Dag Lindgren

1
GMO (Gene Modified Organism)applied to forestry
Is there a Future for GMTrees in Forestry in this
Century?

• Dag Lindgren
• Canton 2006-03-20
• Updated to also fit a presentation Umeå 06-03-08

2
Somewhat touchy...
Institute
GMO finder
3
Dramatic and recent increase in commercial
agriculture!
Thousand times the area of HongKong is now
planted with GMO crops!
4
GMO is extremely successful areawise in
agriculture!!
5
The theoretical arguments are overwhelming

• Intelligent design (GMO) must logically be
  superior to artificial evolution (current main
  stream)!,
• Scientific knowledge moves forwards,
• Human approaches new frontiers,
• The real great new development in the management
  of living resources is that we can read,
  understand, manipulate and write the language of
  life!!

6
So why not forestry?Lets first take a closer
look at agriculture
7
Development of GMO over time
Source ISAAA (2006) Increase in GMO use during
a decade!
The development is less speedy for number of
countries
8
GMO area by country 2005
Americas dominate!!, USA alone more than half!
No European country 0.1, but share in Europe
raises rapidly
Source ISAAA (2006)
9
The mainly positive ten year experience of large
scaled use including hundreds of thousands
hectares in EU countries could motivate use in
Sweden. There must have been some problems.
10
GMO by species 2005

• 60 percent soybean
• 24 percent maize
• 11 percent cotton
• 5 percent canola

Success only in four species GMO does not expand
much to new species
11
Characters
Major commercial success only in two characters!
12
Characters
Commercial success in two characters!
GMO for herbicide tolerance enables farmers to
spray wide spectrum herbicides on their fields
killing all plants but GMO
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt-gene) inserted GMO
crops produce their own insecticides.
Applications besides the two large has declined
the last 5 years. GMO has been remarkable
unsuccessful in finding new areas of commercial
application!
13
GMO Deliverables
Herbicide tolerance
Pesticide expression
Z. Zhang, Beijing Forestry University
M. Carson
14
Commercial success in two characters!
Public attitudes towards the area where GMO has
its focus, pesticides and insecticides, are not
positive.
Commercial success for crop management - not crop
quality. The driving force has not been needs of
the end-user (the consumer), but the farmer (or
may be the seed seller). More focus on consumers
needs and desires would have made the public more
positive!
15
Lots of good ideas are presented. Some of them
have selling names, like Golden rice (which is
not released yet) There is a long list of
additional successful commercialization's. But
16
There may be ecological problemsA species
terminator! - A Trojan horse?
A small Asian fish (2cm) used as organism. GMO
fish in aqua-culture get their growth magnified
100 by GMO. A GMO-fish may escape and spread its
genes to the wild population. The super males
were very successful in mating and getting
offspring, females have a strong preference for
the big guys. But the GMO offspring did not do
well! Simulations suggested rapid species
extinction if these GMO fishes escaped. Remember
that most species has became extinct, and
probably many of them because they were trapped
in an insane sexual selection pattern, just think
on the pea-cock At first sight it does not seem
to be a danger with big fish! Neither with big
trees.
17
Co-existenceGMO may spread into non GMO, in
particular risk for organic farming

• European Commission Joint Research Centre reports
  (May 2002) that it will be extremely difficult
  for GMO-free and GMO crops to co-exist on a farm.
  In a region it may be possible for some crops,
  but difficult for others. It seems clear that
  trees belong to the crops it will be difficult
  for.
• An evident remedy is sterility. It was much
  talked about terminator-genes, making seeds
  sterile, preventing farmers using them. Pollen
  sterility is also an option. These technologies
  do not seem to offer a remedy in Agriculture.

18
Swedish GMO outdoor plant experiments
Arealer 1998-2005
19

• No commercial GMO in Sweden
• Field trials dropped dramatically since 1998 (in
  parallel to that the commercial use in the world
  raised dramatically)
• Most applications are successful! Only 3 are
  denied.

