A Biological Apocalypse Barely Averted. What About Next Time?

Raiders News ^ | July 9, 2003 | John Robbins

[NYer]

These [genetically engineered] products are absolutely safe. For the most part you wouldn't know [if you were eating them] but the point being that you wouldn't need to know.

- Bryan Hurley, Monsanto spokesperson

     There is a great deal of controversy about the safety of genetically engineered foods. Advocates of biotechnology often say that the risks are overblown. "There have been 25,000 trials of genetically modified crops in the world, now, and not a single incident, or anything dangerous in these releases," said a spokesman for Adventa Holdings, a UK biotech firm.

     During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate George W. Bush said that "study after study has shown no evidence of danger." And Clinton Administration Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that "test after rigorous scientific test" had proven the safety of genetically engineered products.

     Is this the case? Unfortunately not, according to a senior researcher from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Jane Rissler. With a Ph.D. in plant pathology, four years of shaping biotechnology regulations at the EPA, she is one of the nation's leading authorities on the environmental risks of genetically engineered foods. Dr. Rissler has been closely monitoring the trials and studies.

      "The observations that 'nothing happened' in these... tests do not say much," she and her colleague Dr. Margaret Mellon (a member of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology) write. "The field tests do not provide a track record of safety, but a case of 'don't look, don't find.'"

     When scientists actually look, what they see can be terrifying. A few years ago, a German biotech company engineered a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticola, to help break down wood chips, corn stalks, wastes from lumber businesses and agriculture, and to produce ethanol in the process. It seemed like a great achievement. The genetically engineered Klebsiella bacterium could help break down rotting organic material and in the process produce a fuel that could be used instead of gasoline, thus lessening the production of greenhouse gases.

     It was assumed that the post-process waste could be added to soil as an amendment, like compost. Everybody would win. With the approval of the EPA, the company field tested the bacterium at Oregon State University.

     As far as the intended goals were concerned - eliminating rotting organic waste and producing ethanol - the genetically engineered bacterium was a success. But when a doctoral student named Michael Holmes decided to add the post-processed waste to actual living soil, something happened that no one expected. The seeds that were planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single one of them died.

     What killed them? The genetically engineered Klebsiella turned out to be highly competitive with native soil micro-organisms. Plants are only able to take nitrogen and other nourishment from the soil with the help of fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi live in the soil and help make nutrients available to plant roots. But when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without healthy mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can survive.

     It is testimony to the amazing powers of science that researchers were able to track the mechanism by which the genetically engineered Klebsiella prevented plants from growing. There are thousands of different species of microorganisms in every teaspoon of fertile soil, and they interact in trillions of ways.

     But the scientists discovered something else in these experiments, something that sent chills down their spines. They found that the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil, raising the possibility that, had it been released, the genetically engineered Klebsiella could have become established - and virtually impossible to eradicate.

      "When the data first started coming in," says Elaine Ingham, the soil pathologist at Oregon State University who directed Michael Holmes' research on Klebsiella, "the EPA charged that we couldn't have per-formed the research correctly. They went through everything with a fine tooth comb, and they couldn't find anything wrong with the experimental design - but they tried as hard as they could... If we hadn't done this research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for commercial release."

     Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. "The genetically engineered Klebsiella," he says, "could have ended all plant life on this continent. The implications of this single case are nothing short of terrifying."

     Meanwhile Monsanto and the other biotech companies are eagerly developing all kinds of genetically modified organisms, hoping to bring them to market. How do we know if they're safe? According to Suzuki: "We don't, and won't for years after they are being widely used.''

     It's not a prospect that helps calm the nerves and restore confidence in our collective future. Surely, I've wanted to believe, when the chips are down, scientists and researchers would never do anything that would jeopardize life on Earth. Surely, the people who run these companies - and the government officials who oversee them - would never allow something that dangerous to occur.

     But then again, this wouldn't be the first time that corporations like Monsanto have brought us new products they promised would make life better for everybody and that turned out to do something very different. This is the same company, after all, that brought us PCBs and Agent Orange. Even the product the company was originally formed to produce, the artificial sweetener saccharin, was later found to be carcinogenic.

     Of course, Monsanto tells us that this time we don't have to worry.

GE Crops Can't Be Contained
A test conducted by the Wall Street Journal found that 16 of 20 vegetarian foods labeled as being "free" of genetically engineered products actually contained GE soybeans. As Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, noted: "You cannot build a wall high enough" to prevent genetic pollution of wild and organic crops.

     In August, a team of Belgian researchers were surprised to discover that Monsanto's GE soybeans contained "a DNA segment... for which no sequence homology could be detected." "No one knows what this extra gene sequence is [or]... what its effects will be," said Greenpeace-UK's Doug Parr. "If Monsanto did not even get this most basic information right, what should we think about the validity of all their safety tests?"

