Genetically Modified Trees: Curse Or Blessing?
Paramendra Bhagat
June 25, 2002

The debate on genetically modified tress is a spectrum: there was much resistance to the industrial revolution, handloom workers protested the textile factories of Lancashire, England, with dramatic deaths, staining rolls of cloth with their blood, and we have recent stories of the ecological havoc created when a new species thought exotic is introduced into a milieu. Those who stand against the idea of genetically modified trees, are they enemies of progress, or are they prophets summoning us to prevent untold future disaster? The debate has merely begun.

Both the proponents and the opponents of the new developments in the field argue they are for the environment. Leave the pristine natural forests alone, and instead have tree "farms" to meet the world's demand for timber, ever-growing, one side days. And if you can improve on paddy, why not on trees? Every cutting edge technology has met with resistance. It is only a matter of time, they say. The other side argues the ever-growing world demand for timber is itself the problem, representing a consumerist lifestyle that is largely unsustainable. And regardless of the demand and supply graphs of those who live and breathe the bottom-line and profit margins, the science is too young, much remains unknown, the ecosystem is too delicate a balance, and the introduction of genetically modified trees is akin to playing god, or rather the devil. The ecosystem will turn topsy-turvy, we will reach a point of no return, and so halt.

One side talks of profit and productivity, the other decries the corporations that belittle the powerless in the rich and the poor countries, especially the poor. Numerous micro-economies of traditional farmers in untold havens will be thrown to the dogs if the corporations have their say in this debate, the argument goes. It is about the environment, but, more importantly, the debate is about flesh and blood human beings. Small farmers are introduced to corporate patented seeds by force, and then to the chemicals that go with them, sending them down the debt-hole. The soil is destroyed. Local food chains usurped to feed the global market. Social chaos is the sad epilogue to the story, or so the argument goes.

What is one to make of these arguments that go back and forth? What way ought pulbic opinion go?

(....to be continued)

References

• Arent, Lindsey. "Super Trees Not Pulp Fiction." Wired. July 28, 1999.
• Beier, Bob. "Eliminating The Need For Fairy Lights At Christmas. Genetically Modified Trees That Glow. A Very Real Interview With Katy Presland." Timothy McSweeney's Unreserved Embrace.
• "Genetically Modified Trees." Canadian Forest Service. November 13, 2001.
• "Genetically Modified Trees: A Global Threat."Native Forest Network, Eastern North America. March 2000.
• "Information By Subject: Biotechnology." World Rainforest Movement.
• Knight, Danielle. "New Campaign Targets Genetiocally Manipulated Trees." IPS News. May 4, 2000.
• Meersman, Tom and Schmickle, Sharon."Minnesota Field Tests Of Genetically Modified Poplar Trees Cause Sparks." Star Tribune. May 30, 2000.
• neRAGE: north east resistance against genetic engineering
• Nierenberg, Danielle. "Strange Fruit: GM Trees Raise New Crop Of Concerns."World Watch Institute. December 28, 2000.
• "OECD Workshop on Genetically Modified Trees Trondheim 13-15 September 1999." Directorate for Nature Management, Norway.
• Osborne, Lawrence. "Got Silk." New York Times. June 16, 2002.
• "Regulating Genetically Modified Trees." WWF.
• Sampson, Viola and Lohmann, Larry. "Genetic Dialectic: The Biological Politics of Genetically Modified Trees." World Rainforest Movement.
• "Study Warns Of Risks Of Genetically Modified Trees." NetLondon.com. November 10, 1999.