Drug Warriors Push Eye-Eating Fungus

USA -- Why are members of Congress advocating the use of a dangerous crop-killer in Columbia?

On April 16, the New York Times ran a full-page ad from contact lens producer Bausch and Lomb, announcing the recall of its “ReNu with MoistureLoc” rewetting solution, and warning the 30 million American wearers of soft contact lenses about Fusarium keratitis. This infection, first detected in Asia, has rapidly spread across the United States.

It is caused by a mold-like fungus that can penetrate the cornea of soft contact lens wearers, causing redness and pain that can lead to blindness—requiring a corneal replacement.

That same week, the House of Representatives passed a provision to a bill requiring that the very same fungus be sprayed in “a major drug-producing country,” such as Colombia. The bill’s sponsor was Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and its most vocal supporter was his colleague Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been promoting the fungus for almost a decade as key to winning the drug war.

The Colombian government has come out against it. And those entities of the U.S. government that have studied the use of Fusarium for more than 30 years don’t recommend it either: The Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar’s office, CIA, DEA, the State Department and the USDA have all concluded that the fungus is unsafe for humans and the environment.

“Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. … Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide,” wrote David Struhs, then secretary of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, in a 1999 letter rejecting the use of the fungus against Florida’s outdoor marijuana crop. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to control the spread of Fusarium species.”

Mutation of the fungus allows it to attack other “hosts.” The eye-eating Fusarium seems to be a result of such a mutation. After all, the soft-contact lenses that it grows behind are a recent development—having only been commercially available since 1971.

The DEA stopped funding Fusarium research in the United States during the early ’90s after it learned that Fusarium infections can be deadly in “immunocompromised” people—not only AIDS patients and those with other illnesses, but also those who are severely malnourished. The University of the Andes in Bogotá has recently reported that 12 percent of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Spraying this fungus on a vulnerable population could be perceived as using a biological weapon.

The CIA has been against the use of Fusarium to kill drug crops since at least 2000. At that time, one official told the Times, “I don’t support using a product on a bunch of Colombian peasants that you wouldn’t use against a bunch of rednecks growing marijuana in Kentucky.”

A top scientist from the USDA, which has studied the fungus the longest, said that his agency “cannot support” its use. And the State Department, whose Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement carries out drug crop eradication all over the world, does not support it, either.

In 2000, when Congress first passed “Plan Colombia,” the Colombian aid package that ordered the use of the fungus in Colombia, President Clinton waived the part of the bill that dealt with the fungus because he thought its use would be perceived as biological warfare. At the same time, the Andean Community of Nations, an organization comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, banned it within their territories.

So, who does support the spraying of the eye-eating fungus over other countries? Only a few adamant drug war jihadists in the House, led by Burton, who are frustrated by the lack of progress in the drug war.

The fungus provision has already passed the House, but the Senate version of the bill contains no similar language. Responsibility for a final decision rests on the conference committee where the House and Senate bills will be reconciled—scheduled to happen before this summer.

mold-like fungus
a "mold" is a fungus

The American Optometric Association states that the etiology of the disease is unknown
http://www.aoa.org/documents/FungalKeratitisSupplement.pdf

Fungi were isolated from 10 out of 159 cases of keratitis, 7 isolates of F. oxysporum, 2 isolates of F. solani, and one unidentified Fusarium species was identified
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12792470&dopt=Abstract

Plant pathogenic F. oxysporum species generally become systemic through the xylem of the plant, causing "wilt"-type diseases. Pathogenicity is presumed to be due to endopolygalacturonase activity, but the relationships are not entirely clear among the different forma speciales. This is usually identified based upon pathogenicity tests.

To say that the species mutates readily, is a bit disingenuous. Within a forma specialis, an isolate may mutate to form a new pathotype. For example, a formerly tomato plant resistant to the wild-type pathotype may then become susceptible to the new pathotype. I am certainly not aware of one forma specialis acquiring or mutating to pathogenicity to a forma specialis that is pathogenic to a new host plant.

Note to all crevos - leave me alone here.

ARS could not support release of the fungal strain, largely due to the fact that it was not effective for killing cannibis
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Magazines/operation_eradicate.html

Fusarium species, like all fungi, require moisture to grow. I can certainly imagine that behind a contact lens would be a great place to grow. Probably got some contamination in the cleaning solution, or that environment selected for a strain that could grow within the particular conditions in the solution/tears. Someone else may be able to elaborate on that.

People who are immuno-compromised tend to be prone to various fungal infections, so the presence of any specific fungal infection tends to be opportunistic, whereas the body would normally be able to resist. For example:
http://dermnetnz.org/fungal/fungi-general.html
To imagine that a plant pathogenic fungus would mutate to an active, rather than opportunistic human pathogen is a real stretch.

We are surrounded by hundreds or thousands of fungal species every day. Fungi are everywhere in the environment in which we live.

Despite the predisposition of immuno-compromized people to various fungi, the EPA has registered a non-mycotoxin-producing Aspergillus flavus for widespread release (over 20,000 acres) as a biocontrol of mycotoxin-producing types, so we have no real problems with widespread release of fungi for specific purposes.
http://www.cottonseed.com/members/NewsletterArchive/2003/20030709.asp

So overall, the article pulled out bits and pieces of truths and half truths, and strung them together to make a nice story that seemed to be a potential killer fungus that may cause eye infection, and that the mean old USA wanted to spray to kill pot and kids, but held off at the last minute because of the children. In reality, the fungus was not effective, and made for good politics by Columbia.

Sorry about my earlier post in which nothing was elaborated on. Hope this helps.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.