DO THE PEOPLE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (CANADA) WANT GMO TREES ON PUBLIC FORESTLANDS? The planting of GMO trees on public forestland is illegal in British Columbia and should remain so if only because it would lead to privatization of public forests. The Forest Stewardship Council standards for certification in British Columbia (Canada) prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms. However the B.C. government needs to answer these questions: 1. What laws, if any, has the B.C. government passed that specifically ensure public ownership of genetic material (also known as germplasm) derived from publicly owned resources, and protect publicly owned genetic material and biodiversity from unregulated, and possibly extra-territorial, exploitation? 2. What is the B.C. government’s policy on cloning (somatic embryogenesis and somatic crossing-over)? What is government’s policy on genetic engineering? If policy exists, does it reflect the public interest and ethical views on cloning and genetic engineering? Does the public approve of clonal forests where clones do not occur naturally? What do renowned conservation biologists, geneticists and ecologists have to say? Cloning is usually rationalized as “tree improvement” using economic arguments – what are the ethical and ecological considerations? What is government’s ecological and ethical reasoning for cloning in species where cloning does occur naturally? 3. Is somatic embryogenesis on its own, or combined with somatic crossing-over, a form of genetic engineering as well as a process of cloning? 4. What percentage of “genetically improved” seedlings planted on public lands are clones? 5. What steps has the government taken to conserve genetic diversity? How are genetic diversity, especially allele diversity within a gene, and biodiversity conserved on public lands planted with clones? 6. Today, some leading scientists believe that much of the biological potential for adaptability may be epigenetic (contained in the cellular structure and processes also inherited along with genes through reproduction). How is this epigenetic potential for adaptability to change being conserved through the different types of tree breeding (natural reproduction, selective breeding and cloning)? 7. Are any seedlings planted on public land genetically engineered (i.e., contain recombinant DNA)? 9. Does the B.C. government have any licensing agreements with biotechnology companies, either directly or indirectly through private sector companies (e.g., through SelectSeed Co. Ltd.)? If so, do those agreements allow the use of publicly owned genetic material? How is the financial interest of the Crown asserted? And how is public ownership of Crown genetic material and biodiversity protected? 10. Could the B.C. government prevent SelectSeed Co. Ltd. from being taken over by a multi-national corporation in the fertilizer, pesticide or seed industry? Hypothetically, if the law is presently insufficient to protect the public ecological, ethical and financial interest in, and ownership of, genetic material and biodiversity on public lands, then, is there a risk that privatization of a government monopoly in SelectSeed Co. Ltd. could ultimately allow the shareholders to usurp those public interests, to control the rights to much provincial forest genetic biodiversity, and to sell SelectSeed Co. Ltd. to a foreign, multi-national, biotechnology corporation, whereby British Columbians would end up importing their own biodiversity in hybrid form and paying foreign patent holders for a license to plant it? Isn’t that how Monsanto works? As we know from our experience with agriculture, those that own the patents to the GMO seed own the crop. To repeat the commercialization of Nature in B.C.s public forests is surely not in the public interest.
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 20:23:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015