India:
Will new National Forest Policy open the door to GM trees?
The study by the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “Preliminary Review of Biotechnology
in Forestry Including Genetic Modification” (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/ae574e/ae574e00.pdf),
released in December 2004, summarized the state of biotechnology
in forestry generally with a specific look at genetic modification
of trees. In their findings they report 225 outdoor field trials
of GM trees worldwide in 16 countries. Unfortunately they do not
differentiate which field trials are current and which occurred
in the past, painting a somewhat skewed picture. Of the 225 field
trials, they list 150 in the United States. The remainders are
listed mostly in Europe: France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Portugal,
Finland and Sweden, as well as in Canada and Australia. Field
tests in the South are listed in India, South Africa, Indonesia,
Chile and Brazil. China is the only country known to have developed
commercial plantations of GM trees, with well over one million
trees planted throughout ten provinces.
India was referred in the study to have
carried out one field trial of GM forest tree. Presently, a new
National Forest Policy is being debated behind closed doors which,
according to a report from the Indian Financial Express, “is expected
to give a thrust to genetically modified (GM) trees for boosting
the paper industry as well as improving the quality of by-products
of wood.”
Genetically modified trees have the
potential to radically and permanently change the world’s forests.
As with GM crops, a major issue is gene escape, but the effects
are more far-reaching due to the central role played by trees
in the ecosystem.
After some inquiries, Ecologist Asia
staff were unable to discover details of the proposed National
Forest Policy. The Indian subsidiary of Monsanto says it is not
working with GM trees in India at this time. In response to a
query by email, Monsanto India representative Susan Joseph said
from their Mumbai office that “Monsanto’s India business consists
of developing high-quality herbicides, hybrid seeds (corn and
sunflower) and biotech traits (Bt cotton).” However, when asked
about Monsanto’s likely course of action if the new Indian Forest
Policy promotes GM trees, she did not respond.
Anne Peterman of the US-based based
Global Justice Ecology Project, which is coordinating an international
campaign against GM trees, said in response to this, that “Trees
are being engineered to resist Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. If
Roundup-Ready trees are proposed for India, this is a connection
to Monsanto, even though they may not be directly involved in
the R&D. They will definitely profit from these trees through
the increased sales of their toxic Roundup herbicide.” If, as
suggested by the Indian Financial Express, the purpose of GM trees
deployment in India is to boost the paper industry, then
it is likely that one trait that will be genetically modified
is the amount of lignin in the trees. Reducing the amount of lignin,
which provides rigidity and strength to plant cell walls, is potentially
a money-saver for the pulp and paper industry, which has to remove
less lignin during processing of wood fibre.
However, as pointed out by Prof. Joe
Cummins of the UK-based Institute of Science in Society (ISIS)
in a paper on lignin reduction, “the advantages of reduced lignin
are offset by the disadvantage of plants with reduced lignin,
which are more readily attacked by predators such as insects,
fungi and bacteria.”
Weak lignin-reduced GM trees are likely
to require additional genetically engineered traits, such as Bt
insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. It is then only a matter
of time before the traits escape into the wild ecosystem, as has
already happened with GM crops of various kinds.
International agencies such as the FAO
also are playing a key role in the issue of GM trees. In response
to a question by email, Pierre Sigaud of FAO said that “FAO takes
no stand for or against GM trees.” In a statement on biotechnology
on its website, FAO says that it supports “a cautious case-by-case
approach to address legitimate concerns for the biosafety of each
product or process prior to its release.” However, with the FAO’s
involvement in China’s GM trees programme, it seems clear that
this represents a de facto stance in favour of industrial plantations
of GM trees. There was no reply to an email asking for further
clarification of the FAO’s position.
Species that could be commercialised
in India include GM eucalyptus, which has been called the “selfish
tree” because of the large amount of water it uses, with an accompanying
effect on India’s vulnerable water tables. Glyphosate spraying,
for example with Monsanto’s Roundup, would also lead to inevitable
contamination of drinking water and health problems for local
people, such as cancer and miscarriages. Denmark has already banned
glyphosate for this reason.
India’s new National Forest Policy is
being shaped against this background, possibly with pressure from
companies that stand to profit from GM trees. As India’s already-stressed
forests struggle into the 21st century, with the human communities,
native ecosystems, and especially water supplies that are dependent
upon them, it is time to ask for transparency in this process.
Article based on information from: “The
International Status of Genetically Modified Trees”, 2005, Anne
Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project,
http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?name=getrees&ID=339;
“Preliminary Review of Biotechnology in Forestry Including Genetic
Modification”, FAO, December 2004,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/ae574e/ae574e00.pdf; “GM
trees bloom in rush to feed growing paper industry”, BV Mahlakshmi,
2005,
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=97000
; “Frankentrees Threaten India’s Forests”, Philip Carter, email:
pcarter@web.ca,
http://www.writingfortheplanet.com/images/GE_Trees.pdf#search=%22Frankentrees%2
0Threaten%20India%E2%
