|
 基因工程改造作物一直在悄悄進行，在大眾知曉之前，耕作面積已從0跳到6,000-從0英畝變成6千萬英畝，而到舉世抗議的今日，基因工程改造作物的耕作面積，已經穩定地成長到1億英畝。
在此同時，基因農業的近親-基因林業，也同樣在悄悄地急速擴張中：目前已有數百個基因樹的實驗林地點，且樹的新基因對自然森林造成影響，並非理論，而已經成為事實。在我們有生之年，基因工程對於森林與野生動物棲息地造成的破壞，可能和電鋸與都市擴張一樣嚴重。
這並非意味著所有基因工程的應用都是不好的，這項科技也能帶來益處，我們可以小心地應用它。不過常識警告我們，如果不考慮環境保護就在商業上發展的話，將會引來災難。山巒協會（Sierra Club）反對基因工程在實驗室外發展。因為在實驗室外，這些基因是自由的，就和風中的花粉一樣，會散布到自然中，而這種情況一旦發生，將無法收回這些基因。下面的論點並不想包括所有問題的面向，只是要指出此類問題的本質。
就如同經濟學家傅立曼（Milton Friedman）所指出的，商業機構的存在是為了賺錢，而非遵守道德。就這點來看，野生棲地對伐木公司而言幾乎沒有什麼價值，而公司想做的就是「增加利潤」。他們的政策之一就是砍光所有樹木，然後種植單一和生長快速的樹種（造林）。如果產品製造過程（伐木然後做成紙製品）和樹木成長速度能相互配合，那麼利潤就會增加。現在這些公司逮到機會，可以利用基因工程使樹木長得更快、所含的木質素（lignin）更少、每顆樹木彼此間的特徵更劃一、對疾病的抵抗力更高等等。但不幸的，如果這種方式能夠賺錢，它就會成為未來的經營模式。山巒協會相信，社會大眾應透過一些合法的禁令和限制、嚴格條款和責任法規，加上環保與消費者團體等力量，一起來監督這種產業。
大眾常聽說基因樹至少要等好幾年之後才能商業化，其實這也是上面提到的「悄悄」的一部分。在夏威夷，基因木瓜已經在種植及販售了。冰山的尖端並不是在遙遠的地平線上，而已經在船首之下。而就傳統的木材與造紙產業而言，大部分相關（基因工程）的研究都已經完成，這些也是對自然造成最大傷害的產業。
山巒協會長久以來的任務，就是反對這樣的利益，並且也為了自然的存續、未來子孫得以享受自然、並從自然得到啟示的權利而奮鬥。
【文章連載】
■基因工程－基因樹
(上) (下)
全文與圖片詳見： http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/
trees.asp
版權歸屬 Serria Club，環境資訊協會(龐中培 譯，蘇崧棱 審校)
中英對照全文詳見：http://e-info.org.tw/issue/biotech/2002/
bi02031301.htm |
|
Genetic engineering of food crops has been a stealth technology; it went from 0 to 60 before we knew it - zero to 60 million acres - and with worldwide outcry is now holding steady at around 100 million acres.
Meanwhile, the equally stealthy cousin of genetically engineered (GE) agriculture is poised for a similar explosive start: the genetic engineering of trees is proceeding in hundreds of test locations, and the possibility that the new genes spliced into GE trees will interfere with natural forests isn't a hypothetical risk but a certainty. During our lives, genetic engineering may do as much damage to forests and wildlife habitat as chain saws and sprawl.
This is not to say that every application of GE will necessarily be bad. There may be good uses for this technology; it may be possible to use it responsibly. But common sense should warn us that its commercial development in the absence of environmental safeguards is a prescription for disaster. Sierra Club opposes the out-of-doors deployment of genetic technologies because the genes are free - as free as pollen on the wind - to invade nature, and because once this has happened they can't be recalled. The arguments below are not intended to be inclusive but only to illustrate the nature of the problem.
Corporations, as Milton Friedman pointed out, exist not to be ethical but to make money. And from the standpoint of a forestry company, wildlife habitat has very little value. "Growing the bottom line" is what such companies try to do, and among their strategies are clear cutting and replanting with uniform and fast growing trees (tree plantations). An optimal match between the manufacturing process (cutting lumber and making paper goods) and the inputs can add to profits. These companies now see an opportunity to engineer trees which grow faster, contain less lignin, are more uniform in their characteristics, are more resistant to disease, and so forth. And unfortunately, if this is the way to make money, this is likely to be the future. Sierra Club believes that pressure from society in the form of legal prohibitions and restraints, stringent regulations and liability laws, and environmental and consumer activism must be brought to bear in order to hold the industry in check.
We are often told that commercialization of genetically engineered (GE'd) trees is at least several years away. This is also part of the "stealth" referred to above. GE'd stands of papaya trees are yielding commercial crops in Hawaii. The tip of the iceberg is already under our prow, not on the distant horizon. But it is for the traditional forestry industries of paper and lumber making that most research is presently being done. This is also an area which poses the greatest risk to nature.
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/
trees.asp |
