Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 237–249 | Cite as

Utilizing a social ethic toward the environment in assessing genetically engineered insect-resistance in trees

  • R. R. James

Abstract

Social policies are used to regulate how members of a society interact and share resources. If we expand our sense of community to include the ecosystem of which we are a part, we begin to develop an ethical obligation to this broader community. This ethic recognizes that the environment has intrinsic value, and each of us, as members of society, are ethically bound to preserve its sustainability. In assessing the environmental risks of new agricultural methods and technologies, society should not freely trade economic gains for ecological damage, but rather seek practices that are compatible with ecosystem health. This approach is used to evaluate the environmental risks associated with genetically engineered insect-resistant trees. The use of insect-resistant trees is a biologically based pest control strategy that has several advantages over pesticide use. However, the use of genetically engineered trees presents particular ecological concerns because the trees are long lived and often are not highly domesticated. The main environmental concerns reviewed include: (1) adaptation of pests to the trees, leading to a non-sustainable agricultural practice, (2) transgenic trees producing environmental toxins, (3) insect resistance enhancing the invasiveness of the tree, causing it to become weedy or invade wild habitats, and (4) transfer of the transgene to wild or feral relatives of the tree, possibly increasing the invasiveness of weeds or wild plants. Some methods are available to offset these risks; however, the environmental risks associated with this technology have been poorly researched and need to be more clearly identified so that when we evaluate the risks, it is based on the best information obtainable. To fulfil an ethical obligation to the environment, public policies and government regulations are needed to preserve the sustainability of both the environment and the future of our production systems. A better understanding of both the ecological issues and of genetic engineering in general are needed on the part of citizens and policy makers alike to ensure that sound environmental decisions are made. Otherwise, the environmental benefits of this technology, mainly decreasing the use of more toxic pesticides in tree crops and forests, will either be lost or traded for other environmental hazards.

Biological control Ethical issues Environmental risks Agricultural methods Social policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addison, J. A. (1993), “Persistence and nontarget effects of Bacillus thuringiensis in soil: A review,” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 2329–2342.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, D. W., J. H. Benedict, and E. S. Sachs (1996), “Transgenic plants for the development of durable insect resistance,” in G. B. Collins and R. J. Sheppard (eds.), Engineering plants for commercial products and applications [Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 792] (pp. 106–114). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  3. Balciunas, J. K., D. W. Burrows, and M. F. Purcells (1994), “Field and laboratory host ranges of the Australian wee-vil, Oxyops vitiosa (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a potential biological control agent for the paperbark tree, Melaleuca quinquenervia,” Biological Control 4: 351–360.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, I. G. (1980), Technology, environment, and human values. New York: Praeger Scientific.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, S. C. H. (1983), “Crop mimicry in weeds,” Economic Botany 37: 255–282.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, L. S. (1995), “Resistance: A threat to the insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis,” Florida Entomologist 87: 414–443.Google Scholar
  7. Corbin, D. R., J. T. Greenplate, E. Y. Wong, and J. P. Pur-cell (1994), “Cloning of an insecticidal cholesterol oxidase gene and its expression in bacteria and in plant protoplasts,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60: 4239–4244.Google Scholar
  8. Crawley, M. J. (1989), “Insect herbivores and plant population dynamics,” Annual Review of Entomology 34: 531–564.Google Scholar
