Breaking Green

FSC Contemplates Dropping GE Tree Ban, while USDA Considers Releasing GE Trees with Lucy Sharratt

• Global Justice Ecology Project / Host Steve Taylor • Season 2 • Episode 11

Share episode

Send us a text

For decades, the Forest Stewardship Council also known as the FSC has had a core policy of prohibiting the commercial use of genetically engineered or genetically modified trees in its certification program. But that ban is currently under threat as commercial interests push for a plan that would have the FSC overseeing test plots of GE trees in what has euphemistically been called a learning project.

Currently the US government is also considering allowing the release of genetically engineered American chestnut trees into US forests.  Along with opponents in North America, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (also known as CBAN) has noted that this dangerous experiment threatens a spread of GE trees into Canadian forests as well.

CBAN has recently released a report The Global Status of Genetically Engineered Tree Development: A Growing Threat, which sheds light on the current status of efforts to genetically engineer trees for release into the wild and use on plantations.

In this episode of Breaking Green we will talk with Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Lucy Sharratt works in Halifax as the Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, also known as CBAN. CBAN brings together 16 groups to research, monitor and raise awareness about issues relating to genetic engineering in food and farming. CBAN members include farmer associations, environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalitions of grassroots groups. Lucy previously worked as a campaigner and researcher on this issue at the Sierra Club of Canada and the Polaris Institute in Ottawa. Lucy also coordinated the International Ban Terminator Campaign which secured a strengthened global moratorium on genetically engineered sterile seed technology.

Lucy has a Master’s degree from the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University and has authored numerous articles in various books on the subject of genetic engineering.

Don't miss this episode and subscribe to Breaking Green wherever you get your podcasts.

Report The Global Status of Genetically Engineered Tree Development: A Growing Threat

CBAN information on FSC

Stop GE Tree Petition to FSC

Stop GE Tree American Chestnut petition

This podcast is produced by Global Justice Ecology Project.

Breaking Green is made possible by donations from people like you. 

Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions.  Simply click here to send a donation or text GIVE to 1 716 257 4187.

Steve Taylor  
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by Global Justice Ecology Project. On Breaking Green, we will talk with activists and experts to examine the intertwined issues of social, ecological and economic injustice. We will also explore some of the more outrageous proposals to address climate and environmental crises that are falsely being sold as green. I am your host, Steve Taylor. For decades, the Forest Stewardship Council, also known as the FSC, has had a core policy of prohibiting the commercial use of genetically engineered or genetically modified trees in its certification program. But that ban is currently under a threat as commercial interests push for a plan that would have the FSC overseen test pots of genetically engineered trees in what has euphemistically been called a learning project. Currently, the US government is also considering allowing the release of genetically engineered American chestnut trees into us forests along with opponents in North America. Canadian biotechnology Action Network, also known as CBAN has noted that this dangerous experiment threatens a spread of genetically engineered trees into Canadian forests as well. CBAN has recently released a report called the Global Status of Genetically Engineered Tree Development: A Growing Threat. This report sheds light on the current status of efforts to genetically engineer trees for release into the wild and for use on plantations. In this episode of Breaking Green, we will talk with Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian biotechnology Action Network. Lucy Sharatt works in Halifax as the coordinator of the Canadian biotechnology Action Network. CBAN brings together 16 groups to research, monitor and raise awareness about issues relating to genetic engineering in food and farming. CBAN members include farmer associations, environmental and social justice organizations, and regional coalition's of grassroots groups. Lucy also coordinated the international Ban Terminator Campaign, which secured a strengthened global moratorium on genetically engineered sterile seed technology. Lucy has a master's degree from the Institute of Political Economy at Carleton University, and has authored numerous articles in various books on the subject of genetic engineering. Lucy Sharratt Welcome to Breaking Green.

Lucy Sharratt  
Thank you. It's great to be here.

Steve Taylor  
Well, it's great to have you. Genetically engineered trees, I think this is a new one for some of us. What is a genetically engineered tree?

Lucy Sharratt  
Yes, so many people listening will be familiar with the idea of genetically engineered, we could call them genetically modified plants for food. We're eating in North America, a lot of genetically engineered corn, canola, and soy in our diets as processed food ingredients. But in fact, research continues on using the techniques of genetic engineering to change other plants as well, like trees, forest trees, there is research that's already in the grocery store on fruit trees, because there is actually a genetically engineered apple tree. In the United States sliced genetically engineered apples appear in plastic bags. But genetic engineering, this new set of techniques directly changes the genetic makeup of organisms by bypassing reproductive barriers to create new characteristics. So we're we're talking about going into the laboratory and directly inserting genetic material, moving it around from one species to another, or actually just going inside the organism's genome and changing cutting out genetic material. So this is a new frontier of technique. And it is being applied in the laboratory and in field testing, to trees like pine or poplar, what we might call forest trees, trees that are in plantation to create products like paper and timber.

