URGENT ALERT: TELL THE FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL:
GE Trees Can Never Be Sustainable!
DEADLINE Thursday, Dec 2, 2021
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), one of the world’s largest certifiers of “sustainably harvested wood”, is consulting the public on policy changes to allow genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) tree research by FSC-certified companies. (find sample comments below).
The FSC’s current prohibition on GM trees acts as an important global block on the development and commercialization of GM trees. However, the FSC is trying to dismantle this ban, by first proposing to allow GM tree field-testing.
Sending your comments against FSC allowing GM tree research is crucial. The website for consultation comments can be confusing, but below are some tips to navigate through it.
Visit https://consultation-platform.fsc.org/ to create a profile online. You will then be taken to the public consultations. You want to click into the consultation called “SECOND PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE FSC POLICY FOR ASSOCIATION ”
At that point, you will be taken through numerous pages of feedback requests.
The main section on GM trees is:
4. Do you support the overall approach of the policy elements section?
In this section, question “f” asks about the change in language to allow GM trees in field trials by FSC-certified companies.
You can write quite a bit in this section. Here are some sample comments (use all of them if you like!)
-
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
-
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
-
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
-
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
-
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
-
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
-
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
-
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Additionally, in section 12: Do you have any comments on any of the following terms and definitions? (the definition of GM trees is one of those listed)
There is pressure on FSC to loosen its definition of genetic modification. Across the world, corporations are attempting to redefine genetic engineering to allow many new GMOs onto the market without regulation. So, it would be good to comment here that:
“The FSC definition of genetic modification must include all techniques of genetic engineering including genome editing processes such as CRISPR. The FSC definition of GM must serve to protect forests from the risks of releasing genetically engineered trees.”
The deadline to respond is THURSDAY, DEC 2.
🌲No research on GE trees. Find more creative and resilient solutions like Hemp, banana, bamboo! 🌲
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Every time the government messes with nature there are unintended adverse consequences. Stop messing with mother nature!
Weakening the ban on GM trees will only lead to the complete decimation of entire ecosystems in the affected regions. This is ecological genocide, which will lead to human disease and suffering on a grand scale. Please come to your senses and do the environmentally right thing.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
GE plants and animals are dangerous to the ecosystem. They are unsafe for consumption of animals or humans and huge amounts of herbicides are used in their production.
There is also the great danger of loss of native species due to their grown and encroachment on native (and unplanned) habitats.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Please keep GE trees out of our forests. These trees are not sustainable and can create more severe forest fires.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
NOTHING genetically modified should be released into the environment.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Additionally, in Question 12: Do you have any comments on any of the following terms and definitions? (the definition of GM trees is listed)
There is pressure on FSC to loosen its definition of genetic modification. Across the world, corporations are attempting to redefine genetic engineering to allow many new GMOs onto the market without regulation. So, it would be good to comment here that:
“The FSC definition of genetic modification must include all techniques of genetic engineering including genome editing processes such as CRISPR. The FSC definition of GM must serve to protect forests from the risks of releasing genetically engineered trees.”
ALL GE TREES MUST BE BANNED!
They will NEVER BE SUSTAINABLE, AND WOULD REMAIN FOREVER A DANGER TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT!
The purpose of sustainable forestry is to protect forests, including biodiversity and native species. Genetically engineered trees do the opposite, and have no place in sustainable forestry. Your existing rules prohibit GE trees, and this should not be changed to allow GE trees for research.
Please keep GE trees out of our forests
I am totally opposed to approving GE trees. We already have learned that GE plants cannot be environmentally contained and will eventually spread to areas not intended. Also, anything that allows even more poisonous glyphosate to be sprayed is harmful to all species on this planet. Consider your own children when considering these proposals. Our planet is small and no family can escape the damage done even thousands of miles away – it will eventually reach and have consequences everywhere.
We only want naturally grown (organic) trees that are 100% free of dangerous and toxic genetic engineering. FSC, please remember your duty to nature as a whole and say No to GE Trees. Thanks.
If the FSC allows GE trees to be grown, they will be paving the way for the commercial release of GE trees in countries around the world.
But that’s not the only urgent threat.
Suzano – a major timber corporation in Brazil – recently received permission to commercially grow the first ever eucalyptus trees genetically engineered to resist the poison herbicide glyphosate. (You may recall that Monsanto/Bayer is paying billions to settle lawsuits from people who were exposed to glyphosate and now have cancer.)