  9. Crickmore, N., D. R. Zeigler, J. Feitelson, E. Schnepf, D. Lereclus, J. Baum, J. Van Rie, and D. H. Dean (1997), Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin nomenclature. WWWsite http://www.susx.ac.uk/Home/Neil Crickmore/Bt/ index.html.Google Scholar
  10. Croft, B. A. (1992), “IPMsystems that conserve pesticides, pest resistant plants and biological controls, including geneti-cally altered forms,” Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa 55: 107–121.Google Scholar
  11. Denholm, I., and M. W. Rowland (1992), “Tactics for Managing pesticide resistance in arthropods: theory and practice,” Annual Review of Entomology 37: 91–112.Google Scholar
  12. Diehl, S. R., and G. L. Bush (1984), “An evolutionary and applied perspective of insect biotypes,” Annual Review of Entomology 29: 471–504.Google Scholar
  13. Donegan, K. K., C. J. Palm, V. J. Fieland, L. A. Porteous, L. M. Ganio, D. L. Schaller, L. Q. Bucao, and R. J. Seidler (1995), “Changes in levels, species, and DNA fingerprints of soil microorganisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki endotoxin,” Applied Soil Ecology 2: 111–124.Google Scholar
  14. Dover, M. J., and B. A. Croft (1986), “Pesticide resistance and public policy,” BioScience 36: 78–85.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, D. D., D. E. McCabe, S. McInnis, R. Ramachandran, D. R. Russell, K. M. Wallace, B. J. Martinell, D. R. Roberts, K. F. Raffa, and B. H. McCown (1993), “Stable transformation of Picea glauca by particle acceleration,” Bio/Technology 11: 84–89.Google Scholar
  16. Falconer, D. S. (1989), Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Flexner, J. L, P. H. Westigard, R. Hilton, and B. A. Croft (1995), “Experimental evaluation of resistance management for twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) on southern Oregon pear,” Journal of Economic Entomology 88: 1517–1524.Google Scholar
  18. Frey, K. J., J. A. Browning, and M. D. Simons (1977), “Management systems for host genes to control disease loss,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science 287: 255–274.Google Scholar
  19. Gatehouse, A. M. R., V. A. Hilder, K. S. Powell, M. Wang, G. M. Davison, L. N. Gatehouse, R. E. Down, H. S. Edmonds, D. Boulter, C. A. Newell, A. Merryweather, W. D. O. Hamilton, and J. A. Gatehouse (1994), “Insect-resistant transgenic plants: choosing the gene to do the ‘job’,” Biochemical Society Transactions 22: 944–948.Google Scholar
  20. Georgiou, G. (1986), “Factors influencing the evolution of resistances,” in National Research Council (ed.), Pesticide resistance: Strategies and tactics for management (pp. 157–169). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  21. Granahan, G. H., C. A. Leslie, A. M. Dandekar, S. L. Uratsu, and I. E. Yates (1993), “Transformation of pecan and regeneration of transgenic plants,” Plant Cell Reports 12: 634–638.Google Scholar
  22. Haissig, B. E. (1995), Benefits and detriments of deploying genetically engineered woody biomass crops. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI TR-104896, Project 3407.Google Scholar
  23. Hokkanen, H. M. T., and C. H. Wearing (1994), “A safe and rational deployment of Bacillus thuringiensis genes in crop plants: Conclusions and recommendations of OECD work-shop on ecological implications of transgenic crops containing Bt-toxin genes,” Biocontrol Science and Technology 4: 399–403.Google Scholar
  24. Hollander, R. D. (1990), “Moral responsibility, values, and making decisions about biotechnology,” in S. M. Gendel, A. D. Kline, D. M. Warren and F. Yates (eds.), Agricultural bioethics: Implications of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 279–291). Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Holm, L. G., D. L. Pluckett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger (1977), The worlds worst weeds. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  26. Immaraju, J. A., J. G. Morse, and R. F. Hobza (1990), “Field evaluation of insecticide rotation and mixtures as strategies for citrus thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) resistance management in California,” Journal of Economic Entomology 83: 306–314.Google Scholar
  27. James, R. R., S. P. DiFazio, A. M. Brunner, and S. H. Strauss (in review), “Environmental effects of genetically engineered woody biomass crops,” Biomass and Bioenergy.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, M. T., and F. Gould (1992), “Interaction of genetically engineered host plant resistance and natural enemies of Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in tobacco,” Environmental Entomology 21: 586–597.Google Scholar
