Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Plantation C Ertification & Genetic Engineering

Plantation C Ertification & Genetic Engineering

CertiÞcation & Genetic 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- can relieve pressure on nat- ification, and asexual transfer of . It has been banned in plantations certified by the ural 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 munity and industrial 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 research needed to assess the value and environmental role of plantations is S of GM . Genetic modification could be important for translating new discover- recognized by the Forest Stewardship B ies about tree into improved growth, quality, , and pest resistance. Council (FSC), an international body A for certification of sustainably man- Keywords: ; entomology and pathology; ethics; ; 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 with 2001). the use of recombinant DNA and asex- Europe and , has slowed their FSC has certiÞed some of the most ual transfer methods to adoption considerably in recent years. intensively managed plantations in the more productive or pest-resistant If GM trees are used in in world, including poplar plantations crops. It has been the subject of con- the near future, they are likely to occur and the intensive 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 , 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 adapt to the stresses and special de- dedicated to they and genetic engineering in , mands of -dominated systems. function as tree . 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 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 well as many other forms of intensive GM crops, mainly - and when these create hazards in street en- silvicultural management. It is in the pest-resistant varieties of , vironments (Brunner et al. 1998). context of these biointensive systems , or cotton, have been vigorously Plantations, although very different that the additional expense of GM adopted by in 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 ecotoxicity (Carpenter (Romm 1994). tification system to have done so

4 ¥ 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 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 , 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 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 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 costs, reduce must be vigorously field-tested to iden- changes in the genetic constitution of or avoid pesticide use, improve envi- tify the most desirable genotypes and to trees to make them more productive ronmental profiles of used, ensure that they provide the required under the environmental conditions of or facilitate low systems to re- value, adaptation, and environmental plantation management or urban for- duce and damage. At least safety over a range of conditions. The estry. However, in contrast to tradi- one of these benefits has been realized, current regulatory system in the United tional breeding where natural variation sometimes to a striking degree, with the States, where GM trees are under the is selected based on phenotype first generation of GM agricultural control of the US Department of Agri- (appearance), in genetic modification crops (Carpenter and Gianessi 2001). and the Environmental Protec-

December 2001 • Journal of Forestry 5 particularly tragic example of where this polarization can lead.

Moving Forward It is not surprising that the qualita- tive genetic changes allowed by genetic modification can have substantial value. The biological demands on plan- tation trees, particularly those managed for specific fiber, energy, chemical, or solid wood products, are very different from the demands on wild trees. For example, changes in wood chemistry that might have deleterious effects on long-lived, wild trees are likely to be tolerable in highly managed, short ro- tation systems. Even minor changes in

Courtesy of Jake Eaton, Potlatch Corporation feedstock quality can yield tremendous An FSC-certified, intensively managed poplar plantation in eastern Oregon. Because of their economic and environmental benefits amenability to gene transfer, facile clonal propagation, and intensive silviculture and breeding, (Dinus et al. 2001). Such changes are poplar fiber farms such as this one are places for research and possible deployment of geneti- also likely to domesticate rather than cally engineered trees. invigorate trees, making them less able to compete in wild environments. tion Agency, give legal strength to this method used. The consequences and Precisely what kinds and degrees of basic practice and principle of safety of the new traits depend on the alterations to woody quality, as well as good forest stewardship. silvicultural systems in which the trees other traits, are biologically acceptable are managed. Even at the social level, and deliver significant value can only Politics versus Science ethical judgments of desirability will be determined by research, particularly One of the unfortunate conse- depend on assessments of benefit ver- field trials. However, because of the quences of this controversy is the ten- sus risk, which vary with socioeco- costs, regulatory demands, proprietary dency to treat all of genetic modifica- nomic context. issues, and long-term of field tion as a unitary group that is either Perhaps the most important conse- trials, participation is usually good or bad. In debate, the arguments quence of FSC’s ban on GM research is required. Therefore, as more compa- often shade from biological to ideolog- that it tends to foster the view that all nies become certified by FSC, con- ical, depending on the worldview of genetic modification is dangerous to ducting the needed research to evaluate the participant. Those against intensive the environment. In contrast, leading GM trees will become increasingly management for wood production, , including the National Acad- problematic. who feel genetic modification is unac- emy of Sciences and the Ecological So- The public, not to mention many ceptably unnatural or who object to ciety of America, long ago stated, and professionals, often are confused by the the highly patent-intensive and thus recently reconfirmed, that the new comparison of GM trees to infamous corporate role in genetic modification, traits imparted by genetic modification, invasive exotic species such as kudzu tend to dislike it. Those who believe not the method, should be the focus of and gypsy . GM are that growing more wood on less is biosafety analysis (Tiedje et al. 1989; indeed “exotic” in the sense that they an important environmental as well as National Research Council 2000). deliver new traits that are rare or absent economic goal, and who accept a con- The polarization of views about ge- in wild gene pools. However, they are tinuing major role for and netic modification can have serious not exotic in that they are not biological large corporations in forestry and agri- consequences. It gives license to strin- novelties in . When exotic culture, tend to favor it. Professional gent regulatory regimes based on organisms are disruptive it is generally and public opinions can thus become method and may encourage broadscale because they occupy a new niche, pos- highly polarized (Priest 2000). attacks against all GM research and de- sess novel and complex adaptations, However, the biological reality of velopment, even when research is ori- and have many new, interacting genetic genetic modification does not support ented toward biosafety methods (Kaiser networks not present in native species. such black-and-white judgments 2001). The May 2001 arson attack They also generally leave behind hun- (Strauss et al. 1999). Genes differ dra- against the University of dreds of pests when they depart their matically depending on what they do Program in Urban , which native ecosystems. The simple, limited and how they are modified. The destroyed much of an entire building genetic alterations imparted by genetic of GM trees varies widely depending and the of diverse researchers (and modification bear little resemblance to on the species, genes, and gene transfer which easily could have taken lives) is a this panoply of novelties.

