THERE IS GROWING evidence that the U of Tasmania Forestry Cooperative Research Centre is involved in the genetic modification of plantation eucalypts.
In an ABC interview of 22/10/2004 with Heather Catchpole, CRC spokesman Dr Rene Vaillancourt cheerfully acknowledged the CRC’s membership in an international consortium to sequence the genome of Eucalyptus globulus, or blue gum. The consortium includes, among others parties from Vietnam, Brazil, USA, Thailand, South Africa and the Swiss agrichemical giant and Atrazine manufacturer, Syngenta.
In the interview Dr Vaillancourt stated that the research could lead to genetic engineering, and was quoted as saying that “… we’d like to do it (patent the genome) before someone else patents it”.
The interview led to concerns being raised in the Tasmanian Times later in 2004, which elicited a highly ambiguous response on 11/12/2004 from CRC CEO Prof Rod Griffin, denying any CRC involvement in the consortium, but conceding the CRC was “highly supportive” of the research, adding that it had not yet commenced. In a letter to the Sunday Tasmanian of 21 May 2006 Griffin again denied any involvement in GM research, but again without any acknowledgement of the Vaillancourt admission.
A browse through the scientific papers on the CRC website, which requires a password, suggests that they are indeed highly interested in GM technology, with many articles devoted to the subject.
No one appears to have retracted or directly rebutted the Vaillancourt admission. There is no obvious reason why he would have fabricated it, particularly in the face of Tasmania’s standing GM prohibition. If he is telling the truth, why is the CEO denying it?
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity passed a a formal declaration in March 2006 recognising the threats posed by GM trees and urging all countries to approach the matter with caution. The prospect of a GM eucalypt would pose a particularly serious environmental risk in Australia for being the dominant tree species in most Australia forests, and for having a considerable capacity to cross-pollinate with related eucalypts.
Imponderable consequences
Amongst the traits of interest to the plantation sector are insect and fungus resistance. The most favoured method of producing insect resistance in plants is through the insertion of Bt, the Bacillus thuringiensis insect toxin. While they can be a problem to commercial plantations, insects in their interdependent thousands of species are also utterly critical to the immensely intricate processes of forest ecology: the carbon cycle, wood decomposition, soil enrichment, etc. The consequences of making of trees en masse resistant to them has imponderable consequences. The Bt toxin has also been seen to produce allergic reactions in some humans and other non-target species, a risk to those who breathe pollen. The myriad organisms involved in the saproxylic processes of wood decomposition are already being blasted by the existing regimen of clearfelling/burning/soil ripping/herbicide to a degree that worries responsible foresters.
The alternative to 1080 sometimes referred to by forestry mainly involves increasing toxic eucalypt leaf metabolites levels to where they are unpalatable to browsers. Once again, inedible trees will produce knock-on effects not just to marsupial browsers and browsing insects,but also the mammals, birds fish and insects that feed on them, and possibly to the organisms involved in leaf decomposition. As the leaf phenols and terpenes are volatile, they would probably increase tree flammability at a time of increasing dryness and decreasing rainfall.
While the threat of GM trees would be much lessened if they were made sterile, this would greatly increase the expense and inconvenience of using them commercially. A fertile, fast-growing, inedible strain that “escaped” and came to to dominate native forests with its progeny and hybrids must seem a logger’s dream. At very least, GM infiltration and genetic contamination of native forests could be seized on by the industry in the same manner as are other forms of degradation, as a justification for finishing them off.
There is not yet any conclusive proof that GM eucalypts have been deployed in Tasmania. But, on the record of the industry/Tasmanian Government, is anyone confident it could never happen?
John Hayward is a member of the Central North Field Naturalists with an interest in discovering if the honesty virus is present in Tasmania. Still looking. He was trained as a lawyer.
