- Finland: Some remarks on the campaign against GM trees

In June 2004, unknown activists attacked the last remaining trial of genetically modified trees in Finland. About 400 GM birch trees were felled. How should we react now? That was the first question for GM tree campaigners when we heard about the attack.

Our campaign against GM trees in Finland started in 2000, when I was among a small group of concerned activists who formed the People's Biosafety Association (PBA) to monitor GMOs in Finland. Earlier the same year, the Finnish Forest Research Institute received permission for a trial of GM trees in Punkaharaj.

In spring 2000, PBA asked the Board of Genetechnology for the location of all GMO field trials in Finland. They told us that there were 13 open field releases and more than 130 trials in laboratories or greenhouses, but refused to release the locations of the trials, arguing that there was no register of GMO trials. Yet according to Finland's Gene Technology Act a publicly available register of all GMO trials must be kept.

Our next move was to take the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. In response, the Board of Genetechnology released a remarkable statement. Signed by Pirjo Mäkelä, the Board's chair, the statement admitted the risks involved, explaining that any unauthorized visits to the GM field trials might cause a danger to the environment and to people's health. Therefore, the Board argued, the location of the field trials must remain secret.

In October 2001, I wrote an article titled "Finland should oppose genetic modification of trees" for Finland's largest circulation newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat. During the next week the newspaper published two pro-GMO articles written by forestry scientists and declined to publish an article that I sent them countering the scientists' arguments.

PBA then launched a petition demanding that these field trials should be stopped. We pointed out that no adequate assessment of the risks had been carried out and people living near to the GMO trials had not even been informed. Early in 2002, PBA presented the petition, signed by 1500 people, to Osmo Soininvaara, Minister of Social and Health Affairs and leader of Finland's Green League political party.

PBA decided to find out for ourselves where the GM tree trials were. We discovered that there were two field trails, one in Punkaharju and another in Viikki, near Helsinki.

The Finnish public found out about the GM tree field trials on 22 July 2002 when the television news showed PBA's activists hammering biohazard warning signs into the ground next to the trials. A few months later the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court announced its decision that the location of the GM field trials should be made public. However, no real public discussion of the risks took place.

In December 2003, with the Finnish media apparently having lost interest, the campaign against GM trees received another blow. In Milan, at a UN climate change meeting, governments decided to allow plantations of GM trees as carbon sinks under the Kyoto Protocol's "clean development mechanism".

In response, three Finnish NGOs (People´s Biosafety Association, Friends of the Earth Finland and Union of Ecoforestry), launched an internation petition demanding a UN ban on GM trees. In May 2004, PBA took part in a side event on GM trees at the UN Forum on Forests in Geneva. By then 1600 people and 140 NGOs had signed on to the petition.

On returning from Geneva, PBA continued to try to raise the issue of GM trees publicly. We visited the Finnish Parliament to tell parliamentarians about our message to the UN. We invited several forestry scientists involved in GM tree research to a PBA press conference. Only three journalists turned up and no scientists.

In June 2004 we got some good news, at last! Kim von Weissenberg, Professor of Forest Pathology at Helsinki University told WRM's Chris Lang that Helsinki University's GM birch tree field trial "was terminated in the fall of 2003".

The media silence on GM trees was shattered when activists destroyed Finland's only other field trial of GM trees.

The forestry scientists responsible for the trial now claimed that the purpose of the trial was to examine environmental risks, in particular the risk of genetic pollution and the stability of the transferred genes. In fact, the aim of the experiment was to study carbon-nitrogen processes, looking at the impact on growth rates.

In addition to lying about the purpose of their GM tree trial, the forestry scientists appear to be in breach of Finnish law. PBA had argued all along that no proper risk assesment had been conducted BEFORE establishing these field trials and now they actually admitted that by launching a new study which would study these risks on the ongoing field trial.

Under Finnish law, risk assessments must take into account current developments and knowledge and the Board of Genetechnology must be informed of any new discoveries which may affect the previous risk assessment.

PBA argues that the forestry scientists must have some new information about gene pollution and gene instability: they have even received funding from the Finnish Academy for the new study on these risks.

Before continuing the field trial they should therefore have informed the Board of Genetechnology of this new information which gives the need for new risk assesment studies.

Together with the Finnish Union of Ecoforestry, PBA has made a formal complaint about this apparent breach of Finnish law. The authorities are currently considering the complaint, before they decide whether to start a legal process.

After four years campaigning against GM trees, we are optimistic that there will be no new GM tree trials in Finland.

