|
 基因樹木與野生樹木雜交後所形成的威脅超乎想像。許多農業作物的品種就與數千年前原始野生種非常不同了，但是在樹木的情況並非如此。基因樹木很容易就變得有侵略性，生長快速、柔軟、低木質素、又能抵抗一般害蟲的樹木，能輕易地像野葛一般蔓延，進入國家公園和森林中，造成永久性的環境變化。
如果林業公司在自己的土地上種植基因樹，大眾也應該反對嗎？山巒協會在此的反對理由和反對任何造林的理由是相同的。簡單的說，人造林並非森林，而這樣的區別在以基因樹所造出的樹林中更是明顯。例如，基因松樹可能不會結出「沒有用」的松果，基因樹或許能抵抗除草劑，所以所以生長時無須與林下的灌木競爭。這種樹或許自己能產生殺蟲劑，所以與它相依為命的昆蟲，可能會被毒害。
結果就是一座寂靜的森林，林下沒有花栗鼠與蛇，樹梢上也沒有鳥叫聲傳出，空中也不再有猛禽盤旋著。很明顯的，一片這樣的樹林並不等於森林。更糟的是，由於樹木壽命長久而且無法嚴密的觀察，所以造成的危害將不會侷限於私人土地範圍裡，而林木「生育控制」的方式與結果比起人類的更不可靠。就算是基因工程也無法保證基因樹不會開花授粉，而松樹的花粉能隨風飄揚到數百公里之外。
大眾應該反對公有土地上林木的基因「改良」嗎？山巒協會相信，不能憑企業的宣傳花招來判斷，並且申請專利的基因也不會比自然的更好。大眾更應該避免以一個基因的功能來做決定，因為一旦數百個不同的基因（其中大部分都受到所謂「私人產物」的保護），散布到公有土地上時，這些基因意外組合的結果，將是無法預期的。基因樹木對於其他國家也會造成危險，特別是對此缺乏有效管制的開發中國家。
基於以上理由，在美國國內與國際都必須採取行動，在全世界禁止基因樹的發展與種植。這項禁令至少要持續到，有效的公共討論體系、公正的科學評估與與符合公眾利益的規定（當然要以保護生物多樣性為目標）出現為止。
同意以上的論點會讓你成為盧得分子（Luddite譯註）嗎？這是我們的對手所做出的不公平描述。山巒協會並不反對基因科學出現在實驗室研究或是醫學應用上。山巒協會對於基因研究的政策是要求進行更多的研究，並且將研究目標放在解決基因工程對健康與環境問題上的長期影響，而不要受到企業秘密條款的保護。山巒協會相信基因技術，應該屬於實驗室的，受限制的，而不應被釋放到野外。（譯註：19世紀工業革命初期，英國有些人因擔心失業而到處搗毀機器，時稱Luddite）。
我們還必須指出，相較於歐洲和日本等高度文明國家，美國人平均用紙量是他們的兩倍。我們不應該讓基因工程技術去做一些「低科技」就可以達成的事情，例如對垃圾郵件增收郵遞費用。
山巒協會所反對的許多活動背後，例如在公有土地上伐木、都市擴張等，都隱藏了強烈的經濟動機，基因工程的造林業也有著同樣的動機。這其中不僅牽涉了土地和商業上的權利問題，還涉及基因密碼的專利問題，使得地球上的基因資產變成私有化，而這樣的現象正在發生。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/
bi02032001.htm |
|
The threat of GE'd trees interbreeding with wild trees is extreme. While many agricultural varieties are already quite different from their ancestors of thousands of years ago, this is not the case with trees. And genetically engineered trees could easily become invasive. Faster growing, limp, low-lignin trees resistant to common pests could easily become a kudzu-like threat, moving into our national parks and forests and changing their character forever. Should we object if forestry companies do genetic engineering on their own land? Sierra Club opposes GE'd tree plantations on private land for all the same reasons we oppose other tree plantations. To put it briefly, tree plantations are not forests. This will be even more true of GE'd tree plantations. For instance, GE'd pines might be grown without all those "useless" pine cones. They may be herbicide resistant so that competing undergrowth can be eliminated. They may produce their own pesticides so that many of the insects which live in association with trees are poisoned. The result, then, may be a silent forest, one which doesn't support chipmunks or snakes at ground level, holding no birdsong in its branches, and with no raptors soaring above. Clearly, such a stand of trees is not really a forest. And worse, the damage can't be confined to private property as trees live for many years and can't be closely observed; "birth control" among trees is less reliable than among people and even genetic engineering can't guarantee that a branch won't decide to manufacture pollen. Pine pollen can blow hundreds of miles on the wind. Should we oppose genetic "improvements" to trees on public lands? Sierra Club believes that we can't allow the industry to be judged by its hype and that patented genes are not an improvement over nature. We also must avoid only judging what one gene may do, because once hundreds of different genes - most of them patented by industry and enjoying protection as "private property" - are allowed access to public lands, the consequences of unintended combinations will be unpredictable. GE trees will also be a danger in other nations, particularly in the underdeveloped world where conditions for effective regulation often don't exist. For all of the above reasons, action is needed both at home and internationally to create a worldwide moratorium on the further development and planting of GE trees at least until an effective framework for public debate, unbiased scientific evaluation, and regulation in the public interest-with the goal of preserving biodiversity-can be brought into being. If you agree with the above, does this make you a Luddite? This is an unfair characterization by our opponents. Sierra Club does not oppose the use of genetic science in indoor research or medical applications. Our policy about genetic research is that there should there should be more of it, more of it aimed at answering questions about long term effects on health and the environment, and less of it shielded by industrial secrecy provisions. We believe genetic technology belongs indoors, with containment, not out in the fields. We would also point out that the United States is using twice as much paper per capita as other highly civilized nations (Europe, Japan). Let us not ask genetic engineering to do what could be accomplished by lower-tech means like putting a surcharge on junk mail. Just as there are powerful economic incentives behind logging on public lands, sprawl, and other activities which Sierra Club opposes, there are similar incentives behind genetically engineered sylviculture. Not only are landed property rights and business rights involved, but also the patent rights to genetic code which are now privatizing the genetic heritage of our planet. It is Sierra Club's task, as always, to oppose such interests and to fight for the right of nature to exist for itself, and of future generations to enjoy and be inspired by it.
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/
trees.asp |