20
Source Fenning et al 2003
Field trials with GMO declines since 1997
21
Agricultural GMO summary
Only two characters! GMO does not spread to more!
Only four species! GMO does not spread to more!
USA dominate!
Declining experimentation in Europe!
GMO has evident limitations!
22
GMO in Forestry
23
Forest crops World wideSemi-commercial GMO 2005
Two semi-commercial applications Papaya GM
papaya fruit trees modified for viral resistance
used since 1998 on Hawaii (1000 ha) in
intensively managed horticultural orchards.
24
Papaya
Ringspot virus-resistant papaya is an operational
genetically modified tree
7 months after establishment
4 months later
25
Operational
26
Forest crops World wideSemi-commercial GMO 2005
Poplars in China China has planted more than a
million seedlings with Bt-poplars. China still
sees this activity as a massive experiment and is
uncertain about its continuation and how
successful it has been in controlling
insects. There is no exact control of how many or
where they are (Wang 2004). It seems transgenes
may spread uncontrolled.
27
Genetic modification Populus tomentosa
Z. Zhang, Beijing Forestry University
28
Semi-commercial GMTrees 2005
Poplars in China Comment about China Worries are
not large. Hope is that GMO will solve special
problems as insects in some poplar regions. There
is still insufficient information to say if the
application really has been a success. The
government pushes for advanced tech rather than
environmental worries, the plantations are legal.
The project is more to save the environment than
for production (China builds a Great Green Wall).
China will learn to control partly by experience.
Experimentation is rather free. There is public
acceptance. Against this background I am
surprised there are not more or larger scaled
applications in China.
29
GM tree environmental releases in the World 2004

• Environment releases, outdoor experiments
  seldom look like ordinary field trials.
• More than 200
• 16 countries
• Most in US
• Half with populus
• Small (16-2500 plants)
• Generally short duration
• Numbers of releases accumulate, no statistic
  for remaining, but half-life is only a few years.

30
Swedish laws support forest GMO!

• Commercial GMO forests are legal, the demands are
  similar to agriculture!
• The reason is to encourage GMO!
• Outdoor experiments are allowed!
• The only environmental release ever applied for
  was approved!
• No refused or pending applications!

31
Sweden GMO trees outdoors
Department of forest genetics and plant
physiology at Umeå run a hybrid aspen plantation
for a season at Sävar with (among other
transgenes), a tree-fish hybrid, but it is now
history. The trees died as they were of too
southern (Czech) provenance, the scientists
involved lost interest and the experiment has not
resulted in a published document.
32
GMO trees in EU
 
List of all GMO environmental releases in EU on
the web. An extract for forest trees
(corrected for non plant tests).
33
GMO forest trees outdoors in EU
1995-2001
Total forest trees 17 (5), no
conifer! Total all species 1649
34
Decrease since 1998!
Source Fenning et al 2003
Note that rules have not been tougher!
35
UPSC has now a release withGMO trees at Umeå
(Stefan Jansson)
The genotypes not hardy, in greenhouse in winter,
so it is only a semi-release!
Perhaps the only outside GMO trees in whole EU
2006?
36
Since 1998 about an experiment annually is
established in EU. No single real field
experiment with any conifer has ever been done
in EU The only field experiment with trees
relevant to Swedish forestry trees were birch
trials in Finland.
37
GMO silver birch in Finland
(What you see is actually just protecting devices)
38
GMO experimenters give priority to easy organism
over commercial importance
A GMO tree must be made from a transformed cell.
Usually this means a change in propagation
technique. It is more difficult to get a conifer
tree than a deciduous tree from a single cell.
Therefore scientists prefer to use e.g. poplars
as experimental systems.
Vegetative propagation
39
Forest plants delivered 2004 in Sweden
Commercial forestry in northern Europe is
dominated by conifers!
40
Sweden will have to wait for half a century for
large-scaled applications

• One reason is the need for sufficient and
  relevant field-testing.

