Urgent Action Alert: Help Us STOP GMO Eucalyptus Trees! January 26, 2010
Posted by angryscientist in Bad Science, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Corner.trackback
This action alert is from the Global Justice Ecology Project
Urgent Update: The USDA has reopened the comment period for their Environmental Assessment of ArborGen’s proposal to plant 260,000 genetically engineered eucalyptus trees across the Southern U.S. Comments are needed by 18 February to oppose this dangerous and destructive plan. Click Here to sign on to the public comment letter. More information below:
Release of Dangerous Genetically Engineered (GE) Eucalyptus Trees Threatens U.S. Forests/ Communities.
ACTION NEEDED BY 18 February! Tell the USDA NO WAY to ArborGen’s Eucalyptus Frankentrees
In an unprecedented move toward commercial large-scale release of GE forest trees in the United States, ArborGen is petitioning the U.S. government for permission to plant an estimated 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees [1] across seven southern U.S. states in so-called “field trials.”[2]
The mass-planting of 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees is a major step toward the unregulated development of large-scale GE eucalyptus plantations in the U.S. ArborGen has also requested permission to develop large-scale commercial plantations of GE cold tolerant eucalyptus across the U.S. South which the USDA has not yet ruled on.
Government approval of GE eucalyptus trees will set a dangerous precedent to allow the release of other experimental GE forest trees, including poplars and pines, that would inevitably and irreversibly contaminate native trees with destructive GE traits, devastating forest ecosystems and wildlife. Once GE trees escape, there is no way to call them back.
The only way to prevent the genetic contamination of forests is to ban the commercial release of GE trees before it is too late.
TAKE ACTION!
Tell the USDA that GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus plantations pose an unprecedented threat to U.S. forests, wildlife and communities. Tell them to reject ArborGen’s request to plant more than a quarter of a million dangerous invasive GE trees across the Southern U.S. Since these field trials are a concrete step toward unregulated commercial growing of dangerous GE eucalyptus, they must be rejected.Sign on to the STOP GE Trees Campaign’s Comments to the U.S. government
and
Have your organization become a STOP GE Trees Campaign partner and endorse our goal of a global ban on GE trees! For more information about the STOP GE Trees Campaign, click here
Background:
According to ArborGen, eucalyptus is a “fast-growing hardwood tree that is a favorite of the international forest products industry”[3] Globally, forests in tropical and subtropical regions have been decimated for the development of eucalyptus plantations, with devastating results for communities and biodiversity. ArborGen now wants to spread this disaster to new regions with this GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus.Some of the impacts caused by eucalyptus plantations that now threaten the U.S. include:
* Widespread destruction of native forests: Australian Eucalyptus were introduced to California in the 1850s and these invasive aliens now grow throughout the state; more than 200 species have been introduced into the U.S. The cold-tolerance trait will allow the disaster of eucalyptus plantations to be expanded into regions that are too cold for conventional eucalyptus–including the U.S. South.
* Uncontrollable wildfires: Raging wildfires in Australia this year, made worse by drought, traveled over 60 miles an hour, devastating wildlife and killing 173 people. The1991 Oakland, CA firestorm, exacerbated by eucalyptus, cost $1.5 billion in damages.
* Loss of fresh water: Eucalyptus trees are fast-growing “water-suckers.” They require tremendous amounts of water, threatening to worsen the drought already being experienced in areas of the Southern United States.
* Vast clearcutting of biodiverse forests to grow monoculture plantations of GE Eucalyptus clones;
* Silent forests: Wildlife that cannot use the Eucalyptus for habitat nor food will be lost. Endangered species will be threatened.
* Contamination of soils and groundwater with toxic pesticides used on the plantations, often aerially sprayed;
* Worsening of climate change through the destruction of carbon-rich native forests for carbon-poor plantations.
* Eucalyptus is a known host for the deadly pathogenic fungus Cryptococcus Gattii. Originally a tropical fungus, it was recently found around Pacific Northwest Eucalyptus groves, and can kill both humans and wildlife.
SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OPPOSING GE EUCALYPTUS PLANTATIONS
Download our 10 page report on the dangers of GE trees and wood-based agrofuels
To Read the USDA’s revised Environmental Assessment, click here
NOTES:
[1] These GE eucalyptus, a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla, are engineered to tolerate colder temperatuves, produce less of the structural polymer lignin, and digest some of their own RNA in the hope of reducing fertility (a Terminator-type genetic technology), though this new EA admits that some fertile seeds have been produced by the existing 1 acre field trial of flowering GE eucalyptus. The permits, if granted, would also allow the GE trees to flower. Eucalyptus thrives in tropical to sub-tropical conditions, but ArborGen’s cold-tolerant Eucalyptus would allow growth in the Southern United States, which experience occasional winter freezes. The states targeted for field trials are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Note: in 2007 ArborGen was given permission to allow 1.1 acres of GE eucalyptus to flower. This was expanded to 7.6 acres with no public input. This means ArborGen could receive permission to expand these 330 acres of field trials after the fact.[2] The number 260,000 is based on the number of trees ArborGen reported to the USDA, which was recorded in the USDA’s Environmental Assessment.
[3] See http://www.arborgen.com/eucalyptus2.php
For more details on the dangers of GE trees, view A Silent Forest, the GE trees documentary narrated by Dr. David Suzuki, which is posted on our blog, Climate Connections
GJEP also sent this as an e-mail, asking to please forward widely. This must be an example of what Obama called advanced biofuel technology. What a crock. The environmental movement doesn’t need friends like Obama. When he talks about putting science back in its rightful place, this sort of mad scientist’s wet dream is what he means. If anyone thinks that’s going too far, what about his other pet fantasies, clean coal and safe nuclear power? This nonsense just gives science a bad name. When the name of the game is profit, true science becomes an obstacle to be suppressed or mocked. Those who care about the consequences get derided as Luddites or hysterical wackos. This world has come to a sad state, when what is promoted as scientific progress has nothing to do with sound science or truth, and everything to do with making money. Environmentalists, wake up! This Administration is chock full of greenwashers, not environmentally conscious, not by any stretch of the imagination!
So let me get this straight, we are making these trees more tolerant to nonnative environments when we know they are water suckers and fire hazards, and we are putting them in parts of the country that have little water and frequent fires. How do you spell blind greed? G-M-O.
We also know, and are ignoring, the CA experience with these trees that they do not perform as timber in the same way as the old stands in Australia do. How do you spell short sighted? G-M-O. Or are we saying that the timber industry is really going to wait a hundred years for these “fast” going trees?
In that hundred years, as CA is busy tearing up their trees for the above reasons, what damage will these trees do to the local habitat which has no flora or fauna to help these tree find a niche? That is other than the deadly fungus that was imported with them.
The spread of the deadly fungus itself that was originally imported with the trees in 1850 should give ArboGen litigious pause. Or is that the game? After they bankrupt, their “friend” Monsanto rushes in as a hero and buys up their company and their patents, and then plants the GMO poplar and pine. Or is it just that Monsanto has this unused fungicide formula that it wants to apply to fungicide ready Eucalyptus seeds?
This is not only bad science, but unethical business, practice at its finest.
[…] opposition to this test has arisen from the expected set of environmental groups who uniformly oppose any application of biotechnology to crops. These are […]
The above pingback was left by a greenwasher who linked to this post. He thinks I’m part of a anti-technology, anti-science, anti-innovation cadre. I left him a brief rebuttal to his argument in favor of this experiment, but my comment seems to have disappeared.
No, your comment is posted. I was just eating dinner. It is approved and I have responded (I always approve all comments on my blog regardless of the opinion expressed).
Steve Savage
Well, the USDA decided there’s no problem with this experiment, giving ArborGen the green light. I guess Obama’s advanced biofuels program will proceed full speed ahead. It figures, after that travesty of a climate bill was released by the Senate, that industry will get to try out its harebrained schemes in the name of combating climate change. There is no integrity in science any more. When nuclear power and GMO trees are touted as solutions to global warming, science has been turned on its head; the mad scientists are running amok, their blind arrogance and greed trampling any regard for prudence, rationality, or truth. The Global Justice Ecology Project issued a press release today about the bad news.
Angry,
Well, it seems that reason has prevailed and a very well controlled experiment will happen. We might get an alternative energy gain. Lets see how it works out.
Yup, that’s the standard line of scientists for hire. Reason has prevailed and this experiment will be very well controlled. Hogwash, or should I say greenwash? The facts the industry and the asleep at the switch regulators ignore are, there is nothing well controlled in genetic engineering technology, since the principle that the results of altering DNA are predictable is full of holes, and we need to phase out burning carbon in any form ASAP. What, do you believe in clean coal and safe nuclear power too?