Glyphosate-resistant GE trees would be a disaster for the people and ecosystems of Brazil. Engineering plants to resist glyphosate results in huge quantities of the toxic herbicide being used–leading to contamination of soils and water, and drift onto nearby communities. Already Brazil’s rural communities are suffering from the massive applications of this toxic pesticide on the enormous GM soy fields there.
This new profitable GE eucalyptus tree will also result in the expansion of ecologically and socially devastating eucalyptus plantations into more ecosystems and communities, such as the important cerrado woodland in Maranhão, adjacent to the Amazon region.
Suzano sits on the Board of the Forest Stewardship Council. Not surprisingly, the FSC is now considering weakening their GE tree ban.
If the FSC allows GE trees to be grown, they will be paving the way for the commercial release of GE trees in countries around the world.
Another disgusting attempt at profiteering at the expense of people and nature like gmo mosquitoes, other crops and trees. HABITAT is needed not plantations!! These will never heal the earth and forests!
The global class action law suit for those assisting Monsanto products will extend to all genetics firms facilitating this criminal chemical enterprise. Stop poisoning the forest please.
gmo synthetic products have no business upon earth, in earth or anywhere near earth.
Dear Forest Stewardship Council:
I strongly oppose changing FSC’s prohibition on GM trees to allow research, including field trials.
Research and field trials pose risks of completely unknown proportions, not just to the specific variety being tested but to the entire forest ecosystem — and not just locally but for hundreds or thousands of kilometers. As such, a change in FSC’s current policy violates the precautionary principle, which says: don’t do something unless you know it is safe. Or more personally, don’t use our forests and ourselves as guinea pigs in an experiment that could run completely off the tracks.
If FSC weakens its GM policy, it will also weaken its already tenuous reputation. To strengthen that reputation, it should require Suzano, which has a monetary interest in this policy change, to recuse itself from any formal or informal role in the process.
Suzano should not be allowed to contact any FSC staff or decision-makers on this matter.
Please also do not weaken FSC’s definition of genetic modification. New processes like CRISPR could allow multinational corporations to do end runs around a weakened definition. Instead, FSC’s definition must protect our forests from all the risks of releasing GM trees.
Ban all GE trees.
GE trees are not a sustainable solution and they have no place in FSC standards.
There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, how they will impact on forest dependent communities, not to mention climate.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially. Honestly, permission from human effluent, Bolsonaro, should give everyone involved pause…
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year! In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials. Once Pandora’s box is opened it cannot be closed…
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
This cannot and should not be allowed–EVER!
Do not allow this! If the FSC allows GE trees to be grown, they will be paving the way for the commercial release of GE trees in countries around the world.
Pls stop this he trees project.
Does GE think it can create a better tree than God? End genetic modification NOW. We don’t know how genetically modified trees will affect animals, the earth, and the remaining trees on earth.
I oppose allowing the release pf Genetoically modified trees into our natural forests. Corporations are trying to redefine genetic engineeering to allow many new GMOs onto themarket without regulation. This weakening must not be allowed. The interests of corporations are not to strengthen our forests but to gleen more profits.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
We all really need to see that we need to protect GM trees as we need them for some great purposes. We really can’t afford to lose GM trees as the trees are truly precious “gems” like breath & smell fresh air, natural trees, keep the people & animals cool, etc.
As a forest owner and manager and a member of FSC for 25 years I feel that the acceptance of any version of genetically modified trees is absolutely unacceptable. don’t do it and stop testing our loyalty to this certification.
Sincerely,
Sarah Deumling
Zena Forest LLC
Zena Forest Products
We must focus on restoration of ecosystems to curb the effects of climate chaos. GE trees will lead to more devastating ecosystem collapse. Death of ecosystems leads to death of people and civilizations too. Please oppose GE trees.
Please. The FSC logo and seal of approval is currently a trusted third-party verification that I, along with millions of other people, want to continue to trust. Don’t blow it by caving to the pressure to allow GMO trees to get FSC certification. Don’t even start down that pathway.
I strongly oppose the release of GE trees. We are already on a course of self destruction with respect to the environment we are so dependent on. At some point we must foster our natural surroundings not destroy it.
THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS CONCERNING GMO TREES. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS RISK WITH OUR FORESTS. SOME THINGS CANNOT BE UNDONE.
We live on 10 acres of various types of trees: deciduous/coniferous. These environment cleaners are beautiful and beneficial to humans. Let nature take its natural course and stop tinkering with genetics. Plant trees native to the land, not some altered version of nature!