6 Journal of Forestry • December 2001 The relative precision of GM trees benefits from applying detailed genetic IUFRO SECTION ON MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF FOREST TREES. 2001. A request to the Forest Stewardship allows much more predictability of their knowledge are obviously great, but Council that it reconsider its position on field re- ecological consequences compared to there is much social debate about what search with genetically modified trees. Resolution exotic species, and intensive field testing constitutes sustainable and ethical ap- passed at Tree Biotechnology in the New Millennium, and progressive deployment allows plication in various sectors. In forestry, July 22–27, Stevenson, Washington. Available online at www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/strauss/fsc_pnt.pdf; last poorly adapted genotypes to be dis- the obvious near-term applications are accessed by staff October 2001. carded. For traits whose spread outside in highly intensive systems, such as KAISER, J. 2001. Words (and axes) fly over transgenic of plantations is undesirable, such as plantation and urban forestry. How- trees. Science 292:34–36. might be the case for herbicide-tolerant ever, even these applications require NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). 2000. Geneti- trees, methods such as engineered infer- considerable research to define safe and cally modified pest-protected plants: Science and regula- tion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. tility combined with vegetative propa- productive uses. Because of the long PILATE, G., D.D. ELLIS, and S. HAWKINS. 1997. Trans- gation should allow the rate of spread to time period required for tree research, it gene expression in field grown poplar. In Micropropa- be drastically reduced or avoided en- seems wise to conduct research in par- gation, genetic engineering, and molecular biology of tirely. This would also reduce ecological allel with the social debate about safe Populus, eds. N.B. Klopfenstein, Y.W. Chun, N.-S. Kim, and M.R. Ahuja, 84–89. General Technical Re- impacts from the spread of exotic and and appropriate applications of genetic port RM-GTR-297. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest conventionally bred trees. Although the modification in forestry. Demonstra- Service. technology for engineered sterility sys- tions of benefit and safety ultimately PRIEST, S.H. 2000. US public opinion divided over tems has already been demonstrated in will be required for ethical judgments biotechnology? Nature Biotechnology 18:939–42. ROMM, J. 1994. Sustainable forests and sustainable for- transgenic agricultural crops, the effi- of desirability in specific circumstances estry. Journal of Forestry 92(7):35–39. ciency and biosafety of this option re- (Thompson and Strauss 2000). STRAUSS, S.H., W.H. ROTTMANN, A.M. BRUNNER, and quires field study in GM trees. We suggest that certification sys- L.A. SHEPPARD. 1995. Genetic engineering of repro- As tree genomes are better under- tems, including FSC, promote (or at ductive sterility in forest trees. Molecular Breeding stood, the options for using detailed ge- the very least not prohibit) research to 1:5–26. STRAUSS, S.H., W. BOERJAN, J. CAIRNEY, M. CAMPBELL, netic information to more precisely tailor identify productive and safe uses of ge- J. DEAN, D. ELLIS, L. JOUANIN, and B. SUNDBERG. trees to intensive production systems are netic modification in intensive forest 1999. Forest biotechnology makes its position growing rapidly. Because of the limita- management. With the wealth of sci- known. Nature Biotechnology 17:1145. tions imposed by the long life cycle and entific possibility provided by the ge- STRAUSS, S.H., P. COVENTRY, M. CAMPBELL, S. PRYOR, and J. BURLEY. 