41
GMTrees need long field testing before the first
commercial release!
In agriculture, a cultivar is tested over many
complete rotations before commercialisation. At
least a few GMtree field trials in settings
similar to forestry for a considerable part of
the rotation will be needed before
commercialisation. EU has still a long way to go
before year 0!
42
GMOs makes a difference to classical breeding!
Classical forest tree breeding increases the
frequency of desirable plants, rather than
creating trees never occurring before. Classical
tree breeding changes frequencies of genes rather
than inserting new ones. Classical genes have
loci and are not introduced at random in the
genome (epistasis may cause larger problems) GMO
causes more drastic changes in the target
character than found in the nature (otherwise we
should not use it) and therefore somewhat longer
testing is justified. Genotypes are more
expensive
43
Early evaluation?
It can be claimed that the characters are
important and not how they are obtained. The same
testing procedure ought thus to be enough whether
it is GMO or not. That may be argued when
experiences from commercial releases with trees
has accumulated over some time. The advantage of
GMO may be possible to evaluate early, even if
trees live long. But what happens when trees
grow? Has the genetic change other effects than
on the target character? Ecological or
production consequences may pass undetected in
short term test.
44
Are longer tests needed for GMO-clones than other
clones?
The most evident application of GMO in Sweden I
can think of is the Bt-gene as a remedy to insect
damage on spruce plants shortly after plantation
(snytbagge). Insects damaging stems on
seedlings are a major problem the first years
after planting spruce in southern Sweden. Bt
could be the solution! If GMO is a remedy can be
evaluated in a few years. Actually it is
surprising no-one has tested it. But is it
realistic to believe and argue that those plants
could be commercialised without knowing what this
insecticide does later in the life of the trees?
45
GMO limitation
GMO and other biotech (MAS) have led to a
neo-Mendelistic overconfidence that the genetic
control is always simple. Genes for hardiness,
flowering, fibre-characters, production,
resistance, criminality and intelligence do
exist, it is just to identify (and insert)
them. This view is often (even if not always)
oversimplified. It is more common it is a complex
interaction with many genes. GMO can only be a
complement to ordinary breeding, not a superior
alternative.
46
Sweden makes legal efforts to control GMO
A preparedness was build-up at the Forest Agency
to handle GMO-applications as such were
anticipated six years ago. But only one came, and
that was better dealt with as agriculture stuff
For each seed lot, the responsible (Finnvid) has
to declare its GMO status (stambrev)!.
The GM legislation has never been applied, it
just gets attention!
47
Market forces
The basic idea of market economy is to make
money. There are two ways this can be done.
Either control the market or make a competitive
product. With GMO it is easier to control a
market (e.g. seed sale) thus the market forces
will focus on GMO to control the market instead
of what could be better for the consumers.
48
Northern Europe GMO forests have to wait till the
public accepts that GMO escapes!(or been proven
not to escape)
I guess the wait is at least half a century for
that
49
The escape of GMO!
50
GMO will not stay confined
Seeds may spread kms, e.g. loblolly turns into a
weed in South Africa. A bird or hurricane may
carry seeds over 100s of kms.
Important forest trees are wind-pollinated with
airborne pollen. As much pine pollen was found
twenty kms from the coast as in a pine forest in
a Finnish study. Pollen inflow in Swedish pine
and spruce seed orchard is 50. Long distance
mass gene migration is a fact of life for many
conifers. Like Scots pine and Norway spruce.
51
GMO escapes

• Seems like
• In the only commercial GMO forest (poplars
  China), there is no efficient control, escapes
  are almost certain.
• In commercial Agriculture, escapes occur or are
  predicted for many systems. Organic culture is
  threatened. In spite of terminator-technology
  and sterility genes!