  29. Jongsma, M. A., P. L. Bakker, J. Peters, D. Bosch, and W. J. Stiekema (1995), “Adaptation of Spodoptera exigua larvae to plant proteinase inhibitors by induction of gut proteinase insensitive to inhibition,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science 92: 8041–8045.Google Scholar
  30. Kansmoentalib, S. (1996), “Science and values in risk assessment: the case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9: 42–60.Google Scholar
  31. Keiding, J. (1986), “Prediction or resistance risk assessment,” in National Research Council (ed.), Pesticide resistance: Strategies and tactics for management (pp. 279–297). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, G. G., F. Gould, O. M. B. Deponti, and R. E. Stinner (1987), “Ecological, agricultural, genetic, and commercial considerations in the deployment of insect-resistant germplasm,” Environmental Entomology 16: 327–338.Google Scholar
  33. Kiyosawa, S. (1982), “Genetics and epidemiological modeling of breakdown of plant disease resistance,” Annual Review of Phytopathology 20: 93–117.Google Scholar
  34. Kreutzweiser, D. P., J. L. Gringorten, D. R. Thomas, and J. T. Butcher (1996), “Functional effects of the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki on aquatic microbial communities,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 33: 271–280.Google Scholar
  35. Lehman, H. (1995), Rationality and ethics in agriculture. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leonard, K. J., and R. J. Czochor (1980), “Theory of genetic interactions among populations of plants and their pathogens,”Annual Review of Phytopathology 18: 237–258.Google Scholar
  37. Leopold, A. (1966), A Sand County almanac, with essays on conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  38. Leplè, J. C., M. Bonadè-Bottino, S. Augustin, G. Pilate, V. D. Lê Tân, A. Delplaque, D. Cornu, and L. Jouanin (1995), “Toxicity to Chrysomela tremulae (Coleoptera: Chryso-melidae) of transgenic poplars expressing a cysteine proteinase inhibitor,” Molecular Breeding 1: 319–328.Google Scholar
  39. Mallet, J., and P. Porter (1992), “Preventing insect adaptation to insect-resistant crops: Are seed mixtures or refugia the best strategy?,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of LondonB250: 165–169.Google Scholar
  40. Manasse, R., and P. Kareiva (1991), “Quantifying the spread of recombinant genes and organisms,” in L. R. Ginzburg (ed.), Assessing ecological risks of biotechnology (pp. 215–231). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  41. May, R. M., and A. P. Dobson (1986), “Population dynamics and the rate of evolution of pesticide resistance,” in National Research Council (ed.), Pesticide resistance: Strategies and tactics for management (pp. 170–193). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
  42. McCown, B. H., D. E. McCabe, D. R. Russell, D. J. Robinson, K. A. Barton, and K. E. Raffa (1991), “Stable transformation of Populus and incorporation of pest-resistance by electric discharge particle acceleration,” Plant Cell Reports 9: 590–594.Google Scholar
  43. McGaughey, W. H., and M. E. Whalon (1992), “Managing insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins,” Science 258: 1451–1455.Google Scholar
  44. Meade, T., and J. D. Hare (1995), “Integration of host plant resistance and Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides in the management of lepidopterous pests of celery,” Journal of Economic Entomology 88: 1787–1794.Google Scholar
  45. Palm, C. J., K. Donegan, D. Harris, and R. J. Seidler (1994), “Quantification in soil of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki δ-endotoxin from transgenic plants,” Molecular Ecology 3: 145–151.Google Scholar
  46. Palm, C. J., D. L. Schaller, K. K. Donegan, and R. J. Seidler (1996), “Persistence in soil of transgenic plant produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki δ-endotoxin,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Pang, S. Z., S. M. Oberhaus, J. L. Rasmussen, and D. C. Knipple (1992), “Expression of a gene encoding a scorpion insecto-toxin peptide in yeast, bacteria and plants,” Gene 116: 165–172.Google Scholar
  48. Pimentel, D. (1995), “Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: Environmental impacts and ethics,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8: 17–29.Google Scholar
  49. Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordano, A. Horowitz, and M. D'Amore (1992), “Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use,” BioScience 42: 750–760.Google Scholar