Your certification is already on shaky ground. On your website you state ‘by choosing products with FSC labels, you are helping to take care of the world’s forests.’ Yet you are allowing Genetic Engineering when you still don’t fully understand how trees, soils and forest ecology works?!? Are you insane???
Folding to more corporate pressure and obvious monetary kick-backs will risk your ‘non-profit’ status, and may even get you in the running for an audit- and/or a Seaspiracy type documentary!
So drop it while you can.
You’ve been warned.
I just have sent my comments against FSC allowing GM tree research!!! I sincerely hope it will help!!!
I wish you lots of success!!!
Regards & love from the Netherlands!
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
Additionally, in section 12: Do you have any comments on any of the following terms and definitions? (the definition of GM trees is one of those listed)
There is pressure on FSC to loosen its definition of genetic modification. Across the world, corporations are attempting to redefine genetic engineering to allow many new GMOs onto the market without regulation. So, it would be good to comment here that:
“The FSC definition of genetic modification must include all techniques of genetic engineering including genome editing processes such as CRISPR. The FSC definition of GM must serve to protect forests from the risks of releasing genetically engineered trees.”
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
GE Trees are a crime against nature and humanity, this HAS TO STOP!!
FSC – Bless your hearts! You are the last check against the ever-speeding destruction of earth’s shortest epoch – the Anthropocene. I know it’s crazy difficult in our empire- & bully-driven human world, but please exercise your courage and commitment to keep our forests as resilient & natural as possible. Not just elders, but also the children are depending on your stewardship!
Trees are part of nature and thus natural beings. There is nothing nature about GM trees and who know what the effects would be on the other trees and how they communicate or the overall heath of forests? This proposal should not go any farther than it already has.
KEEP GE TREES OUT OF OUR FORRESTS
KEEP GE TREES OUT OF ALL FORESTS!
Allowing the same company that introduced the deadly poison into the environment to introduce GE trees is beyond comprehension. The potential for disaster is of global proportions. Don’t allow this to happen. Saying sorry after the fact won’t bring back the potential loss of life and habitat.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Keep ge trees out of our forests!
GE trees are not Sustainable!
Genetically modified trees not tested for long term effects on insects or birds. Please do not destroy what Mother Nature has provided
G.E,Trees–what a terrible idea.
Human greed is destroying life in earth. Soon we will all be affected🐽. Stop this madness of gene manipulation of our world
First phony food which I don’t eat and now phony trees. Never
GE trees exist only to make money for the patent owners. They do not provide a single advantage over real trees. We need healthy natural trees of diverse kinds. Eucalyptus is not native to North America. We need native, natural trees to restore our soil, native forests and native ecosystems. GE trees are grown with chemicals. Stop poisoning our soil.
Knowing the random nature of genetic expression from environmental factors influencing the epigenetics of plants we cannot risk unleashing randomly selected proteins such as prions into the environment. Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose unimaginably huge environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
Genetically modifying anything is, in essence, dangerous.
Genetically modifying Nature is like PLAYING GOD!!
This is arrogant & ignorant of human to think they can improve im upon Nature.
Planet is already in peril. Please do not tamper with delicate ecosystems. we see our pollinators increasingly dying off because of GMO and big At chemicals. We can’t afford more imbalances that will disrupt natural processes.
Please do not use Genetically engineered trees!!!!! Do not destroy the Beauty of Nature!!!!
GM crops, trees are all about profits for the big multinationals and are inimical to biodiversity, human and non-human health.
It is reprehensible to consider such a course of action when so many other countries have already banned GM stock.
Nature offers its services to anyone for free.
The self appointed elite that wants to rule forever begs to differ.
They want to replace nature with patented crap so that they can control everything.
GMOs are an abomination spawned by equally abominable beings that hate humans and nature for their innate intelligence.
It is the same elite that is behind the climate change hoax and the virus hoax.
whatever you do do not comply and do not take the jab ,it is laced with GMOs and other crap to connect you to the cloud of Schwab.
I am totally against the introduction of genetically engineered trees. They will not stay in a plantation area, but will spread their genetic info throughout natural wooded areas, some rare habitats, and cause untold problems for the wildlife there
Life has evolved over 3.8 billion years. Homo sapiens has only been here 200,000 years. We are parasites killing our host. Our arrogance and exceptionalism towards nature is ecocidal. Look at the unintended consequences of burning fossil fuels. Genetic engineering is too risky, a giant experiment with unknown and unforeseen consequences. FSC should *not* bow to corporate pressure and remain prudent and vigilant supporting nature. Period.