By Hannu Hyvönen, campaign coordinator, Union of Ecoforestry in Finland, e-mail: hannu@elonmerkki.net

---

top

- GE Trees in the United States: An Update

Over November 17-19, 2004 a major conference on genetically engineered trees technology took place at North Carolina’s Duke University in the US. Representatives were present from major biotechnology companies including Arborgen, Cellfor and others, as well as some of the leading institutions conducting research, such as the Institute of Forest Biotechnology, the Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Initiative, the US Forest Service and the Canadian Forest Service, as well as many others simply interested in learning more about the technology of GE trees. Finally there were five of us who represented the “opposition”— organizers working to stop genetically engineered trees by educating land owners, researching potential legal action to stop GE trees, and through international campaigning, among other things. We had been invited to squeeze together onto a panel at the end in an attempt to add some “balance.”

Most of the conference appeared to be a giant cheerleading session for the technology, with each presenter patting his or herself on the back for their accomplishments as well as applauding the work of those others in the room.

In his keynote presentation entitled “Precision Forestry,” Jesse H. Ausubel of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University explained that forestry in our growing world needed to follow the model of agriculture. He argued that the intensification of agriculture, which started in the 1940s with the use of mechanized tractors and chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, was a great boon to all of mankind and that forestry must follow the same model. Intensive forestry plantations need to be pursued, he argued, including the use of chemicals and genetic engineering, in order to meet the growing need for forestry products in the world, while simultaneously protecting remaining native forests. He unfortunately neglected to mention that the agricultural “green revolution” has been a disaster for much of the Global South, and has served to create virtual monopolies of control over much of the world’s food supply—leading to widespread malnourishment and starvation. He suggested these hi-tech tree plantations be located on “abandoned” agricultural lands (in the Global South).

While the name of the conference was “Landscape Genomics and Transgenic Conifer Forests,” its overarching theme was public relations. Time after time, speakers presented their piece of the GE trees puzzle while asking, “How do we get people on board with this issue?” or “What are the ‘white hat’ issues in this technology that we can use to win over the public?” This made the event seem more like a GE trees marketing conference than a discussion on the state of the technology. Presenters acknowledged that selling GE trees is going to be very difficult because of the negative reaction people already have toward genetically engineered food. They also acknowledged that people’s relationship to trees—as a wild, quiet refuge—would make people resistant to the idea of tinkering with them. As one presenter explained, “early education and cultural groundwork will be required to deploy GE trees across the private forest landscape.”

These “private land” strategies for public acceptance of GE trees are critical in the US where 63% of the ‘forested landscape’ is in private hands. Industry must devise strategies to get GE trees onto these lands.

As the conference progressed, participants identified a few “white hat” issues they believed would be potentially useful in selling GE trees to the public. The first they examined was the genetic engineering of Chestnut and Elm trees to be resistant to the diseases that have largely wiped them out in the US. They felt that selling people on the idea that genetic engineering could bring back the beloved lost Chestnut and Elm trees was very useful.

A second idea explored was the use of GE trees to deal with the infestations of invasive species that have been devastating native forests all over the US. The US Fish and Wildlife Service states that invasive species are the number one threat to wildlife habitat. As a solution, one conference presenter proposed creating genetically engineered “native” species that outcompete the invasives. The fact that GE trees, by the very nature of their engineered trans-genes, are not “native,” but potentially extremely invasive, was somehow overlooked. Also omitted was a discussion about how to deal with the causes of these invasions—such as the elimination of trade barriers under neoliberalism. Some of these so-called “trade barriers” include phytosanitary standards that are used to try to stop invasives from entering the country on imported logs or other such hosts in the first place.

The third idea, which was a theme of much of the conference was use of genetically engineered trees in plantations to store carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels (to supposedly help stop global warming). Participants loved this idea, and felt that it was a win-win strategy. Promote GE trees as a solution to global warming—who wouldn’t love that?

Unfortunately, there are already communities in Brazil, Ecuador, Costa Rica and elsewhere who are experiencing the harmful impacts of so-called “carbon offset” forestry plantations. The addition of genetically engineered trees to these plantations will lead to forest health crises that worsen global warming and further compromise the ability of rural and forest dwelling peoples to live sustainably on the land (see related article in this issue).

Scientists in the US are proceeding with the technology of GE trees with blinders on. They look only at the “benefits” they have convinced each other that GE trees will bring, while ignoring the obvious lessons from GE agriculture that serve as giant warning flags. But at the same time they are very nervous. They know people hate this technology, and look for ways to “spin” it to make it more acceptable. This is a highly controversial technology that will only become more so as they prepare to execute commercial plantations of these franken-trees in and around communities throughout the world.

GJEP has a global campaign to stop genetically engineered trees. To get involved, contact them at info@globaljusticeecology.org http://www.globaljusticeecology.org or write GJEP, PO Box 412, Hinesburg, VT 05461 USA.

