Table Of ContentForestry Sciences
Cristina Vettori · Fernando Gallardo
Hely Häggman · Vassiliki Kazana
Fabio Migliacci · Gilles Pilate
Matthias Fladung Editors
Biosafety of Forest
Transgenic Trees
Improving the Scientific Basis for Safe
Tree Development and Implementation
of EU Policy Directives
Biosafety of Forest Transgenic Trees
FORESTRY SCIENCES
Volume 82
Series editors
Shri Mohan Jain
Hely Häggman
Alvin D. Yanchuk
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5991
Cristina Vettori Fernando Gallardo
(cid:129)
ä
Hely H ggman Vassiliki Kazana
(cid:129)
Fabio Migliacci Gilles Pilate
(cid:129)
Matthias Fladung
Editors
Biosafety of Forest
Transgenic Trees
fi
Improving the Scienti c Basis for Safe Tree
Development and Implementation of EU
Policy Directives
123
Editors
Cristina Vettori FabioMigliacci
National Research Council (CNR) National Research Council (CNR)
Institute of Biosciences andBioresources Institute of Chemistry of Organometallic
(IBBR)—UOSFlorence Compound(ICCOM)
Sesto Fiorentino Sesto Fiorentino
Italy Italy
Fernando Gallardo Gilles Pilate
Departamento deBiologíaMolecular y INRA
Bioquímica,FacultaddeCiencias UR0588, Amélioration, Génétique et
Universidad deMálaga PhysiologieForestières
Malaga Orleans
Spain France
HelyHäggman Matthias Fladung
Genetics andPhysiology Department Thuenen Institute of Forest Genetics
University of Oulu Großhansdorf
Oulu Germany
Finland
Vassiliki Kazana
Department ofForestry andNatural
EnvironmentManagement
Eastern MacedoniaandThrace Institute of
Technology
Drama
Greece
ISSN 0924-5480 ISSN 1875-1334 (electronic)
Forestry Sciences
ISBN978-94-017-7529-8 ISBN978-94-017-7531-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7531-1
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015960219
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2016
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.Dordrecht
Foreword
The studies presented in this book provide an essential perspective for the con-
temporary evaluation of governmental regulation and industrial deployment of
transgenic trees. The first transgenic tree was a poplar hybrid, modified by the
introduction ofa gene conferring resistance to theherbicide glyphosate, only three
years after the first expression offoreign genes in plant cells (tobacco) and before
the development of the first transgenic soybeans or maize. Over the past 30 years,
cropvarietiescreatedusinggenesplicinghavebeenwidelyadoptedincreasingata
rate of 3 % per year since 1996. By 2014, the global acreage of transgenic maize
andsoybeansreached 181millionhectares.Genesplicinghasbeenamorelimited
successwithconsumersthanwithagrobusiness.Asubstantialnumberofconsumers
arehostiletogeneticallymodified(GM)crops,andnongovernmentalorganizations
such as Greenpeace have opposed deployment of GM crops, worldwide.
GM technology should have substantial benefits for forest trees, potentially
greaterthanforagriculturalcrops.Geneticimprovementofforesttreesbybreeding
islimited bythelong generationtimes andbythespace required tomaintainlarge
populationsofforesttrees.Generationtimesfromseedtoseedcanvaryfromafew
years to decades. GM technology has the potential to produce large genetic effects
based on the introduction of small numbers of genes in a single step through an
asexualprocess.Incontrast,selectionforquantitativevariationmayrequireseveral
generations. The pace of tree improvement through traditional breeding, for
example, for loblolly pine in the southern US, is such that four generations of
selection has required about half a century.
AcceleratedtreeimprovementbyGMtechnologycouldproducemorewoodon
lessland, improve quality,increaseresistancetopestsandpathogens,andincrease
stresstoleranceinthefaceofclimatechange,amajorchallengetobiodiversity.GM
technology has potential for long-term environmental benefits. An example of a
potential long-term environmental benefit is the engineering of resistance to blight
in the American chestnut. Chestnut was a highly valued and beneficial forest tree
species both to human communities and to the Appalachian ecosystem in the
mid-Atlantic forests of North America. American chestnut is moribund and will
v
vi Foreword
becomeextinctif itisnot rescued bygeneticdevelopment ofresistance. Hundreds
of forest tree species around the world are currently threatened by epidemics of
pests and pathogens. Some of the epidemics are associated with climate change
either because of reduced stress on the pests or increased stress on the hosts.
It might have been expected that application of gene splicing to tree species
would be rapid and enthusiastic. What actually happened was that deployment of
transgenic trees has been quite limited and has lagged far behind the major com-
mercial agricultural crops. Deployment of transgenic trees has been highly
restricted in Europe and limited to a few test plantations in the USA. The most
extensivetransgenic tree plantings have been in China where hundreds ofhectares
of transgenic poplars are growing. Why has the deployment of transgenic crops
been so widespread while transgenic trees have lagged so far behind?
This volume describes many of the reasons for the delayed application of
transgenictrees,basedinpartonthelackoftechnologydevelopment,butprimarily
on the barriers of government regulation and the public opposition to GM plants
and trees. Technology development has been a significant factor. Many of the
methods developed for crop plants, particularly those of Agrobacterium-based
transformation can be and have been applied to many tree species, where cell and
tissueculturemethodshadbeenadequatelydeveloped.Thedevelopmentofculture
and regeneration technology has been a greater barrier than the method of gene
transfer.
As a research tool, transgenic technology has been used extensively for genetic
analysis of forest trees. Major successes have been achieved for specific gene
expression, for control of flowering, and particularly for the modification of
metabolic pathways. Some large-scale mutation screens have been established
using transposon tagging, and new genes affecting a spectrum of phenotypes have
beenidentified.Importantnewmethodsofgenomeeditingcancreatehomozygotes
foranintroducedmutationinasinglegeneration,andsuchgeneticdrivetechnology
maybeabletospreadamutationthroughatreepopulationtocounteractattacksby
pestsandpathogens.Climatechangeislikelytoincreasethenumberofcaseswhere
interventionusingGMtechnologymaybeneeded.GMtreesmaybeabletoprevent
the loss of entire species and the loss of a dominant tree species may threaten an
entire ecosystem.
Theprocessofgenesplicing isclosely related tothegenetic changes thatoccur
naturally in trees through insertional transposition and mobile DNA elements. The
processofgenesplicingshouldnotbethebasisforregulationofacroporatree,it
should be the nature of the modified plant itself. Based on this principle, it should
bepossibletocreatearegulatorysystemthatprovidesarealisticevaluationofcosts,
risks, and benefits. Much work needs to be done to rationalize the regulatory
process to bring restrictions and benefits into a more consistent and logical
framework.A“regulatorytrigger”ofgenesplicingtechnologyisstillwidelyused,
eventhough thesafetyofthegenesplicing processperse,hasbeen unequivocally
established. Gene splicing technology has been tested in thousands of laboratory
experiments,deployedoverhundredsofmillionsofhectares,andfedtomillionsof
Foreword vii
animals,withoutasinglevalidexampleofharmfuleffects.Theregulatoryburdenof
unnecessary regulation has cost society on the order of a trillion of euros/dollars.
Deployment of exotic species and interspecies or even intergeneric hybrids of
forest trees are considered safe, while the directed introduction of a highly defined
and precisely controlled specific gene is still considered a substantial health or
environmentalhazard.Inspiteoftheselimitations,aGMloblollypinehasrecently
been classified by the USDA as “unregulated”, paving the way for deployment,
whileatransgenicEucalyptushasbeenapprovedinBrazilshortlyafteramajortree
nursery containing transgenic trees was destroyed by anti-GM vandalism.
Thereisagreatneedforlong-termeffortsforpublicinvolvementandeducation.