52
Sterile trees?
Cant we make trees sterile? Select sterile
clones? Insert knock out genes, which make
them sterile?
Trees have millions of generations of billions of
reproductively successful ancestors without a
single case of sterility in their pedigree! They
can be expected to find ways to circumvent
efforts to block fertility. Sterility may be
unstable and broken down. Trees live long and in
different environments and circumstances, how to
guarantee that they keep sterile under all
circumstances? Long term large scaled field tests
followed to mature age seems a minimum
requirement for certainty.
Requirement for sterility adds tremendously to
the cost and difficulty to the use GMO. And
sterility is not helpful in getting public
acceptance!
And GMO-sterility may escape,and turn into a
species terminator????
53
Avoiding escapes
Sterility genes helps in reducing the magnitude
of escapes even if they are not eliminated.
Shortening rotation time is one way of reducing
the problem, juvenile trees spread few genes. I
recommend this strongly and not mainly because of
GMO!
There seems no way to guarantee stable sterility.
Trees close to natural potential mates are no
good candidates to start to apply GMO to.
The more unnatural and exotic the crop is, the
smaller is the problem, and the easier to get
acceptance for some escapes.
54
Forest Nature
Forest is viewed as Nature by the "public. They
do not like to get "Nature" spoilt. In the
long-term perspective even the European public
may accept that escapes are unlikely to cause
much harm. The people will get accustomed to
escapes from Agriculture GMO and escapes from the
first forest application (China). This is a slow
process.
55
  The agriculture flagship (herbicide resistance)
has limited appeal for forestry, at least in
Europe. The other success (natural insecticide)
has much more unpredictable ecological effects in
forestry than in agriculture.
56
Some reasons for public skeptic

• GMO is associated to death
• insecticide
• herbicide
• terminator
• Sterility.
• Commercialisation for profit
• Gene patents associated with commercialisation
  in a bad sense
• Public often hear about problematic projects
• Positive information is often phrased with
  over-enthusiasm and sales-talk.

57
Swedish "FSC-standard" for "green" certification
(980505) does not allow GMO trees with alien
genes. Stora Enso has decided not to use GMO
trees commercially. I guess that goes for
GMO-potato starch in the processing also. I guess
that goes for China as well as Sweden! Swedish
breeders (1995) Gene technology will not be of
practical use within the foreseeable future.The
attitude (in Sweden) has not turned more positive
in the last decadeConclusion GMO for ordinary
Swedish practical forestry is very far away
58
Sabotage
Many cases of sabotage directed against gene
manipulation in trees (target for "greenies" and
"eco-fascists" similar to attacks against
butcheries, whaling, nuclear plants and
clear-cuttings). Responsible of trials are often
very worried about publicity, because of the
sabotage risk. Even demonstrations which does not
make physical harm, cause problems. The sabotage
risk makes the research more expensive and less
attractive for scientists. It also contributes to
the difficulty to get hosts or managers for field
experiments, I guess the experiments can be
placed only on research forests and managed by
the research organisation scientifically
responsible
59
GMO trees under attack
The only field trials with trees of relevance for
Scandinavian forestry were visited by activists
in July 2002. Warning signs were posted, but no
other harm.
60
GMO trees under attack
The trial was destroyed June 20, 2004. The
seedlings were broken off or ripped from the
ground.
When the vandalism was reported to the police,
local greenies reciprocated by reporting the
Institute for unsafe management and for
unreported material in this field experiment.
61
GMO are most easy to implement if clonal
propagation is implemented. The first
commercialisations will be where monoclone
cultures already are common and accepted and a
large operation.
Clonal forestry does not exist in Sweden today in
spite of considerable efforts and investments.
There are little unsolved biological problems,
the reason is just that the added effort does not
pay the added gain.
62
GMO seems most applicable to short rotation
exotics with intensive forestry, like Eucalypts
in Brazil and China. Later to Pinus radiata in
NZ, and much - later to intensively manage
moderate rotation forestry with natural species
and where clonal forestry is not established (as
P taeda in SE USA). After many decades of big
scale commercial use and accumulation of
experiences of what happens when trees get old in
warmer countries, and when public accepts a few
escape GMO is unlikely to harm (if this seems
likely at that time), GMO may perhaps come to
spruce and pine in Sweden.
63
GMO may be worth considering if

