By Anne Petermann and Heather Lee, Global Justice Ecology Project
Biotechnology corporations and the pulp and paper industry are advancing a new front in industrial forestry: gene-edited trees. After decades of public opposition and international decisions like the 2008 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) call for the Precautionary Approach regarding genetically modified (GM) trees, industry and researchers are now attempting to sidestep regulation—and public scrutiny—by redefining what counts as “genetic modification.”
Across Brazil, Chile, the United States, and beyond, researchers are using new gene-editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 to alter traits like wood density, growth rate, and lignin content. Because these edits can be made without inserting DNA from other species, corporations argue that such trees are not GMOs—and therefore escape regulations.
This framing is unscientific. Gene editing is genetic engineering. Artificial interventions into the genome can produce unintended mutations and unpredictable traits. Even small edits can ripple through the genome, altering gene interactions over time. In long-lived species such as trees, these risks multiply over decades, potentially destabilizing ecosystems, soils, and forest biodiversity.
The industry’s motive is clear: profit and control over forest resources. Companies such as Arauco in Chile and Suzano in Brazil are investing heavily in gene-edited eucalyptus for faster growth and easier processing into pulp, paper, bioenergy, and even bioplastics. These trees could expand industrial monocultures into new regions, accelerating deforestation and the displacement of Indigenous and rural communities.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)—whose certification is essential for access to global markets—continues to ban GM trees. Yet industry lobbyists are pressing the FSC to redefine GMOs in its policies to allow gene-edited trees. For now, the FSC is holding the line, confirming that gene-edited trees fall within its definition of genetic modification.
Meanwhile, corporate researchers are reframing public acceptance—not safety—as the main barrier. Chilean researcher Sofía Valenzuela recently stated, “Genome editing opens a new door for us to have these trees in commercial plantations.”
The push for gene-edited trees follows a familiar pattern: technological optimism masking social and ecological risk. The forestry industry’s promises of “sustainability” echo those made by the GMO crop sector—promises that instead led to deeper corporate consolidation, chemical dependence, and ecological harm.
In a major test case, FuturaGene, the biotechnology division of Suzano, has submitted to Brazil’s National Technical Commission for Biosafety (CTNBio) a request to exempt a gene-edited eucalyptus from regulation. The company claims the GM tree contains no foreign DNA and should be treated as “equivalent to a conventional plant.”
If CTNBio agrees, no biosafety assessments will be required, allowing the unregulated release of gene-edited GM trees and further eroding the legitimacy of international environmental governance under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The stakes are extraordinarily high. Releasing gene-edited trees could irreversibly alter forest ecosystems—spreading engineered traits into wild populations and threatening Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities whose lives and cultures depend on these ecosystems.
Forests are among the planet’s most complex and vital living systems. They must not become experimental fields for industrial biotechnology.