Steve Taylor  
Wow, that's interesting that you mentioned forests. It's really a shocking idea to me that we're talking about basically genetically engineering what we consider a forest in essence. But there would be those who would say, hey, trees are a good thing. You know, they can help with climate change all this stuff. What's wrong with with creating different and potentially better types of trees?

Lucy Sharratt  
Well, this is the most interesting question because you have mentioned forests and this is the difference here- really is that with forest trees are trees that are not domesticated, like the genetically engineered crops we plant for eating. These trees intersect with forest ecosystems there. And trees already do a lot for us, and a lot for other organisms. We rely on forests and forest ecosystems for so much. And so when we think about genetically engineering trees for our own purposes, were introducing a lot of huge risk questions, a lot of uncertainties. We don't know a lot about forest ecosystems. And yet we're preparing to produce from the lab, a genetically engineered tree that might be faster growing, or have a tolerance to herbicides. So you can spray more herbicides, these attempts to make trees behave in new and different ways, which can be described as making trees better. It has been described as making trees better, but better for what? And for who? And what are the risks? And how is this not a recognition of what forest already provide, and the need to protect forests that exist and the biodiversity of those forest ecosystems?

Steve Taylor  
So there's actually contemplation out there, I guess, you said there's some field testing. But is there a notion amongst some researchers that that we're going to seed the natural world with genetically engineered trees in essence?

Lucy Sharratt  
It's very alarming that there's two kinds of proposals for using genetically engineered trees. One is for planting them in these large industrial monoculture plantations to create, you know, these products, paper, and timber. But there's actually this other proposal that well, we could create genetically engineered trees to release into the wild. And this is actually a very urgent issue because of the proposal to release a genetically engineered American chestnut, into the US and Canada. Because the American Chestnut, is in danger, the populations were decimated, across the eastern part of North America by a blight that in a lab, theoretically, we could create a blight tolerant American chestnut. So even though the blight is still out in the environment, we could genetically engineer a tree to survive that blight. And that is a proposal that's come very far in North America, from university researchers. And it really raises a whole host of issues. And it's explicitly a proposal to release a genetically engineered tree to spread in the wild.

Steve Taylor  
That's, that's somewhat unprecedented, or am I wrong about that?

Lucy Sharratt  
It's absolutely unprecedented. It would be the first genetically engineered organism to be released into the wild. So far, we have used genetically engineered crop plants, in cultivation, that's a managed production of plants. We know there's been escape and contamination with those plants. And certainly using genetically engineered trees and plantations, the risk of escape is huge, or a very big concern. But actually, this proposal goes far beyond that. And is reflected in other types of proposals for how now we could use genetic engineering to just release organisms into the wild to somehow help ecosystems. But instead, this just adds a whole host of potential new problems, just as we need to be supporting intact ecosystems. We're actually proposing that no, we can. We can engineer ecosystems, we can make nature better.

Steve Taylor  
There's a whole history of unintended consequences with this sort of idea that we can engineer a better ecosystem or bring in certain types of species to manage this or that. Have you any thoughts on that?

Lucy Sharratt  
Yeah, this is exactly the problem is that we don't know what the consequences would be of releasing genetically engineered trees. We firstly don't know that those trees will actually behave as we want them to. It's fine to well, it's not fine. But if if the experiments happen in the laboratory, or in field tests, we might observe certain behavior that for example, a blight tolerance to raid might work for a short amount of time. But trees that we release into the wild or even trees that we plant in plantation, those trees will live for decades, and in the wild hundreds of years, generation after generation, they'll be exposed to different environmental stresses. We just don't know what it means for environmental impacts into the future when you release genetically engineered tree. And that's in addition to the uncertainties of actually unintended consequences of the actual process of genetically engineering that tree, where actually, we might find years from now, decades from now that there were new characteristics created in the tree by the genetically engineered process. Sometimes, traits don't appear until later. They can be triggered by environmental stress. So the amount of complexity, the uncertainties, and the lessons we do have from genetic engineering, all make this a very dangerous experiment. It's very clear that we don't know what we're doing. That we can genetically engineer a tree. But we don't know what that means. We don't even know how it will perform in the future.

