation of huge plantations of GM trees-poplar, willow, eucalyptus and others, which would be transformed into pulp wood and this in turn converted with the help of enzymes in ethanol-GM also.
genetic manipulation of trees with these and other objectives are being carried out in many industrialized countries such as Germany, Australia, Canada, China, Spain, USA, Finland, England, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal and Sweden. In Latin America, Brazil and Chile are the countries most involved in this issue.
In the case of Brazil, research has focused on eucalyptus and have already been approved, with certain limitations, field trials of genetically modified trees of that species. In this case, the central objective is to provide more, cheaper and better raw material for pulp industry for export. Thus, the most wanted features are: fast growth, a higher percentage of cellulose and herbicide tolerance glyphosate.
In Chile, the research aims to solve two problems facing large enterprises in the forestry sector in the country. On the one hand, manipulate pine to become resistant to an insect that is attacking plantations (the pine shoot moth). Moreover, genetically modified eucalyptus to make them more resistant to cold and power and then extend the plantations, which are being actively resisted by the Mapuche, farther south and higher up the mountain.
However, it is important to note that all these investigations, both within and outside the region concern us all, as the trees are now being handled in New Zealand or Chile or any other country may be soon the trees that are planted in Uruguay, or Colombia, or South Africa or Indonesia.
is important that everyone knows GM tree plantations will only exacerbate all the impacts of current monoculture. In fact, faster growing trees quickly exhaust the water, there will be further destruction of biodiversity in the biological deserts of trees modified to be resistant to insects and have no flowers, fruit and seeds, will destroy the soil at a faster rate by increasing the extraction of biomass, mechanization intensive eliminate more jobs and increased use of pesticides affect the health of people and ecosystems and livelihoods will be removed more communities to be displaced to make room for even more "green deserts."
It is thus crucial that all organizations and communities who today oppose the expansion of monoculture tree plantations to join the fight against GE trees to prevent that threat from becoming reality. In this regard, a number of organizations have launched an international campaign to ban the release of transgenic trees, which can be incorporated tod @ s who interested in this activity.
www.ecoportal.net
More information:
World Rainforest Movement - Southern Hemisphere
http://www.wrm.org.uy
Global Justice Ecology Project STOP GE Trees Campaign - Northern Hemisphere
http:/ / www.stopgetrees.org/
can access this document in pdf format at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/temas/AGM/documento_AGM.pdf
People who are interested in more information on GM trees be informed that the WRM has published a book, a special newsletter and a series of articles on this topic. All this is available on our website at:
http://www.wrm.org.uy/temas/biotecnologia.html
Moreover, this section is also possible to access a video (in English) and more relevant information on the subject.
of biofuels in transport reached 10% in 2010, but now have to revise this target. poor countries of the EU may pollute more than the rich
The EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas acknowledged this morning that the EU did not foresee the problems that may cause the policy to achieve that percentage. Recent studies have shown that the widespread cultivation of plants-cereals, mainly for fuel, contributing to increased grain prices and the destruction of forests for areas cultivated.
therefore Dimas promised that the EU will offer a new policy to ensure that its objectives are no more harmful than beneficial. For Dimas, it is preferable not to reach that goal attain harming the poor or the environment.
a couple of years ago, biofuels seemed the way out of dependence on fossil fuels and excessive CO2 emissions. On the one hand, there is no need to modify the engines of cars and other plants used to produce fuel absorb CO2 as they grow then emit when burned, so they are considered neutral fuels. On this basis, the EU adopted its policy.
However, since then there have been studies that warn that some biofuels barely contribute to cutting emissions, while production may involve the destruction of forested areas to ensure fields are known to increase food prices, among other things.
"We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and the social problems they cause are older than we thought, so we will act with more care," Dimas told the BBC. In particular, the EU has said it will propose a certification scheme for biofuels to ensure that no harmful come from farms, and a clampdown on fuel from palm oil, which causes deforestation in Indonesia.
Despite the criticism, the U.S. and Europe support the use of biofuels. 