Considering it's a tropical plant, it's unlikely to effect New England natives. And their use of splice should protect against reproduction. Even if some did, these trees take a while to reach reproductive age, making elimination straightforward.

As far as pricing, if people are willing to buy it at that price, then they should be able to sell it at that price. If the price precludes a grower from making a profit, then they will move on to cheaper seeds that allow them to make the margins they need to survive.

Genetic selection has been ongoing from the first farms thousands of years ago. If we were unable to use genetic manipulation to increase yields, than millions of people would die from starvation. Is there evidence that roundup immune plants have made it into the existing ecosystem? Is there evidence that these plants have altered any ecosystems (aside from the creation of larger farms). We should take a hard look at the societal costs of genetic manipulation vs. the gains in yield and the millions they've been able to feed.

I think more study on the containment should definitely be done, but once that's not an issue, I'm all for a big fast carbon sink. Go for it, IMO

Katy, I am out and about the Carolinas and Georgia frequently. As one drives through the many little towns once prosperous from tobacco and cotton farming noted are vast acres of untilled land lying fallow. One Federal program has financed the growing of blueberries mostly in the SC coastal area. Also the growing of switchgrass as a biofuel is encouraged. Last week I heard on NPR that SC has just shipped 20,000 tons of switchgrass to Europe. The south has the land to grow biofuels. There is a large area which spreads between North and South Carolina known as the sand hills which has a high water table which could easily be brought into algae growth production, another promising biofuel which reproduces quickly. Even kudzu holds promise

The slow growing southern pine, with all it various uses, will always be an important staple. The thought of unleashing the faster growing bio engineered eucalyptus as a pine replacement disturbs me. It is untested, sucks the life out of the soil and in time we would be left with vast acres of sterile land, clear cut with ugly debris lying about as eucalyptus takes forever to disintergrate. But those profiting from the enterprise would not care. Move on. Plant the next 500 acres. Harvest. And when nothing will grow on that soil, so what? Or sell the land to a developer who will build another gated community if the economy recovers. Have you driven through Hilton Head recently? A traffic nightmare!

There are numerous biofuel plants which can be grown in the south that are earth friendly. Eucalyptus is not one of them. Mention was made in the article about the fact that South America is way ahead of us growing it as a biofuel but at what cost? Cutting and burning the native jungle growth which has impacted the entire world's climate.

I would guess that Montsanto, et al, will be allowed to move ahead with this project. It rules with fear and sharp legal advice. I wonder how all their 'patents' will affect the next generation and its health and ability to have nutritious food?

Thanks for the interesting responses all around. In my opinion this is such an interesting topic and one certainly pertinent to a Gard*ening Forum. I am guessing many folks are not posting their reactions to the article because of the possibility of this becoming a divisive hot topic, perhaps they have forgotten that gardeners are far more civil than politicians.
I will continue to keep my thoughts to myself in the hopes that this thread opens a diverse discussion rather than an individual rant. I do however want to clarify that my vague earlier question Do you see any possible secondary effects affecting New EnglandÂs native pl*ant population? , was written with insects and disease in mind.

Yeah, Katie, I'm kind of biting my tongue - and I haven't even read the article yet, lol!

I will say this - "genetic selection" mentioned above is a whole different thing than "genetic modification".

:)
Dee

Rock
As far as pricing, if people are willing to buy it at that price, then they should be able to sell it at that price. If the price precludes a grower from making a profit, then they will move on to cheaper seeds that allow them to make the margins they need to survive.

I certainly wouldn't argue that the fair market system shouldn't apply to the selling of seed but I wonder if you are aware of the following?
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, antitrust enforcers have intensified their probe of MonsantoÂs dominance in genetically modified seeds, ordering the company to turn over information related to its Roundup Ready trait in soybeans.

Monsanto has confirmed that the Department of Justice issued a formal request for information, which follows an informal probe begun by government lawyers last year. Monsanto declined to specify what information is being sought, but said it has provided access to millions of pages of documents and will continue to cooperate with the government.

According to the Post-Dispatch, this marks the first time the Justice Department has confirmed an investigation of possible anti-competitive practices in the seed industry.

Too be clear, I fully support further studies as to the impact. Regarding the genetic manipulation vs. selection, of course this is a distinction, but manipulation has been in place for decades, to the benefit of third world nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution.

As far as the anti-trust issues, this still doesn't relate to pricing in my example. If the price of the Gm seed did not justify the increased yield, then farmers wouldn't plant them, because they would be unable to hit their margins. There are a number of off-patent and open pollinated grains available for planting, but the yield advantages make growers gravitate to them.

To continue the discussion a few statements included in the NY Times article linked below that left an impression were;

But Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops. These crops are genetically engineered to be impervious to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds while leaving the crops unscathed.

Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate.

"Farmer practices may be reducing the utility of some G.E. traits as pest-management tools and increasing the likelihood of a return to more environmentally damaging practices," the report concluded. It said the problem required national attention.