2001a. Certification of genetically outbreeding system of mating for trees— nomics revolution, the great uncer- modified forest plantations. International Forestry Re- which greatly slow the rate of progress or tainty about stresses on future forests view 3(2):87–104. Available online at www.fsl.orst. limit breeding options—genetic modifi- and societies, and the diversity of needs edu/tgerc/pubs/Strauss_2001_International_Forestry_ cation may present an important future and management problems, prohibit- Review.pdf; last accessed by staff October 2001. STRAUSS, S.H., S.P. DIFAZIO, and R. MEILAN. 2001b. means for making genetic improve- ing all applications of genetic modifi- Genetically modified poplars in context. Forestry ments. A key avenue for progress would cation, and particularly field research, Chronicle 77(2):1–9. therefore be foreclosed if biopolitical is neither wise nor precautionary. THOMPSON, P.B., and S.H. STRAUSS. 2000. Research pressures, such as are embodied in FSC’s ethics for molecular silviculture. In Molecular biology of woody plants, eds. S.M. Jain and S.C. Minocha, ban on genetic modification, impede sig- Literature Cited 585–611. Dordrecht, : Kluwer Academic nificant research in this area. ADAMS, J.M., G. PIOVESAN, S.H. STRAUSS, and S. Publishers. Instead of slowing research, what BROWN. In press. Genetic engineering of forest trees TIEDJE, J.M., R.K. COLWELL, Y.L. GROSSMAN, R.E. would be most socially valuable would against introduced pests and diseases. Conservation HODSON, R.E. LENSKI, R.N. MACK, and P.J. REGAL. Biology. 1989. The planned introduction of genetically engi- be for FSC and other certification sys- BRUNNER, A.M., R. MOHAMED, R. MEILAN, L.A. SHEP- neered organisms: Ecological considerations and rec- tems to help ensure that GM trees are PARD, W.H. ROTTMANN, and S.H. STRAUSS. 1998. ommendations. 70:298–315. studied and deployed responsibly. This Genetic engineering of sexual sterility in shade trees. would be most important in develop- Journal of 24:263–73. CARPENTER, J.E., and L.P. GIANESSI. 2001. Agricultural ing countries, which often do not have biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. Washington, substantial regulation and associated DC: National Center for and Agricultural Pol- Steven H. Strauss ([email protected]) infrastructure. The stewardship obliga- icy. Available online at www.ncfap.org/pup/biotech/ is professor, Department of Forest Science, tions that should accompany genetic updatedbenefits.pdf; last accessed by staff October Oregon University, Richardson 2001. modification are very similar to those COVENTRY, P. 2001. Forest certification and genetically Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5752; Peter involved with use of other engineered trees: Will the two ever be compatible? OFI Coventry is associate professional officer, such as chemicals and exotic or bio- Occasional 53. Oxford, UK: Oxford Forestry UK Department for International Devel- control organisms and could be readily Institute. Available online at www.plants..ac.uk/ofi; opment, Pará, ; Malcolm M. adopted as parts of certification assess- last accessed by staff October 2001. Campbell and Simon N. Pryor are lec- DINUS, R.J., P. PAYNE, M.M. SEWELL, V.L. CHIANG, and ments (Strauss et al. 2001a). G.A. TUSKAN. 2001. Genetic modification of short turers and Jeff Burley is director, Oxford rotation poplar wood properties for energy and fiber Forestry Institute, Department of Plant Ethical Challenges production. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 20: Sciences, Oxford, UK. This article was Biotechnology in medicine and agri- 51–69. partially supported by a grant from the FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (FSC). 2001. Principles culture presents a variety of biological and criteria. Available online at www.fscoax.org/ Scottish Forestry Trust. and social complexities. The potential principal.htm; last accessed by staff October 2001.

December 2001 • Journal of Forestry 7