International Paper Growing Genetically Engineered “Frankenforests”
- » See also: Ray Anderson: A Revealing Chat with a Radical Industrialist
- » Get Sustainablog by RSS or sign up by email.
ArborGen’s eucalyptus trees are designed to survive freezes in the U.S. South. These genetically engineered tree plantations would give International Paper (IP) a competitive advantage by providing a supply of lower cost wood. ArborGen may boost yearly sales to $500 million in 2017 from $25 million by following Monsanto’s blueprint for commercializing engineered plants according to Bloomberg.com.
The similar strategies between Monsanto and ArborGen are not a coincidence. ArborGen Chief Executive Officer Barbara Wells is a former Monsanto executive who spent 18 years at that company, including four years introducing modified soybeans in Brazil. ArborGen Chief Science Officer Maud Hinchee and James Mann, vice president of business development, also worked at St. Louis-based Monsanto.
I can’t help feeling a little disappointed in IP. I believed the paper maker was honestly concerned about the environmental impact of its business operations. The company even published a series of brochures called the Down to Earth series to discuss environmental topics such as “Pixels vs Paper” and “Recycled vs. Virgin”. And now…Frankenforests? I always thought genetically modified anything was bad for us and the environment. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently reported a link between genetically modified (GM) foods and adverse health effects. Yes, I know. We don’t eat trees but playing around with Mother Nature seems like a bad idea to me.
So what are the risks? “Engineered eucalyptus trees could be an ecological disaster, bringing increased fire risk and extraordinary water consumption to a new environment,” Neil J. Carman, an Austin, Texas-based member of the Sierra Club’s genetic engineering committee, told Bloomberg.com. “Easier-to-pulp trees will be weak, and hurricanes will spread their pollen and contaminate native forests.”
While ArborGen awaits approval to sell cold-tolerant eucalyptus, it also is seeking USDA permission to expand a 57- acre test of the trees to 330 acres (approximately 260,000 experimental trees), mainly in Texas, Florida and Alabama. If the field tests are approved, the Sierra Club may sue the USDA to compel a more thorough study, known as an environmental impact statement.
Why wasn’t an environmental impact study done before growing the genetically engineered trees? And is IP as “green” as they would like us to believe? What do you think?
Photo: Phospheros on Flickr under a Creative Commons license.
There are already genetically modified trees in the USA, they are poplar trees, they are being engineered to be used for ethanol fuels…
Thanks MD! So growing genetically modified trees is okay if they are being used for ethanol fuels? That is an interesting point. Issues are never as simple as they appear. Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about that.
There have been probably zero trees planted for paper/timber that are the original wild version of the tree for the past 40 or 50 years. Even Christmas trees on plantations are very far from the wild version.
@Cindy just because finally you wake up to something certainly does not mean that it is new or bad.
It is very bad. These monocultures are a desert where very few animals can live. Dear can not fit their antlers between pine and the eucalyptus destroys the soil, is highly flammable and leads to soil erosion ultimately threatening our food reserves. GM would take these threats to a whole new level and are the degneration of our society. We can instead all take a hectare of land and plant diverse food forests providing excellent food, water, habitat for animals and the ideal conditions for safe, free and sucessful families.
@Cindy - It may be worth remembering that the environmental movement pushed to get ethanol to market, even though many greens now wish that they could deny it. Plus, Russ is right about genetic modification being a successful part of forestry for decades. With regards to an increased risk of fires, it seems that unmanaged (pristine) forests suffer this fate more often than managed forests. Treating trees like crops insures their survival.
@Martin - Dear? I think you mean deer if you are referring to what I think you are. The deer antlers work different between pine or fir & eucalyptus? Who wants deer in a managed timber stand anyway?
Destroys the soil - highly flammable? Please explain. Your whole post is off in never-never land!
If you are interested in living in a cave, please do - I (and the majority of the population) have zero interest in the make believe world you seem to be describing.
This is why I love sustainablog. Thoughtfully brought up issues. Regarding the comments, I wonder about extreme posts like Martin who talk about threatening food reserves and degeneration of society. Without using slippery smoke “the sky is falling” arguments, this could be good if it occurs on well-managed timber properties.
[...] Read more of this story » [...]
“Thanks MD! So growing genetically modified trees is okay if they are being used for ethanol fuels? That is an interesting point. Issues are never as simple as they appear. Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about that.”
I’m not sure if it is okay, but look at it this way, millions of acres are laying fallow, the government pays farmers to leave them un-farmed, while that does reduce fuel and chemical use, it does nothing to sequester, so what I propose is grow fast growing trees on it.
Perdue researchers are looking at hybrid poplars for ethanol, poplars grow like weeds and are already used in the paper industry for pulp.
Poplar requires less bleeching ie less dioxins..
http://www.rfu.org/cp/fibres2poplar.htm
Ethanol from poplars
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060823.Chapple.poplar.html
@russ. Do you happen to work for International Paper by any chance? Picking on spelling is a classic tactic when you have no real argument. I unlike some am not paid to comment on such matters. As for the cave man comment how much lower will you sink next? I was talking about creating a space of love on a 1 hectare family domain so that we don’t need any more of these harmful products including paper from GM Frankenforest.
If anyone is being extreme it is the technocrats forcing dangerous technologies on us that threaten Man and nature alike. Just let the prices go up and people will use less paper.