Plantation CertiÞcation & Genetic Engineering FSCÕs Ban on Research Is Counterproductive NOTICE: This material may be protected by S teven H. S trauss, Malcolm M. C ampbell, S imon N. Pryor, copyright law Peter C oventry, and J eff Burley Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification (GM), is the isolation, recombinant mod- Plantations can relieve pressure on nat- ification, and asexual transfer of genes. It has been banned in forest plantations certified by the ural forests for exploitation and can be T Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) regardless of the source of genes, traits imparted, or whether of great social value by supplying com- C for research or commercial use. We review the methods and goals of tree genetic engineering munity and industrial wood needs and A R research and argue that FSCÕs ban on research is counterproductive because it makes it diffi- fueling economic development. T he T cult for certified companies to participate in the field research needed to assess the value and environmental role of plantations is S biosafety of GM trees. Genetic modification could be important for translating new discover- recognized by the Forest Stewardship B ies about tree genomes into improved growth, quality, sustainability, and pest resistance. Council (FSC), an international body A for certification of sustainably man- Keywords: biotechnology; entomology and pathology; ethics; genetics; silviculture aged forests. FSC Principle 10 states that plantations should Òcomplement the management of, reduce pressures enetic engineering, commonly and Gianessi 2001). H owever, the con- on, and promote the restoration and called genetic modification troversy, primarily embodied in regula- conservation of natural forestsÓ (FSC G (GM) in much of the world, is tory barriers to trade of GM crops with 2001). the use of recombinant DNA and asex- Europe and Japan, has slowed their FSC has certiÞed some of the most ual gene transfer methods to breed adoption considerably in recent years. intensively managed plantations in the more productive or pest-resistant If GM trees are used in forestry in world, including poplar plantations crops. It has been the subject of con- the near future, they are likely to occur and the intensive pine and eucalypt siderable controversy, with concerns primarily in intensively managed envi- plantations of the Southern H emi- raised from biological, socioeconomic, ronments, such as urban forests or sphere. Although many environmental political, and ethical perspectives. plantations. In urban forestry, genetic mitigations are built into these certiÞed Some of the issues are similar to those modification is expected to help trees plantation systems, within the areas raised by the use of molecular biology adapt to the stresses and special de- dedicated to wood production they and genetic engineering in medicine, mands of human-dominated systems. function as tree farms. Such intensive which we see in the news headlines Examples would be trees that are more plantation systems often use highly daily. H owever, genetic modification tolerant of heavy metals or other pollu- bred genotypes, possibly including ex- in agriculture and forestry raises envi- tants, resist urban pests or diseases, otic species, hybrids, and clones, as ronmental issues as well. grow slower, or do not produce fruits well as many other forms of intensive GM crops, mainly herbicide- and when these create hazards in street en- silvicultural management. It is in the pest-resistant varieties of soybeans, vironments (Brunner et al. 1998). context of these biointensive systems maize, or cotton, have been vigorously Plantations, although very different that the additional expense of GM adopted by farmers in North America from natural forests in structure and trees is likely to be worthwhile. because they are easy to manage and function, are considered part of the H owever, FSC currently prohibits they improve yields, reduce costs, or re- spectrum of methods in sustainable all uses of GM trees, and is the only cer- duce pesticide ecotoxicity (Carpenter forest management (Romm 1994). tification system to have done so 4 Journal of Forestry ¥ December 2001 (Coventry 2001; Strauss et al. 2001a). the genes that control desired traits are As for modifications to native genes, FSC Principle 6.8 simply states the “use physically isolated, their DNA se- one application is to alter genes that of genetically modified organisms shall quences determined, and the genes control xylem development so that the be prohibited” (FSC 2001). This policy then modified and reintroduced via an wood produced is better suited to spe- stands in stark contrast to their dis- asexual process, usually in a petri dish. cialized end uses, such as pulping or criminating, but not exclusionary, al- Genetic modification therefore relies bioenergy production, allowing higher lowance of the use of chemicals, includ- heavily on the nascent but rapidly yields or more economical or environ- ing pesticides, exotic biological control growing knowledge of genes and mentally benign processing. Very agents, and exotic tree species or popu- genomes. It is also concerned with promising results have already been lations. Like genetic modification, all of traits that can be usefully modified demonstrated from studies of GM these practices can have undesirable en- with one or a few genes. Because of the poplars (Dinus et al. 2001). In another vironmental consequences, including conservation of the genetic code, and example, fertility can be reduced by irreversibility, that are accepted or miti- because at this fundamental genetic modifying native genes critical to re- gated to the extent feasible. These prac- level genes from different organisms production. This application is ex- tices are allowed because it is felt that show striking similarities in their struc- pected to increase wood productivity, they have undergone sufficient research ture and function, genes that were iso- aid production of hybrids in bisexual and their environmental or economic lated from other organisms can be species (male sterility), and reduce the benefits outweigh their risks. used. Transfer of one or a few genes spread of introduced genes to wild In 1999 FSC briefly outlined its rea- from the tens of thousands that make populations (Strauss et al. 1995). In sons for concern over genetic modifica- up an organism do not effectively make addition, when trees are threatened by tion (Strauss et al. 2001a). However, them hybrids or chimeras—although pests for which native resistance is rare none of the problems raised appear in- Frankensteinian metaphors do appear or lacking (e.g., Dutch elm disease and soluble given adequate research, selec- to help promote anti-GM campaigns chestnut blight), genetic modification tive deployment, and mitigation when and sell newspapers. should help to mobilize genes from re- needed. With the rapid growth of FSC Traditional breeding, in contrast, lated species, including other species certification—now at about 22 million tends to focus on complex traits, such and genera, that have developed resis- hectares worldwide—this prohibition as adaptation to environment, that de- tance due to long-standing association on research will make it increasingly pend on the interactions of large num- with the exotic pests. This capability difficult for industries to participate in bers of genes. Genetic modification is will grow as genomes are better research with GM trees and thus poses therefore not a replacement for tradi- mapped and understood (Adams et al., a significant obstacle to answering the tional breeding but a way to solve spe- in press). very questions about GM trees that cific problems or to add value to the In addition to knowledge of genes FSC has raised. There are many ways products of an advanced conventional and genomes, the use of genetic modi- to conduct field research on GM trees breeding program. It is most easily em- fication depends on asexual transfer of with a high degree of environmental ployed when breeding has proceeded genes into cells and recovery of healthy safety, including harvest of trees prior to the stage of clonal propagation, such trees. These methods are well advanced to flowering (Strauss et al. 2001a). This as in poplars, eucalypts, and some for poplar (aspens and cottonwoods), concept was supported by a unani- conifers, where it can be applied to al- sweetgum, and a few other species. In mous resolution of the IUFRO Section ready commercially valuable clones. poplars, the majority of field trials con- on Molecular Biology of Forest Trees Genetic modification seeks both to ducted around the world have shown (2001) at its international meeting in add new traits not available in the na- that GM trees grow well and express July 2001; the section requested that tive gene pool, such as the new forms of their new traits with stability (Pilate et FSC reconsider its blanket exclusion of herbicide or pest resistance seen in agri- al. 1997; Strauss et al. 2001b). For GM trees in research. cultural crops, and to modify native most tree species, however, substantial genes in specific ways to increase pro- additional research is needed. GM versus Conventional Breeding ductivity or improve management effi- Like the products of conventional Genetic modification is similar to ciency. The goals of adding new traits breeding, newly produced GM trees conventional breeding in that it seeks are to reduce pest control costs, reduce must be vigorously field-tested to iden- changes in the genetic constitution