By: Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project

---

top

- USA: Potlatch Corporation, FSC certification and GM trees

Potlatch Corporation’s 7000 hectares of poplar plantations in Boardman, Oregon are just about as high tech as a plantation can be. The trees are planted in the sandy desert soil and will only grow because of tens of thousands of kilometres of thin black hosepipe. Water, fertilizer and pesticides are pumped to the trees through the irrigation pipes. The water for the irrigation comes from the John Day Dam, constructed by the US Army Corps Engineers in 1971. The dam is one of the 19 dams that block the Columbia River and which have devastated salmon fisheries in the river.

Potlatch’s plantations are monocultures of clonal hybrid poplars. In 1999, the company allowed Oregon State University to start a trial plantation of genetically modified (herbicide tolerant and insect resistant) poplar trees on 1.2 hectares of its land. Potlatch was one of the founding members of Oregon State University's Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative (TGERC). "They're top-of-the-line scientists with an international reputation. TGERC gives us a very big bang for our buck," explained Jake Eaton, Potlatch's research manager, in 1999."

Potlatch’s direct involvement with GM technology was set back when the company decided it wanted to sell the timber to Home Depot, the world’s largest home improvement store. In 1999, to get environmental activists off its case, Home Depot produced a wood purchasing policy which “gives preference” to timber from “certified well managed forests”. Today, Home Depot sells more Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood than any other retailer in the US. Potlatch decided FSC certification was just what it needed.

Because FSC’s standards prohibit the use of any GMOs in certified forestry operations Potlatch agreed to remove the GM trees in December 2000. Eight months later, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) certified Potlatch’s plantations as well managed according to FSC’s standards.

Yet at the time the certificate was awarded, the GM trees were still growing in Potlatch’s plantations. SCS even gave Potlatch another four months to clear the trees. “By December 31, 2001 Potlatch must follow through with their commitment to remove the 2-year old sexually immature transgenic hybrid poplars and continue to abstain from GMO research on their eastern Oregon facility,” SCS’s assessors wrote in the public summary of the certification assessment.

SCS did not check whether the trees had been removed until June 2002, six months after the deadline, when SCS’s assessor Dave Wagner carried out an annual audit of Potlatch’s Boardman plantations.

“The genetically modified hybrid poplar trees were removed prior to December 31, 2001,” Wager noted. However, he continued, “Following removal, there was some re-spouting that had not been treated at the time of the 2002 annual audit.” More than nine months after the certificate was awarded, Potlatch still had GM trees sprouting on its land.

SCS did not withdraw the certificate, but issued a corrective action request. Once again, Potlatch did not have to do anything until the end of the year: “By December 31, 2002 Potlatch must remove stumps and associated sprouts from the genetically modified hybrid poplar trees that were removed.”

Once again, SCS did not check whether Potlatch had removed the GM tree stumps and sprouts until six months after the deadline. In June 2003, Barry Sims, a Portland-based forestry consultant and SCS assessor, carried out an annual audit of Potlatch’s Boardman plantations.

“All GMO material has been removed,” Sims reported, without explaining what evidence had helped him to reach this conclusion. He does not mention in the public summary whether he inspected the area himself, or if he simply asked Potlatch staff.

After each annual audit, SCS’s assessors arrived at a word-for-word identical conclusion: “the overall level of forest stewardship has clearly been strengthened on the forest estate over the past year.” This conclusion is surprising, not least because the only thing Potlatch’s high tech plantations have in common with forests is that they are full of trees.

More importantly, cutting poplar trees and leaving the stumps in the ground is a hopelessly inadequate way of removing poplars from a piece of land, whether the poplars are GM or non-GM. “All poplars tend to sprout vigorously from stumps after trees are cut,” explains Oregon State University’s Steven Strauss.

Matthius Fladung, of the Institute for Forest Genetics and Forest Tree Breeding near Hamburg in Germany, has documented how difficult it can be to remove all traces of GM poplars from the soil. Fladung’s trial was completed in 2001 and the plot cleared of trees. Eighteen months later, Fladung reported, root shoots of the GM trees were still present in the soil.

Fladung is concerned that “conclusions should be drawn carefully from the fact that root suckers appear several months after clearing the field trial.” If the trial is nowhere near any other poplar trees then it is simple, “because every poplar plant must be transgenic”. However, if there are other poplar trees around “it might be difficult to distinguish between transgenic and non-transgenic root suckers,” says Fladung.

It is improbable that any GM poplar trees have managed to grow from the roots that Potlatch has apparently left in the ground. It is improbable, perhaps, but not impossible. Certainly SCS was in breach of FSC rules in awarding a certificate to a company that was growing GM trees on its land. That SCS did not check more carefully that Potlatch had removed all traces of the GM poplar trees is a scandal.

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: chrislang@t-online.de