• Rotation time less than 10 years (reasonable
  testing time)
• Exotic (limited escape risk)
• Clonal forestry established (easy
  mass-propagation)
• Ongoing breeding program (adapted material and
  competence for field testing available)
• Will to make a risky investment
• Public acceptance
• Good interface with Science

Perhaps for Southern China?
Nothing for Sweden!
Eucalyptus?
64
Eucalypts in southern China would be a logic
early application of GMO

• But that day seems to be in the far future

65
GMTrees will be important in the far future, how
can we speed up the process?

• We must learn to manage common field experiments
  with GMTrees. I know about the ending of 3, they
  ended because of
• Unhardy provenance
• More important land use
• Sabotage
• None was ended normally. The competence to run
  GMO field tests is a limiting factor!
• Because forest companies are worried about bad
  PR, the only realistic is on experimental forests
  by University scientists.
• We should learn how transgenic genes work on
  trees in the outside environment to commercialize
  them. We should first study genes for basic
  knowledge of transgenics in nature, not assumed
  commercial importance.

66
Dags list for GMO breedingVision

• Develop a gene control language (like a
  programming) for issuing orders by physical
  signals to genetic switches. Genes like flowering
  and insecticides can when be switched on and off
  by will.
• Develop a gene kit package to be inserted in all
  trees with many options controlled by the language

67
Alternative to GMO breedingVision

• Develop mRNA and methods to apply it, which
  exercise their action only when and where needed,
  not permanent GMO incorporated in the genome.
  That would be much nearer practical use in trees!

68
Dags list for GMO breedingPriorities

• Understand and control under field conditions
• Keep to exotics (e.g. lodgepole pine) to limit
  the risk and consequence of escapes
• Use valuable species to make experiences
  relevant
• Adapt and develop the field trial technique
• Packages suitable for studying the behavior and
  control of transgenes in nature

69
Dags list for GMO breedingPriorities

• Shortened rotation time
• Shorter test period
• Faster tree improvement will proceed more rapid
• Long term disadvantages appear earlier
• If disadvantages appear, the crop can be taken
  out faster
• The crop will not be sexual mature for long, the
  escape problem reduced
• Investment closer to economical return.
• Negative appeal Tree harming animals (e.g. moose,
  vole, rabbit) have feelings and psychology.
  Injuries are associated with taste, feel and
  smell. Apply GE for modifying biochemical
  pathways to develop something unattractive, which
  interferes minimally with other aspects of the
  trees life. Environmental friendly GMOs.