Please don’t accept genetically modified trees. The long-term effects on insects and birds are not known. It’s not worth the risk.
Another bad human idea. Instead of letting nature fix herself, some humans think they have better ideas. Hands off nature, we should be putting our efforts towards reducing human populations and the destruction we cause.
Forest Stewardship Council don’t allow genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) tree research by FSC-certified companies. Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. GE trees are not sustainable.
Non-native trees shouldn’t be planted anywhere, as these disrupt pre-existing, ancestral ecological relationships. Genetically modified organisms, bred for tolerance to toxic pesticides, compound the negative impacts on local and regional ecology and long-term evolution of other ecosystem constituents, as environmental poisons are targeted towards organisms of significant importance to ecosystem functions and processes.
Ecological disruptions, already rampant on every continent, will result in the collapse of ecosystems, with adverse impacts on critically important provisions of clean water, clean air, arable soil, soil microbial populations, pollination, and other benefits to intact systems and their organismal components that ultimately benefit human lives. In short, introduction of GE-bred trees to any ecosystem is criminally insane! STOP exploitation of local and regional ecology for profit and START taking direct action against the corporate pillagers and profiteers who are threatening all life on this planet.
GE trees endanger whole forests and ecosystems.
You can write quite a bit in this section. Here are some sample comments (use all of them if you like!)
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
Árvores geneticamente modificara-se são invasivas e destruidoras.
STOP**** It changes what nature intended. Wild life, insects, birds cannot sustain the fakeness of these trees. STOP destroying mother nature. STOP your greed
Don’t do it. Trees don’t need any interfering with they are already perfect.
Please stop the promotion of GE trees. They are nutrient guzzlers and dry our aquifers. They exacwebate the effects of Climate Change. We have enough seeds to propagate natural trees which aid community resilience to climate change.
I follow genetics chiefly as a physician but the issues of unintended effects, antibiotic (pesticide) resistance, epidemiology (spread through larger forest populations) and combinatorial effects when various new mutations coexist, and so forth have considerable overlap. Chief among reasons for caution regarding widespread release of genetically engineered trees are their long lifespans, incompletely understood genetics, certainty of widespread spread through ecosystems, and harms to the many species which live in association with forests. Meaningful regulation of GE trees will also not be possible because the genetic traits involved will migrate beyond the borders of any tree plantation. Please don’t take any action which can promote the acceptance of GE trees!
Pay attention to the precautionary principle. Safety first.
Remember all the prior cases of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. NO to GE trees and other life forms.
Genetically modified trees should not even be considered they present TOO high a RISK to bio diversity. Our forests must be protected from harmful contamination because they are already under threat and cannot sustain some of out native trees.e,g Kauri die back.
GE trees is a threat for biodiversity
GE trees are an abomination, equivalent in stupidity to genetically engineered people.
Please do not alter Mother Nature and trees.
They are perfect as they are. Any man made
Changes will weaken our ecosystems and enhance
Climate Change! Don’t do it FSC!
We have already done so much damage to the environment that supports us that it is inconceivable that anyone would think that GE trees would be contributing to the well being of the planet rather than to their own pockets
These trees are un natural do not destroy natural environment
No genetically engineered trees!
I’m one who earned an MSW, but only one year post-graduation (& the job I had as well), I had a grand-mal seizure with the aftermath of major brain surgery!
Why the awareness of life, with all forms & variations, are so sacred — certainly NOTHING to play around with!
Do not inflict GMOs on the natural world.
Climate change and mass extinctions are escalating and caused by human behavior. Deforestation and then the subsequent creation of monoculture trees imperil the health of our planet. The long-term impact of genetically modified trees have not been sufficiently tested. I urge your agency to stand strong for sustainability by NOT weakening your current policies regarding genetically-engineered trees. What is released into Nature cannot be taken back and can upset the very intricate relationships among species which we are a long way from completely understanding.
Get your toxic, destructive totally unnecessary GMO trees out of our country and the rest of the world. Burn them all.
NO ONE CAN TOP GOD’S CREATION
Do not approve Genetically engineered tres. Find safe and natural improvements to soil water and air that do not involve untested and irreversible genetic modification. A potential Pandora Box that is not in our best interest and can possibly contaminate an entire forest.
The FSC should not be testing and certainly not certifying genetically modified trees.
I am deeply opposed to genetically modified trees being approved by the Forest Stewardship Council.