Well, I have no problem being employable – that is sort of why I went to school. If you think there is nothing “controlled” in genetic engineering technology then I assume you are much more angry about traditional breeding where thousands of genes are involved but no one knows what they are. There are mutations, crossing over, transposons and epigenetic events in the mix. Compared to that GE is extremely controlled
I’m not a fan of clean coal, but Western Europe has demonstrated safe nuclear for decades. There is a nuclear plant about 10 miles from my house and I don’t worry about it at all
You’re a funny guy, Steve. Do you always cherrypick words to twist around other people’s points? I said nothing well controlled, which means something quite different than nothing controlled, wouldn’t you think? Traditional breeders never tried to take over the seed market, or mix genes from completely unrelated species. That’s wishful thinking, that genetic engineering is well controlled. The genome project proved there isn’t enough genetic variation to explain all the variations in humans if one gene is assumed to code for one protein, the general principle upon which genetic engineering has to depend. That means unwanted results should be expected. You’re familiar with Murphy’s Law, I presume. No matter. Your sympathies are obvious and your blind faith in industry touching. It’s too bad that blind faith is so misplaced, and the consequences of people in power like Obama sharing that faith, believing industry’s self-serving spin represents science, are so tragic.
You may not be worried about your radioactivity spewing neighbor, but you should be. Safe nuclear power is an oxymoron. Next you’ll be telling me, like a security guard at a local hospital lately, that there’s no reason to be concerned about those full-body X-ray scanners. I told her I’d rather be strip searched. Ionizing radiation breaks organic chemical bonds like a hot knife cuts butter. You think that’s nothing to worry about? I suppose you don’t believe there really are cancer clusters surrounding every nuclear power plant; that’s just more silly scare tactics of environmentalist wackos like me, right?
Angry,
I didn’t mean to “cherrypick” or “twist” anything. I stick by my point that traditional breeding has no idea what it is doing on a gene by gene point of view.
As for what you call my “blind faith” in industry – I have no such faith. I’m interested in positive change for agriculture and I’m keenly aware of the barriers to such change. Look at these blog posts to see what I advocate:
http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/01/08/a-virtual-tour-of-tomorrows-super-sustainable-farm-part-1/
http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2010/01/08/a-virtual-tour-of-tomorrows-super-sustainable-farm-part-2/#more-2722
Also, I’d like to stay in communication with you even though we disagree on so many things. My email is savage.sd@gmail.com.
Steve
Yeah, so what? That’s not the point of traditional breeding. It is the point of GMO technology, but the predictability of the results of altering genes with that technology leaves a lot to be desired.
Regarding your articles you just linked, would those “actually quite benign chemical herbicides” include Roundup? Don’t make me laugh. Most scientists might agree with what you call positive change for agriculture. Bill Gates goes so far as to accuse people opposed to GMO technology of condemning poor Africans to starve, as if that’s the only alternative, and of course the purveyors like to wrap themselves in a green cloak, to counter the bad publicity they’re getting from those diehard environmentalist wackos. Some of those techniques are better than standard practices, no doubt, but no-till farming and using cover crops predate modern agriculture.
I noted another story linked to your articles, Do Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds Pose a Problem for Farmers Using Roundup? Well, duh! So the proposed solution is to engineer resistance to another herbicide. Why am I not surprised. Where does the vicious circle end?
The people of Colombia have a different view of glyphosate, being used there to destroy the coca farms. This is excerpted from an old article in Rachel’s Environment and Health News
Actually quite benign, isn’t it?
I found this thanks to an e-mail alert from the Global Justice Ecology Project.
Paper industry tests genetically altered trees
The paper industry is behind this tomfoolery? I might have known. All this time I thought this was for biofuels, which would be bad enough! There’s no need to use wood for paper, let alone wood from engineered trees! Goddamnit, this pisses me off.
Thanks to President Obama for his efforts to Restore Scientific Integrity in Government Decision Making What a load of bunk. This is what I’d expect from George Bush, but I should know better than to think Democrats have a clue about how deep the corruption in science goes. Maybe they do, but their corporate ties ensure they won’t do a damn thing about it.
Here’s some more troubling information about glyphosate, from an interview of Don Huber, recently retired emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University.
Actually quite benign, isn’t all of this? No wonder Monsanto stymies independent research on its designer crops. It has a lot to hide.