70
More?
More about the subject can be found by browsing
http//www.genfys.slu.se/staff/dagl/ Dag
Lindgrens email is Dag.Lindgren_at_genfys.slu.se
71
End
72
(No Transcript)
73
What follows is just slides used earlier, just
for storage, not a part of a lecture
74
A Swedish spruce clone need to be tested in nine
years to be allowed for use in 1 million copies.
It seems unlikely that GMO clones would need less
testing. To fill Sweden with GMO clones, 300
selected GMO clones after test per year is
needed. Much!!   Many gene transfers of the same
type required (forestry works with hundreds of
unrelated parents and many thousands of tested
clones), this increases costs magnitudes.
Clones often mature during vegetative
propagation. If a GMO is introduced into a
tested, well adapted clone, that clone may change
by maturation before commercial multiplication.
As long testing of GMOs is needed, clonal ageing
is a severe problem, more severe than for non-GMO
clones.
75
One wants to pack many "alien" genes with
different characteristics into the same organism,
which is also classically bred. This means
probably monoclonal forestry and complex
interactions.   A boreal forest regeneration
material is adapted to an environmental niche.
There are 50 differently adapted breeding
populations for Swedish conifers, and each need
their own GMO cultivars. The market for each GMO
clone will be small. Those who give orders to
the breeders must consider if the additional
benefits of GMO clones pay the additional costs
compared to non-GMO clones. Seems uncertain it
will be profitable.
76
Using GMO without releasing it in Nature
GMO may be applied to the breeding population
only without being transferred to the production
population. E.g. a gene could be inserted for
induction of early flowering, the breeding
population could be cycled fast for a number of
generations and when the alien gene removed
before mass-multiplication. GMO is a research
tool, which can pinpoint at genes which the
breeder can devote attention. GMO and similar
things may be applied to the own genes. Their
action may be depressed, enforced or better
controlled in time and room. There are border
cases and grey zones.
Institute
77
GMOs can be used to study the function of genes,
e.g. by transferring a pine gene to Arabidopsis,
much can be learned about how the conifer genetic
machinery works. Now knock out libraries are
done, when each of the existing genes can get its
function stopped, and in that they it can be
understood what it does.
GMO is a powerful research tool with much future
development potential. This leads to a biased
research, where too much resources are invested
in fancy looking biotech projects with the hope
of applications to practical forestry in the near
future. This leads to that other research which
would benefit practical forestry more is not
done, and also that biotech progress becomes more
inefficient, because its emphasise is too much on
practical applications (e.g. patents).
78
GMO may never reach the Swedish conifer stage!
Scenario Genetic engineering is potentially
very powerful and will with almost 100
probability be successful and acceptable safe in
the future. The limiting factor is the testing
time. If crops are genetically engineered, we
want to see how they perform during a
considerable part of the rotation time, at least
for some similar systems. In seventy years I
guess GMO will be considered acceptable as main
method for long rotation forest trees close to
natural mates. But at that time we have learnt
to master genetic engineering, we can do the same
things as tree does in shorter rotation crops.
These can be engineered in the desired direction
much faster and more reliable. And these crops
are much more reliable to grow in an industrial
plantations. The shorter the rotation, the more
certain that the market for the product will
remain between sowing and harvesting. But this is
just a guess
79
The BIG risks
GMO properly used with reasonable safety
precautions does not seem biologically risky. But
there are other dangers...   GMO is a powerful
research tool. But over-trust in its near
practical application creates a biased research.
By far too much resources are invested in fancy
looking biotech projects today. Other research,
which would benefit practical forestry more, is
not done. The biotech done becomes more
inefficient, because its emphasise is too much on
practical applications (e.g. patents).
80
Word-wide enquiry about funding for Forest
Genetics (Fenning early 2002) the funding for
'pure' research (especially with a
biotechnological or molecular bent) was almost
universally reported to be increasing at the
expense of applied or more traditional tree
improvement and breeding work.
81
GMO is fancy and futuristic and therefore
attracts science. Some ideas will succeed and
some will fail. But because of overconfidence on
the new technique, we will not develop the more
conventional and thus will be worse of for the
cases where GMO fails.   The great amount of
funding and development of competence, which goes
into GMO related research will stimulate
scientists to function as demand machines. As
their results and methods are un-interpretable
for non-specialists, and as many of them live far
from future clients, it is often promised too
much (explicit or implicit). Such promises make
it understandable that the public distrusts
scientific and political statements that GMO are
not dangerous. When scientific arguments gets
generally little weight, as some scientists are
not trustworthy, thus the public become more
sceptical, than motivated from a purely
scientific point of view.
82
Forest Genetic field trials
The forest faculty in Sweden has currently 300
active trials within Forest Genetics. 40 were
established 1990-1995 and 3 later. Year of
establishment of last field trial are listed.
Conclusion Field tests are abandoned, but partly
replaced by GMO tests in secure green houses. The
facultys forest genetics will loose its contact
with reality! Note Forest Tree Breeding has an
independent organisation, which has not stopped
to establish field trials, neither has any GMOs.
83
No-one knows if GMO yet has been favourable for
agriculture or not. It is much used and has
affected many crops, but maybe larger and more
desirable improvement would have been done if GMO
had not been so much in the focus. (Parallel to
hybrid maize, there the large benefits are to
seed producers rather than customers). GMO has
future biological potential, but also potential
to draw the commercial system away from
biology.   GMO increases the emphases on the
development on large non-transparent complexes of
commercial companies, states, Big Science,
political opportunism, over the interest of "end
consumers".   GMO based breeding systems will be
large and complex and include many others than
forest specialists into tree breeding. Layers,
salesmen and directors replaces foresters and
breeders. These "forces" are likely to promote
GMO even if not "objectively" good.
84
Bad will
If there is an ill will behind (black mailer,
terror group, rogue state, frustrated scientist
or just scientist who wants to show that they are
best), I imagine pretty bad things are possible.
I imagine that GMO technology will develop fast,
so the options and ease of bad will use and the
possible consequences will magnify considerable
compared to the current world. The risk that this
happens increases with the spread and relaxed
control of the technology. The risk is magnified
by commercial secrecy. This is one reason I think
human should not overuse these techniques. Gettin
g used to GMO, safety precautions will get
relaxed and often in practice neglected. When a
nuclear reactor blows up, authorities are unable
to hide, as radioactivity can not be hidden. But
GMOs are not that visible. Still really bad
scenarios seem unlikely.
85
Life may become redundant
Evolution is extremely inefficient in creating
living beings compared to what the intelligent
Man can create by GMO. Small micro robots or
cellular factories will become more efficient
than existing living beings, and will take over.
No Life created by Evolution will remain after a
few hundred years, intelligent design (GMO) will
take over.
86
Gene patents
Patenting has become common in molecular
breeding. Patenting of genes may actually kill
the use of GMO. Legal issues become difficult to
handle, and focus attention from biology. It will
be too difficult and risky to commercialise a
good project, if it must be combined with 100
other patents. Resting patents which may be
vitalised if a successful commercialisation seems
in sight is one threat. If something is
published it cannot be patented. I feel
strongly that Universities and Research
supporting agencies should encourage publishing
instead of patenting. But they act opposite!!
87

• Many agricultural crop breeders are not happy
  with GMO legalistic.
• patent and legal problems must be overcome. A GMO
  cultivar may depend on hundreds of genetic
  patents, each potentially able to stop all use
  there may lurk not evident patents.
• There is a plant breeders rights system (UPOV,
  International Union for the Protection of New
  Varieties of Plants), which is not implemented
  into forestry (at least not often). UPOV does not
  stop further developing protected cultivars in
  the way GMO-patents do. UPOV conflicts with
  patents and is not in harmony with GMO, and this
  is also an issue of problems. UPOV does not
  prevent further developing UPOV protected
  cultivars in the more powerful way patents can
  do, but GMO degrades UPOV (the systems get
  harmonised).

88
Doubtful profitability in patenting
For forestry there is little potential profit for
patents. A patent is valid only 20 years.
Seedlings planted year 2006 reflect decisions,
selections, and investments 40 years ago, which
much exceeds the length of a patent.
89
According to Sweden legalistics, which were
formally abandoned Xmas 2002, but still are
thought of as a sound conceptional ground for
what is required, Swedish spruce clone need to be
tested in nine years to be allowed for use in 1
million copies. To fill Sweden with GMO clones,
300 fresh GMO clones are needed annually. Much!!
To select 300 annually with a meaningful
selection intensity means that 3000 different
promising GMO clones has to be made
annually.   Many gene transfers of the same type
required (forestry works with hundreds of
unrelated parents and many thousands of tested
clones), this increases costs by many magnitudes.
Clones often mature during vegetative
propagation. If a GMO is introduced into a
tested, well adapted clone, that clone may change
by maturation before commercial multiplication.
As long testing of GMOs is needed, clonal ageing
is a severe problem, more severe than for non-GMO
clones.
90
One wants to pack many "alien" genes with
different characteristics into the same organism.
That probably means focusing on a single
well-tested clone. Classical breeding produces
new better clones continuously... Thus GMO may
halt the assured progress of classical breeding.
  A boreal forest regeneration material is
adapted to an environmental niche. There are 50
differently adapted breeding populations for
Swedish conifers, and each need their own GMO
cultivars. The market for each GMO cultivar will
be small. Those who give orders to the breeders
must consider if the additional benefits of GMO
clones pay the additional costs compared to
non-GMO clones. I guess it will not look
profitable.
91
Overusing clones?
Some experimentation may be done with well known
and well tested clones, Even if the idea of
clonal forestry is accepted, it is not the same
thing as clonal forestry with a single clone.
Even those using monoclonal blocks, usually use
many clones in parallel. Probably the
commercialisation of GMO clones will force what
many will perceive as overutilization of a few
clones.
92
GMO will introduce more secrets, patents,
breeder's right etc. into breeding. It becomes
more difficult to utilise each other's material.
There will be many small patents, which may cause
legal disputes, and which make it more difficult
to combine genes in a commercial variety. Who
owns and controls different parts of the "wild"
genome will become more important. Much effort
will be spent on legal rather than biological
problems. Scientists will use their taxpayer
paid work time and facilities to make patents and
to for some of them - make money from their
work. Greed, disputes, and legality matters will
add to create a climate with many secrets. Bad
scientific results can be hidden by talking about
patents. These problems exist, but the GMO
discussion makes them worse, and spreads over to
all tree improvement and probably makes it less
effective. Thus GMO may well have negative
effects for the well being of mankind.
93
Are longer tests needed for GMO-clones than other
clones?
The risk of harm to humans or nature of GMO seems
rather small and not much different from other
risks involved with crop management. Mistakes has
occurred and will occur, life is risky. Sometimes
a nuclear reactor blows up or a hydropower dam
bursts or a space shuttle goes down. The risks of
GMO seem not be of larger magnitude, rather
smaller. The genetic risk management of society
seems sometimes a bit conservative.
94
Testing of success is not easy
The exact location and how an "alien" gene is
inserted matters. Thus different insertions have
to be individually tested. Classical breeding
works with changing the f alleles in their normal
position in the genome, GMO adds alleles in
abnormal positions. It may even be many copies of
GMOs inserted at the same time. Each GMO clone
has to be thoroughly tested, both in the lab and
in the field. Just a few GMOs will pass the test,
the character should be expressed on the right
level and place. Large investment!
95
Genes are regulated, and expressed. That is
probably more important than the genes themselves
in isolation. Time, position and environment
matters for how genes are regulated. That may not
be the same in the green house as in the field,
it may not be the same in different environments
and circumstances and it may not be the same in a
young and an old tree.Correlations are often
weak or even negative between green house and
field, to identify circumstances when
correlations are reliable high requires certainly
mature field tests.
Hot
Moist
Dry
Cold
Greenhouse
Field
96
Classical breeding works mainly by changing gene
frequency, GMO breeding by adding individual
genes. That may very well cause another
juvenile-mature relationship. Or the situation
becomes more depending on environment than for
ordinary genes.   GMO causes more drastic changes
in the target character than the natural genetic
variation (otherwise we should not use it) and
therefore somewhat longer testing is justified.
After transformation
Before transformation
97
It may be claimed that change in individual genes
are simple and small changes, which do not
require long field-testing. That may be so, but
some long term field testing feels required to
support the statement.   Environments in
forestry are more variable than in agriculture
and it is more difficult to test many
individuals, thus reliability of field testing is
lower.   As commercial GMO plantings probably
will be based on long field experience, practical
use must be far ahead (50 years for pine and
spruce). The first GMOs seem to need field
testing for a considerable part of the rotation
time. The required test time seems, at least
initially to be much longer than for conventional
breeding.
Will she retain, the ability in long run?
Has the modification caused any negative reaction?
98
End