Yet the latter was favorably cited by companies and largely accepted by regulators. Thus double standards have served to protect safety claims. By contrast 'a precautionary approach' can more readily identify scientific unknowns, while acknowledging the agricultural-environmental values which inform risk assessment. Therefore, a purely 'science-based' regulation can never be achieved. The choice is not between 'science versus politics', but rather between ways of linking them.
Many experts predict global or regional shortages of wood products in future decades.
While there is no unanimity about which approach would best supply the growing demand, many scientists, government agencies, and corporations have opted for a strategy based on short-rotation plantations. Genetically engineered trees are seen by some as enhancing the perceived ability of plantations to provide quantities of cheap wood fiber from intensively managed sites. However, it is far from clear that these touted benefits can be realized. The trees' ecological relationships are complex. Clearly, if GE trees can be used safely, it is only under conditions of high vigilance and with the application of complex and expensive management safeguards.