  50. Raffa, K. F. (1989), “Genetic engineering of trees to enhance resistance to insects,” BioScience 39: 524–534.Google Scholar
  51. Regal, P. J. (1994), “Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms,” Molecular Ecology 3: 5–13.Google Scholar
  52. Rissler, J., and M. Mellon (1993), Perils amidst the promise, ecological risks of transgenic crops in a global market. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.Google Scholar
  53. Rissler, J., and M. Mellon (1996), The ecological risks of engineered crops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Robinson, D. J., B. H. McCown, and K. Raffa (1994), “Responses of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) to transgenic poplar, Populus spp., containing a Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin gene,” Environmental Entomology 23: 1030–1041.Google Scholar
  55. Shafroth, P. B., G. T. Auble, and M. L. Scott (1995), “Germination and establishment of the native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides Marshall subspp. monilifera) and the exotic Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.),” Conservation Biology 9: 1169–1175.Google Scholar
  56. Shin, D. I., G. K. Podila, and D. F. Karnosky (1994), “Transgenic larch expressing genes for herbicide and insect resistance,” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 2059–2067.Google Scholar
  57. Strauss, S. H., W. H. Rottman, A. M. Brunner, and L. A. Sheppard (1995), “Genetic engineering of reproductive sterility in forest trees,” Molecular Breeding 1: 5–26.Google Scholar
  58. Tabashnik, B. E. (1994a), “Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis,” Annual Review of Entomology 39: 47–79.Google Scholar
  59. Tabashnik, B. E. (1994b), “Delaying insect adaptation to trans-genic plants: Seed mixtures and refugia reconsidered,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B255: 7–12.Google Scholar
  60. Tapp, H., and G. Stotzky (1995), “Insecticidal activity of the toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki and tenebrionis adsorbed and bound on pure clay soils,” Applied Environmental Microbiology 61: 1786–1790.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, P. B. (1995), The spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Thompson, P. B., R. J. Johnson, and E. O. van Ravenswaay (1994), Ethics, policy, and Agriculture. New York: Mac-millan.Google Scholar
  63. Thoms, E. M., and T. F. Watson (1986), “Effect of Dipel (Bacillus thuringiensis on the survival of immature and adult Hyposoter exiguae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae),” Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 47: 178–183.Google Scholar
  64. Tiedje, J. M., R. K. Colwell, Y. L. Grossman, R. E. Hodson, R. E. Lenski, R. N. Mack, and P. J. Regal (1989), “The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: Ecological considerations and recommendations,” Ecology 70: 298–315.Google Scholar
  65. USDA, APHIS, and BBEP (1996), Biotechnology permits. WWWsite http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp/status.html.Google Scholar
  66. Wallner, W. E., R. N. Dubois, and P. S. Grinberg (1983), “Alteration of parasitism by Rogas lymantriae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Bacillus thuringiensis-stressed gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) hosts,” Journal of Economic Entomology 76: 275–277.Google Scholar
  67. Ward, M. (1996), “PGS-AgrEvo deal stirs up plant biotechnology,” Nature Biotechnology 14: 1210.Google Scholar
  68. Wearing, C. H., and H. M. T. Hokkanen (1995), “Pest resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis: Ecological crop assessment for Bt gene incorporation and strategies of management,” in H. M. T. Hokkanen and J. M. Lynch (eds.), Biological control: Costs and benefits (pp. 236–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wipfli, M. S., and R. W. Merritt (1994), “Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on nontarget benthic insects through direct and indirect exposure,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 190–205.Google Scholar
  70. Wiseman, B. R. (1994), “Plant resistance to insects in integrated pest management,” Plant Disease 78: 927–932.Google Scholar
  71. Wrubel, R. P., S. Krimsky, and R. E. Wetzler (1992), “Field testing transgenic plants,” BioScience 42: 280–289.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. R. James
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations