Getting More from the Giving Tree: Regulating the Use of Biotechnology in Forest Management
By Marcus F. Selig
INTRODUCTION
When Shel Silverstein wrote the popular children's book The Giving Tree over forty years ago, he recognized many of the values trees possess, but he never could have imagined that genetic engineering (GE) would enable his “giving tree” to give so much more. The thought of GE plants likely conjures up ideas of modified agricultural crops, such as herbicide-tolerant corn or pest-resistant soybeans, but this technology may be applied across various disciplines to create new means for achieving important ends. The use of biotechnology in forestry is a prominent example of how GE can be used to solve environmental problems facing society. However, the burdens created by the present regulatory framework may serve as substantial impediments to the practical implementation of these scientific advances.
Production of GE forest trees is a relatively new application of biotechnology, yet it promises to yield invaluable products. Using genetic modification, scientists may cause trees to express traits that can mitigate various types of environmental problems. For example, researchers have the ability to design GE trees that aid in phytoremediation, carbon sequestration, efficient production of biofuels, and ecological restoration. Additionally, commercial use of GE trees that grow faster and exhibit desirable traits will allow for increased production of forest products using a smaller land base. The use of GE trees in commercial forest management will therefore ease the burden on natural forests as the land available for wood production shrinks and demand for forest products grows.
The use of GE forest trees is not without environmental risk or public controversy, and the use of such trees is necessarily regulated. If regulations result in unduly burdensome or ambiguous hurdles that prevent the forest industry from making further investments, the utilization of this technology for commercial purposes will not be fully realized. Currently, regulation of GE forest trees in the United States is primarily governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under authority granted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000. Cooperation between APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for regulating GE trees is controlled by the policy statements contained in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Under this regulatory framework, APHIS's deregulation of a specific GE tree for commercial use requires an expensive upfront investment and will not likely end with deregulation. Additionally, the current regulatory framework does not allow the flexibility necessary to conduct proper case-by-case risk assessments and fails to recognize inherent differences between risks associated with GE forest trees and those of traditional agronomic row crops.
The high costs involved in compliance with these stringent regulations, which commonly yield disappointing or uncertain results, will likely further stifle innovation and prevent implementation of a useful technology. Recognizing the possible shortfalls of its current framework, APHIS is in the process of revising its regulatory system to make regulation “rigorous and flexible and based on sound science principles and mitigation of risks.”
The purpose of this Note is to suggest changes to the existing regulatory framework governing the development and commercial use of GE forest trees in the United States. Part I of this Note discusses the rationale for developing GE forest trees and describes the basic science needed for their development. Part II explains current accomplishments and potential achievements available through the use of GE in forest management. Additionally, Part III addresses the environmental risks and rationale for opposition to this science. Part IV of the Note then reviews the existing regulatory framework that governs GE trees in the United States, discussing its possible shortcomings. Finally, Part V proposes ideas for future regulatory schemes that may serve to minimize environmental risks, alleviate public concerns, and still nurture the development and implementation of this valuable technology.
When Shel Silverstein wrote the popular children's book The Giving Tree over forty years ago, he recognized many of the values trees possess, but he never could have imagined that genetic engineering (GE) would enable his “giving tree” to give so much more. The thought of GE plants likely conjures up ideas of modified agricultural crops, such as herbicide-tolerant corn or pest-resistant soybeans, but this technology may be applied across various disciplines to create new means for achieving important ends. The use of biotechnology in forestry is a prominent example of how GE can be used to solve environmental problems facing society. However, the burdens created by the present regulatory framework may serve as substantial impediments to the practical implementation of these scientific advances.
Production of GE forest trees is a relatively new application of biotechnology, yet it promises to yield invaluable products. Using genetic modification, scientists may cause trees to express traits that can mitigate various types of environmental problems. For example, researchers have the ability to design GE trees that aid in phytoremediation, carbon sequestration, efficient production of biofuels, and ecological restoration. Additionally, commercial use of GE trees that grow faster and exhibit desirable traits will allow for increased production of forest products using a smaller land base. The use of GE trees in commercial forest management will therefore ease the burden on natural forests as the land available for wood production shrinks and demand for forest products grows.
The use of GE forest trees is not without environmental risk or public controversy, and the use of such trees is necessarily regulated. If regulations result in unduly burdensome or ambiguous hurdles that prevent the forest industry from making further investments, the utilization of this technology for commercial purposes will not be fully realized. Currently, regulation of GE forest trees in the United States is primarily governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under authority granted by the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000. Cooperation between APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for regulating GE trees is controlled by the policy statements contained in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Under this regulatory framework, APHIS's deregulation of a specific GE tree for commercial use requires an expensive upfront investment and will not likely end with deregulation. Additionally, the current regulatory framework does not allow the flexibility necessary to conduct proper case-by-case risk assessments and fails to recognize inherent differences between risks associated with GE forest trees and those of traditional agronomic row crops.
The high costs involved in compliance with these stringent regulations, which commonly yield disappointing or uncertain results, will likely further stifle innovation and prevent implementation of a useful technology. Recognizing the possible shortfalls of its current framework, APHIS is in the process of revising its regulatory system to make regulation “rigorous and flexible and based on sound science principles and mitigation of risks.”
The purpose of this Note is to suggest changes to the existing regulatory framework governing the development and commercial use of GE forest trees in the United States. Part I of this Note discusses the rationale for developing GE forest trees and describes the basic science needed for their development. Part II explains current accomplishments and potential achievements available through the use of GE in forest management. Additionally, Part III addresses the environmental risks and rationale for opposition to this science. Part IV of the Note then reviews the existing regulatory framework that governs GE trees in the United States, discussing its possible shortcomings. Finally, Part V proposes ideas for future regulatory schemes that may serve to minimize environmental risks, alleviate public concerns, and still nurture the development and implementation of this valuable technology.