Steve Taylor  
It is a surprising notion or proposal that we would genetically engineer a tree, use it to alter the nature of a forest or to seed our forests. So do you think GE trees have a future? I mean, what is your sense as to where this idea is going when it comes to real world applications and where things stand now in the real world?

Lucy Sharratt  
Yes, the Canadian biotechnology Action Network just published a report on that question. We did that research for the Stop GE Trees campaign. And it was an, an expose of the research that's been happening around the world. And we looked into what the current status of genetically engineered trees are. And there is field testing happening around the world. But after at least two decades - more of research, it's not at all clear that there's a future for genetically engineered trees, even though there is for example, as we discussed, this American chestnut has been genetically engineered. There are some trees that exist in field tests. There's even trees that have been planted in China 20 years ago. But there's technical obstacles, very serious technical obstacles, political obstacles, and the risks are so huge. So there's a handful of companies and researchers who have who have invested in the research of genetically engineered trees. But it's not clear that the future is assured. It's really problematic. And part of the work now is to discuss what it means to the environment, and to communities, if we're going to put genetically engineered trees out in the environment.

Steve Taylor  
So you said that there's some researchers doing this, but it doesn't sound like there's a lot of researchers doing this. And but there is definitely a push out of some quarters for genetically engineered trees. And to that point, you participated as an observer to the General Assembly of the Forest Stewardship Council in October. So why did you go to that meeting? What is the FSC? And what is their connection to the future of genetically engineered trees?

Lucy Sharratt  
The Forest Stewardship Council is a really important certification of what's called forestry products like paper, for example. And people might recognize if they think about an FSC logo, it is something that some people have seen if you shop for paper for your office, or sometimes on envelopes that you get at home on the on your bills or something. And so this FSC logo accompanies products that claim to have some kind of certification around following environmental and social standards of practice. And a lot of companies are invested in producing FSC products. So the Forest Stewardship Council though, has a policy prohibiting the use of genetically engineered trees. So because so many companies are interested in using that certification and claiming sustainability through it, those companies are now concerned if they want to pursue genetically engineered trees, they can't also have FSC certification. And so they they have put a lot of pressure a few companies have put a lot of pressure on the Forest Stewardship Council to overturn their prohibition. This has been ongoing for 20 years, except FSC members who are environmental groups, some other companies, have repeatedly voted down any changes. They support, or have supported this prohibition on genetically engineered trees. But there's a major pulp producer in the world. In fact, the largest is a Brazilian company called Suzano, which is an FSC member, which does have field tests, and in fact, even has approval for two genetically engineered eucalyptus trees. They're not on the market. Suzano wants to continue exploring genetically engineered trees. And so we see that this company, and some others, including researchers in the United States, have been lobbying the Forest Stewardship Council to consider embracing genetically engineered trees in their program. And this has come to a head recently, with a kind of new approach that FSC has taken that opens the door. It doesn't change that policy immediately. But it's a pathway to changing their policy and removing that prohibition on genetically engineered trees. So we went to virtually to the General Assembly of the FSC. To hear those discussions.

Steve Taylor  
Do you anticipate the FSC embracing this change the dropping of the prohibition? What did you see?

Lucy Sharratt  
There a process that has been started in FSC, which is sounds benign or interesting, but is actually a pathway to opening the door to a to removing the prohibition on GE trees. There's a specific project that's been initiated by FSC. It's not supported by all the members. But it's a process that is called the genetically genetic engineering learning process. So it sounds like great, we're going to learn about genetic engineering. And if FSC is going to continue discussing genetic engineering into the future, let's learn more about it. Except of course, FSC already has a position prohibiting genetically engineered trees, for many good reasons. However, there's this genetic engineering learning process that's been started. The process itself would see the FSC, overseeing field tests of some genetically engineered trees. So it's not just reading about genetic engineering. In this case, FSC would itself have a panel of experts that would select field tests that FSC would oversee. And so FSC has appointed a panel of experts who are drawing up what they're calling a governance model or participation framework, so that FSC could quote, govern, and oversee field tests. So now we see FSC not only considering a future for genetically engineered trees, but actually actively potentially overseeing field tests. And I say potentially, because the process, this genetic engineering learning process is not yet fully going ahead. It's finished phase one, which was the appointment of a panel of experts, and the drafting of this governance model. And the debate about it at the General Assembly where the panel presented what they intended. But the FSC board now has to decide if this project will move ahead to phase two, which would be the selection of field tests, requesting applicants like the company Suzano to adhere to the governance model, and test their field tests such that FSC can theoretically access information from those field tests and learn something about genetic engineering by, you know, overseeing these field tests, which we point out are risky. So the question before the Forest Stewardship Council, the board is making the decision is does the FSC accept then the risks of these field tests that they might now be actually responsible for. This is a very concrete endorsement, really, of genetically engineered trees, certainly these field tests. And it is also a step towards a discussion about removing the prohibition on genetically engineered trees, it really sets a path or a road towards removing that prohibition.