Here is a link that might be useful: Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops

As far as pricing, if people are willing to buy it at that price, then they should be able to sell it at that price. If the price precludes a grower from making a profit, then they will move on to cheaper seeds that allow them to make the margins they need to survive.

This is the way the free market is supposed to work, but, sadly, it's a long way from what's actually happening in agriculture, here and overseas. Monsanto seed increases production, the market price of the crop (any crop) falls, and the farmer who tries using standard seed folds because his yields are so low compared to his neighbors'. Meanwhile Monsanto prices their seed based on the yield, to get every available nickel out of the farmer who does buy their seed.

Monsanto isn't doing this to help feed the hungry, of course; they exist to make a profit. That's just fine, but we've let them gain the upper hand; now they control too much of our agriculture, and we certainly can't trust them to use that power for the benefit of the food system.

Maybe our overall agriculture problem is that we have never paid people at an adequate rate for the labor needed to grow our food. This has opened the door for high tech systems that divert yet more of the total food dollar away from the grower and to large corporations. I don't see how this can end well!

I really hesitated to join this conversation. I could debate these types of things all day, but I greatly dislike presenting points without some type of data to support them, and I certainly don't have time right now to dig up statistics. But, before trashing my message I decided to post with the disclaimer that these are my thoughts based on past experience, and I cannot provide links to support them, etc. But, these are my thoughts.

Big business loves big government. Monsanto is powerful. It would be a miracle if the free market system actually applied to Monsanto. With government regulations and agencies on their side because of power, millions donated to politicians, it doesn't matter what the average joe or the struggling farmer thinks. Monsanto can call the shots. They purchase smaller competitors to get rid of competition, and they have plenty of hands in Washington, DC, supporting them. They, and other big corporations like them, do it partly in the name of the "public good."

I am reminded of the wonderful legislation that made it illegal to sell toys unless they had had extensive lead testing. Didn't matter how very rarely lead is found in toys. Mattel was a big proponent of this legislation. Why? Why would they support legislation that adds money to their total cost, drives up the price of their toys to consumers, and basically addresses a non-problem? Now it's illegal for thrift shops to sell second-hand toys unless they've been tested. Mattel just eliminated a huge industry that competed with them. I know of small publishers that had to trash their entire CD/DVD industry because they couldn't afford lead testing on their already-printed products. Some went out of business. When do babies chew on CD/DVD's enough to justify regulation? Some states have even said they are going to police/monitor garage sales to be sure no untested toys are sold at garage sales. Big $$ for Mattel if you can only legally buy new toys.

Same goes for Monsanto. I believe only in the free market, and I believe government manages to cause everything in which it is involved to decline. Monsanto isn't truly operating in an only-free-market system.

Politically I am a strong conservative. I used to champion private companies. Now in my old age I am seeing how large corporations are able to manipulate markets through their connections in government. I am greatly disturbed. Monsanto could do with some good competition, but it's hard to compete with a corporation so big they can control the people who make the rules.

It would also be a breath of fresh air if states would begin fighting/nullifying federal agricultural regulations that hurt their farmers but increase the market share of Monsanto and other ag companies like them. We as people have such a smaller voice in Washington, but sometimes our local reps listen to us.

I do worry about the escape of any potentially invasive imported plant and it sounds like the controls are pretty insufficiently tested. Additionally, on another listserve, this was mentioned in terms of wild fire danger. Apparently some types of Eucaluptus have a higher fire risk than other trees due to a iighly inflamable oil in the leaves. I couldn't find enough info to evaluate if this in fact was the kind that has that problem.

I have not read the whole thread here, but will come back in the morning to do so. I agree with Nandina's statements.

But what I want to add before I forget it, is you should read the book about the dust bowl survivors which came out last year I think. It was caused by the same kind of short sighted thinking--plant, harvest, make a fortune, and move on. What happened to the midwest led to even dust storms in NY and Boston. People dying of lung diseases. Not just cattle dying, but little babies too.

I worked for International Paper when it was a paternalistic company in the south, before it was reorganized in the days of Paul Gorman...the one who raided Penn Central before coming to the paper industry. IP used to be the largest private land owner in the US; next to the federal government, it had more acres than any. And LOTS of that land was in the south. They used to post their logo on their forests, but not so much any more. I thought they might be going away like all their paper mills were going away. But apparently they are just changing gears and keeping a lower profile. They had a good forestry research group, don't know what has happened to them of recent years, but I might call up a couple of my friends and find out.

I can understand why a paper company....actually NOT just paper....it is an owner of real estate and timber resources...would be interested in developing sources of power. Most old paper companies had the additional word POWER in their names, because they also operated their own power plants. So finding a reliable and cheapER source of power is in their own best self interest. And they are set up to deal with forests.

Definitely our USDA needs to keep a VERY close eye on this program. Environmental impact is probably far reaching and devastating to the land as well as the people residing here.
I live in Alabama, and it is a lovely green state. I'd hate to see us wind up with a wasteland. Would my neighbors even raise an eyebrow at this project? I doubt it. At least, not until it was too late.

But tomorrow I'll read all the other comments here.