I trust the FSC logo to ensure the products that I buy, from greetings cards to fence panels, have been sourced from well-managed and environmentally beneficial forests – not from alien modified monocultures that can potentially do untold damage to the natural environment.
These fast-growing trees are being touted as a quick fix to our environmental crises, so that we can carry on business as usual, yet these trees have the potential to create many more issues. In reality, we have no idea what impacts these trees will have on nature. Oak trees support over 500 different species. If eucalyptus or pine support just half this number, the impacts on wildlife and the ripple effect will still be huge. We must therefore implement the precautionary principle immediately.
GE trees only benefit the likes of Monsanto and Bayer. They will push for them to be grown around the world; contaminating environmentally sensitive and crucial ecosystems such as the Amazon. Making these trees herbicide resistant will lead to even greater use of herbicides (from which these corporations will also financially benefit) saturating and poisoning everything around them, including indigenous communities via the contamination of water, soil and inevitably food.
The FSC must not play a part in this. I am shocked to learn that Maranhão, a promotor of GE eucalyptus trees, is a member of your board. If I can’t trust the FSC logo as a reliable regulatory body of truly environmentally sustainable products, who can I trust?
Please keep the ban on all GE trees across your supply chain.
I have opposed genetically modified crops and also strongly oppose genetically modified trees. Their only purpose is profit. Any dangers from interbreeding with native trees is ignored. Dr. Edwin Daniel, Professor Emeritus
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
FSC allowing field trials of GM trees is an obvious step toward dismantling the GE trees prohibition altogether and eventually allowing GM trees in plantations. FSC should not be implicated in the future commercialization of GM trees.
The timber company Suzano is manipulating this outcome since they, as an FSC certified company, are already conducting field trials of GM trees and have already requested and received permission from the government of Brazil to grow GM trees commercially.
This move would threaten the reputation of FSC. If FSC allows GM trees to be used by certified companies in any situation, even research activities such as field trials, it will lose what little credibility is left and its brand will be in jeopardy.
Allowing the use of GM trees with traits like faster growth, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, killing fungus or altered wood quality will exacerbate the already devastating ecological and social impacts of commercial tree plantations, and add dangerous new ones. This includes increasing loss and/or contamination of fresh water sources, critical impacts to forest soils, mycorrhizal fungus communities and biodiversity, wildfires, impacts on forest dependent communities and negative impacts on the climate.
GM trees cannot be compared to GM crop plants. GM trees can live for decades, while agricultural GMOs are annual plants that are replanted every year. In addition, GMO crop plants do not send pollen and seeds for the very long distances trees have been found to (600 km or more in pines) and most GMO crop plants do not have native wild relatives at risk of contamination. The threat of contamination by GM trees of native wild relatives is extremely high–even in field trials.
Organizations and individuals representing millions of people around the world have registered their formal opposition to genetically modified trees.
“The FSC definition of genetic modification must include all techniques of genetic engineering including genome editing processes such as CRISPR. The FSC definition of GM must serve to protect forests from the risks of releasing genetically engineered trees.”
I strongly oppose releasing genetically modified flora of any type into forests or natural areas. This policy is far from sustainable and will only lead to further harm. We cannot afford to gamble with our remaining forests and wild lands.
There is no justification for the FSC to allow any activities relating to GM trees. GM trees can never be sustainable.
Permitting FSC associated organizations to conduct research activities will pose environmental risks. There is no knowledge of the long-term risks GM trees pose to forests, especially given the long life-span of trees and their interrelationship with myriad organisms, about which very little is known. These risks are posed by field trials as well as commercial plantations.
Just because a few Sorcerer’s Apprentices with more money, political backing, and hubris than sound scientific understanding, are pushing to unleash their experiments into the wild….
doesn’t make them safe.
Please stand firm against releasing genetically modified trees into the wild. The condition of our planet today is anything but an endorsement of the push to bully and manipulate the natural world.
Our ecosystems have been pushed to the brink already, as well as the species attempting to survive the 6th Great Extinction. Please don’t push them off the edge. There is still time for mankind to wake from his madness and reverse course on the frenzy of destruction that has taken hold.
Thank you,
Inclusion of GM field trials as part of FSC certification makes a mockery of the standard and opens the door to huge negative impacts on nature.
For example, Suzano’s recent permission to grow glyphosate-resistant (GE) trees commercially will usher in widespread devastation of forest biodiversity as glyphosate becomes the herbicide of choice. Downgrading FSC to include such trees would see it effectively certifying this decimation of nature.