Steve Taylor  
It does sound a bit insidious, in the sense they're saying, let's have a learning process. So we're going to do some genetic engineering of trees have field plots and then and then we're going to decide whether we're going to do that or not. Right? It seems to be putting the proverbial cart before the horse. So during this process, there must have been people arguing against and for, could you give us like, an upshot of what were the major arguments against doing this?

Lucy Sharratt  
Well, the major arguments, certainly from FSC members have been that while the FSC prohibits genetically engineered trees, the risks are known and unknown. There's huge uncertainties. And the FSC has no business, researching genetically engineered trees through field tests, that FSC is not actually a research organization is not well equipped to oversee tests, as is proposed. And some of the questions that were raised, were questions about if the FSC starts engaging in this field test, how will it impact the perception about the FSC? And more importantly, how will the FSC respond if and when there is an environmental impact from one of these field tests? The proposal that came forward for this learning process included examples of field tests, such as overseeing field tests of herbicide tolerant trees, genetically engineered trees designed to survive herbicide spraying, and certainly members raised questions about that particular technology, when really should we be talking about reducing the use of herbicides in plantations instead? So there's a lot of questions that were raised. And the issue too, is how members of FSC have been sidelined in this process, because there's now a panel of experts. And there is the process is now being decided by the board instead of by members. Whether or not the process goes ahead.

Steve Taylor  
Two questions. Do you think it's been fast tracked a bit by the FSC or some some some interest within the FSC or outside of the FSC? And is there somewhat of an organized opposition to this? Did you see some manifested manifestation of people expressing our groups, organizations or people expressing concerns within this meeting?

Lucy Sharratt  
Yeah. I wouldn't say that it's being fast tracked exactly. Although the timeline timeline that we set up for this process was very short, and has now been extended because it was so obviously short, this is a massive undertaking. And the proposal was, you know, to do it very quickly, which really already shows a misunderstanding of the risks involved. But the process itself, it, it relies on a very small panel of appointed people who don't really have the expertise to even undertake this kind of process. Even if the process was legitimate itself or made sense. There's a lack of expertise in forestry. And the expertise about genetic engineering on the panel is dominated by a researcher who has actually actively lobbied for the FSC to remove their certification. So it's very difficult to see how this panel could really provide what FSC is looking for. And this was another concern that was raised by FSC members - was how much learning really will happen here that how many field tests will we be overseeing? And if they're just snapshots of individual products, like individual genetically engineered trees, eucalyptus trees with a certain certain GM trait? For a small short amount of time? It was very, it's very small, specific type of information you would get from field tests. So there's all kinds of questions that came up about the utility the actual worth of this entire project. But it's difficult to talk about, it was difficult for many members to oppose something that's, that's described as a learning process? Don't we all want to learn? Of course we do. You know, so it's a very kind of cleverly designed project, that that is bringing some people along. But the, the risks are very clear from the field has themselves. But certainly, members had raised what does this mean for FSC? Can Can we really manage this project, but the arguments for it are yet to learn. And the idea that genetically engineered trees could help increase yields, increase this, the the way that plantations could be intensified, so you could grow more trees on less land, for example, which we know from experience doesn't really happen. You know, if you if you increase yields, then it just becomes more attractive to expand plantation area and make more money, for example, but this is the argument is that, well, maybe genetic engineering could be beneficial, and that it's going to happen anyway. So maybe the Forest Stewardship Council should get on board now. But our research really showed that there's no reason to assume that genetically engineered trees are going to happen. And certainly the FSC itself, because they have a policy prohibiting the use of genetically engineered trees and their certification, that, in fact, the future FSC as part of deciding that future.

Steve Taylor  
Well, it's interesting that there's that argument that it's going to happen anyway. How important is it to those promoting genetically engineered trees that the FSC buys into that would that be sort of a game changer for for this interest that wants to genetically engineer trees?

Lucy Sharratt  
If the Forest Stewardship Council was to allow for the use of genetically engineered trees in their certification allows certified companies to plant those trees that will open up the door for it right away for Suzano that has invested in genetically engineer Eucalyptus to use those genetically engineered eucalyptus trees. So, in fact, until FSC makes the decision, Suzano can continue doing its research and preparing for that moment when FSC removes their prohibition. And so we can see that FSC's decision would have a direct impact on the future of genetically engineered trees. But this idea that genetic engineering is inevitable, is false. And the the experience we have with genetically engineered crops already tells us that this is false that we can't just assume that a new technology like this will work. And that it will work as we want it to. We have four crops only soy, canola, corn and cotton that account for 99% of all the genetically engineered crops grown around the world. And yet we talk as if genetic engineering is the future of agriculture. And it's just two traits that are grown around the world with very few exceptions, almost 100% of the traits are just two different types of genetic engineering. So even though we're eating genetically engineered foods it's still a very limited suite of traits and crops, it's still not fulfilled this promise that companies had for all of the different imaginary traits that could be introduced into every single type of food we eat. It hasn't come true with genetically engineered food plants. So how is it that we would believe this could also be possible with trees which are also extremely complex, and the research takes a lot longer as well?

Steve Taylor  
When you talk about releasing it into the wild? You're talking about whole ecosystems. To me this is a as as you said, or I think you said a dangerous or proposed dangerous experiment. So where does it go from here regarding the FSC moving forward, where do you think things are headed? What what do we need to know about the future of this process?

Lucy Sharratt  
Well, FSC members, some of them are talking about how they can communicate with the board of the FSC. Some FSC members could write to the FSC board if they are concerned. The General Assembly had a dynamic discussion where it was very clear that not all members were supportive of this learning process. We have written to the FSC board outlining how we see this genetic engineering learning process. But there are consumers of FSC products like the company's IKEA, or Procter and Gamble, who could hear concerns about genetic engineering. Certainly this could undermine the brand reputation of FSC and undermine the use of that FSC logo by those companies. But there's a number of actions that the Stop GE Trees Campaign has created for the public. And one of those is a rolling sign on of organizations. So now over 100 organizations have signed on to a statement asking the FCC to uphold its ban, but also not endorse this field testing of genetically engineered trees. And this is a very urgent issue for the next few months in that if people have a connection with the Forest Stewardship Council, or are interested, now is the time to take that action to communicate.

Steve Taylor  
Where could people learn more about potential action and the risks associated with GE Trees and current threats to our forests?

Lucy Sharratt  
Well, there's a lot of great resources on the Stop GE Trees.org. webpage. There's all kinds of discussion documents about the risks of genetically engineered trees there. And the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network has a page of updates about the Forest Stewardship Council at cban.ca/trees/fsc. And then there's this report that was put out by the campaign to Stop GE Trees, which is at the homepage, StopGETrees.org, which not only catalogs the research that's happening now and tries to understand what it means, but also discusses some of the risks and actually discusses this whole situation of the Forest Stewardship Council.

Steve Taylor  
We will definitely put links in our show notes for those sites and resources. Is there anything Lucy that I didn't ask you that you would like to address?

Lucy Sharratt  
There is an urgent new issue that people could take action about if listeners are concerned, because the genetically engineered American chestnut, is now open in a public consultation comment period. The United States Department of Agriculture is considering approving releasing that American chestnut allowing the researchers to release it into the wild. And so there is an environmental impact statement that is now published by the USDA APHIS for public comment until December 27, which is only 45 days. And obviously it's over the holiday season. So it's not a very long time to ask for expert commentary, or concerns from the public. But that is the current situation. And I know that the Stop GE Trees.org website will soon have an action there. So people can sign a letter to say what they think about the American chestnut if they're concerned, but certainly if people have personalized comments to send that's always very influential, and if people have experience or particular issues around the genetically engineered American chestnut to provide that's great. And there are a lot of resources about the chestnut at the Stop GE Trees.org. website, including a report.

Steve Taylor  
Lucy Sharratt, thank you for joining us at Breaking Green.

Lucy Sharratt  
Thank you so much, Steve.

Steve Taylor  
You have been listening to Breaking Green, a global justice Ecology Project podcast. To learn more about Global Justice Ecology Project, visit Globaljusticeecology.org. Breaking green is made possible by tax deductible donations by people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions. Simply text give g i v e to 1-716-257-4187 That's 1-716-257-4187

Transcribed by https://otter.ai