The general public cares deeply about forest trees. However, there is limited
understanding of the dynamic nature of tree genomes and the mechanisms of
genetic changes that have occurred in our trees and forests in recent times. The
application of GM technology to solving problems of our forests is just beginning
and the future of these applications should be important and exciting. A major
impact of this book will be that it advances a rational basis for the path forward.
Ronald Sederoff
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University Raleigh
NC, USA
Preface
Since the first report on transgenic tobacco published in 1983, a large but diverse
andfragmentedbodyofknowledgeontheenvironmentalinteractionsandsafetyof
transgenic plants and in particular trees has been acquired over the past more than
30 years. The main objective of the EU-COSTAction FP0905 (Biosafety offorest
transgenic trees: improving the scientific basis for safe tree development and
implementation of EU policy directives) has been to evaluate and substantiate
scientific data relevant to the biosafety of Genetically Modified Trees (GMT).
Therefore, the idea of this book arises from the need to report the outcome of the
scientific discussion and synthesis from the four years of activity of this COST
Action.
COST—Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research—is one
of the longest running European instruments supporting cooperation among sci-
entists and researchers across Europe. COST is also the first and widest European
intergovernmentalnetworkforcoordinationofnationallyfundedresearchactivities.
Therefore, this EU instrument has permitted the establishment of an unique plat-
form on biosafety of GMTs like this COST Action is.
The Action started on April 12, 2010 and ended on April 11, 2014. In total, 27
COST countries (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel,
Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovak
Republic,Slovenia,Spain,Sweden,TheFormerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,
and United Kingdom) and seven NON-COST countries (Albania, Australia,
Canada,China,NewZealand,SouthAfrica,USA)haveparticipatedintheAction.
To reach its objectives, the Action work plan organized into four Working
Groups (WGs) focuses on: (i) the biological characterization of GMTs aiming to
evaluate existing knowledge, including the experience from expert scientists
activelyworkinginthefieldofforestGMTs(WG1),(ii)theassessmentofpossible
environmental impacts and monitoring of GMTs in the whole production chain
fromplantationtofinalproducts(WG2),(iii)thesocio-economicimplicationsand
public acceptance and concerns of potential use of GM forest trees and R&D
ix
x Preface
investmentsintheframeworkofCost–BenefitAnalysis(WG3),and(iv)increasing
public awareness and understanding of GM tree plantations by providing sci-
ence based information through management of the www.cost-action-fp0905.eu
dynamic website (WG 4).
This book is subdivided into four sections each representing a WG, and the
authorsofthechaptersareexpertsoftheCOSTActionaswellascolleaguesinthe
field of GMT, all researchers and scientists with proven international reputation in
the fields of tree biotechnology, risk assessment, monitoring, socio-economic, and
dissemination.
The scientific outputs of this Action can be useful to bodies performing envi-
ronmentalriskassessmentofGMplants(atEuropeanandlocallevelbutalsoatthe
worldwidelevel)andtoauthoritiesinvolved inriskmanagement(e.g.,commercial
releaseauthorization).Therefore,severalenduserswillbeinterestedinthecontent
of this book, including public bodies (e.g., non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) as well as organizations at regional and municipal levels) responsible for
policy regulation at the scientific, ethic, and environmental levels, and private
industries (e.g., paper, timber).
In particular, target groups are:
(cid:129) Researchorganizationsworkingwithtransgenicorganismsandinrelatedfields,
such as ecology, biochemistry, physiology, economy, society, and policy
(cid:129) Relevant national ministries responsible for GM plants
(cid:129) European regional authorities (via relevant regional networks like AREPO—
Association des Région Européenne des Produits d’Origine, GMO-free
European Regions Network, CRPM—Conférence des Régions Périphériques
Maritimes d’Europe, AER—Assembly of European Regions)
(cid:129) European Commission services (particularly DG AGRI and DG ENV)
(cid:129) GMO panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
(cid:129) Members of the European COEXNET initiative.
Insummary,thisbookcanbeusefultopublic/privateorganizationsaswellasto
research private and public bodies and universities worldwide since the status of
GMT research and policy is reported at the world level.
Cristina Vettori
Matthias Fladung
