美國數個保育團體合力控告農業部，原因是當局批准了ArborGen公司申請，准於南方進行基因改造（桉樹）的戶外田間試驗。
ArborGen是一家由三大紙業International Paper、MeadWestvaco 、Rubicon合資的公司。農業部於5月12日核准其申請，遭保育團體抨擊是採取「最低標準」環評審查。
此舉授權該公司在阿拉巴馬、佛州、喬治亞州、路易斯安那州、密西西比州、南卡羅來納州、德州等7個南方州，佈建共29處基改實驗林，雜交授粉與種植都是許可的。
「農業部在批准之前忽視嚴重的風險，拒絕詳細的環境評估，」原告團之一的生物多樣中心律師馬可芬克（Marc Fink）說，「聯邦機構不該輕忽他們對公眾的職責，一旦妖怪從瓶子裡釋放出來，危及鄰近地區，那將無法挽回。」
農業部動植物檢疫局（APHIS）的環境審查結論是「對環境沒有顯著衝擊。」此結論的根據，據稱是採用「田間研究與深度的科學評估」，分析業者針對「潛在植物病蟲害與環境衝擊」的限制性管理對策之後，而得出的結論。
ArborGen希望他們的基改耐寒尤加利樹廣泛種植，成為紙漿以及主要生物質的來源。但是保育團體抗議，尤加利樹不是美國原生種，是外來入侵物種，已在全國各地取代原生物種並且增加森林火災的危機。
除了允許這些試驗地點，農業部也考慮ArborGen提出「撤銷管制規定」的訴願。這表示更少的限制和管制，可以廣種基改尤加利樹。
原告方指出，基改樹木會搶奪水分。他們引用美國林務局（U.S. Forest Service）的建議書指出，在飽受缺水之苦美國南方種植基改尤加利樹，將比種植松樹需要兩倍以上的水量。
「這些試驗還包括沿著墨西哥灣沿岸一直到南卡羅萊納州種植超過25萬棵基改尤加利樹。」地球正義生態計畫和停止基改樹木運動的Anne Petermann說，「最終，他們打算橫跨美國南方，每年種下基改尤加利樹苗5億棵。對於墨西哥灣沿岸各州，失去原始森林和生物多樣性、地下水耗竭、惡化氣候變遷，這些困擾是另一場災難。」
2006年，一項基改稻米田間試驗污染美國南方長米稻田，導致農人損失數10億美元。2007年，聯邦法院發現，基改的草坪草（bentgrass）田間試驗污染了奧勒岡州國家保育草地。
「農業部一直告訴民眾，對於這些新創物種不需要更進一步限制」原告律師George Kimbrell說，「但從歷史來看，他們的承諾只是空洞虛偽。」
An alliance of conservation organizations is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its approval of open-air field tests of a genetically engineered hybrid of eucalyptus tree across the southern United States.
The permit, issued to a company called ArborGen, which is a joint initiative of International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon, was approved May 12 with what the plaintiffs claim is "minimal" environmental review.
It authorizes the experimental planting and flowering of a new, genetically engineered hybrid on 29 sites across seven southern states - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.
"In refusing to prepare a detailed environmental review, the Department of Agriculture ignored serious risks before permitting this action," said Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiff groups.
"Federal agencies can't be allowed to neglect their duty to the public trust," said Fink. "Once this genie is out of the bottle and escapes to neighboring lands, it's irreversible."
The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reached a finding of "no significant impact to the environment" after preparing an environmental assessment that included what the agency called "an in-depth scientific analysis of the confinement measures to manage potential plant pest risk and environmental impacts" of the field research studies.
ArborGen hopes its genetically engineered cold-tolerant eucalyptus will become widely planted for pulp and biomass. But the plaintiffs argue that eucalyptus trees are not native to the United States and are known to become invasive, displacing native wildlife and plants in various areas around the country and increasing wildfire risk.
In addition to approving these test sites, the USDA is also considering a "deregulation" petition submitted by ArborGen that would allow widespread commercial planting of genetically engineered eucalyptus without any limits or regulation.
The plaintiffs point out that the transgenic trees are water hogs. They quote U.S. Forest Service advice that genetically engineered eucalyptus plantations in the southern United States would use more than twice the water of pine plantations in a region already suffering from a depleted water supply.
"These tests include planting over a quarter of a million genetically engineered eucalyptus trees along the Gulf Coast and into South Carolina," said Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project and the STOP GE Trees Campaign.
"Ultimately they plan to produce up to half a billion GE eucalyptus seedlings annually for planting across the U.S. South," said Petermann. "This would be another disaster for these beleaguered Gulf coast states, leading to a loss of native forests and biodiversity, depleting ground water and worsening climate change."
In 2006, a genetically engineered rice field test contaminated southern U.S. long-grain rice fields, causing billions in losses to farmers; in 2007, a federal court found that a genetically engineered bentgrass field test had contaminated a protected national grassland in Oregon.
"The Department of Agriculture continues to tell the public that no further restrictions are needed on these novel organisms," said George Kimbrell, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "In light of history, their empty promises here ring hollow."
全文及圖片詳見：ENS報導