[NYer]

But when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without healthy mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can survive.

Yet one more example of Frankenfood .

[Support Free Republic]

She wants to look her best for her subjects.
>	Make a fashion statement. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[NYer]

"Genetically Engineered Corn Not Approved for Human consumption Found in Taco Bell Brand Taco Shells"

FULL TEXT

[palmer]

Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. "The genetically engineered Klebsiella," he says, "could have ended all plant life on this continent. The implications of this single case are nothing short of terrifying."

Sounds like junk science. For one thing the bacteria would have to spread and there's no spreading mechanism mentioned.

[palmer]

As I suspected, this "Geneticist David Suzuki" has his own foundation to push global warming and other liberal junk science causes.

[TomB]

Not to mention this:

according to a senior researcher from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Jane Rissler.

This group is about as far left as you can get, and were pioneers in the use of junkscience.

[forsnax5]

Plants are only able to take nitrogen and other nourishment from the soil with the help of fungi called mycorrhizae. These fungi live in the soil and help make nutrients available to plant roots.

I know soil fungi are helpful, but I don't think they're absolutely necessary. Common vegetables, for example, can be grown in water very easily (hydroponics).

[TomB]

You can believe your junkscientists, I'll continue to believe Norman Borlaug:

Science vs. Hysteria

[ArrogantBustard]

That was where I stopped taking it seriously...

[TomB]

Any of the pointy-heads out at Woods Hole have a comment on this?

[TomB]

Looks like the article left out some important information:

So what conclusions can be drawn from the work of Holmes and Ingham? The introduction of bacteria, genetically engineered or not, will have transient influences on the resident microflora as would have any introduction of organic matter. There was no influence of the recombinant strain SDF20 on the bacterial and fungal biomass or on the activity of the native biomass. The number of bacterial-feeding nematodes was even higher after the introduction of the no-recombinant parental strain SDF15 than after the introduction of the recombinant strain SDF20. The recombinant strain SDF20 shows the same environmental survival as the non-recombinant parental strain SDF15. The only negative effect seen was the killing of wheat by the recombinant strain SDF20 in low organic, sandy soil but not in high organic matter soil. The same killing effects occurred after the edition of ethanol instead of strain SDF20. So the killing of wheat seedlings by SDF20 in low organic matter soil is due to the production of ethanol by strain SDF20 and not due to any other unrecognised effect caused by the application of genetic engineering techniques.

[tje]

Seems to me that the testing is working... I know it's hard for some people to accept, but having things fail is a good thing.

[Rodney King]

. The seeds that were planted in soil mixed with the engineered Klebsiella sprouted, but then every single one of them died.

So? There are an endless number of substances that will kill plants if mixed into the soil. Somewhere back in history, humans learned not to put salt on their soil. Are you saying that we wouldn't have learned not to dump this stuff on our soil?

But when the genetically engineered Klebsiella was introduced into living soils, it greatly reduced the population of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. And without healthy mycorrhizal fungi in soils, no plants can survive.

Yeah, so. Mixing the resin from your bong into soil probably won't help it much either.

It is testimony to the amazing powers of science that researchers were able to track the mechanism by which the genetically engineered Klebsiella prevented plants from growing. There are thousands of different species of microorganisms in every teaspoon of fertile soil, and they interact in trillions of ways.

Yeah, yeah, it killed all the microorganisms. Bleach will do that as well, which is why you don't pour it into your garden.

But the scientists discovered something else in these experiments, something that sent chills down their spines. They found that the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil, OK, so like salting the fields, the destruction to the microorganisms is lingering. Which is why we don't salt fields. Nor would we pour this stuff on our fields.

raising the possibility that, had it been released, the genetically engineered Klebsiella could have become established - and virtually impossible to eradicate.

Why? does it travel? How about the stuff that this guy released to test on? Is it now travelling the world?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Fanatastic job. Just when I start to slowly think "What is wrong with this picture?" A fantastic freeper such as you SHOWS me.

[Rodney King]

The only negative effect seen was the killing of wheat by the recombinant strain SDF20 in low organic, sandy soil but not in high organic matter soil. The same killing effects occurred after the edition of ethanol instead of strain SDF20. So the killing of wheat seedlings by SDF20 in low organic matter soil is due to the production of ethanol by strain SDF20 and not due to any other unrecognised effect caused by the application of genetic engineering techniques

Bingo! So let me get this straight: The stuff was designed to produce ethanol. Any of us could have guessed that pouring ethanol on your crops is not a good idea, and therefore putting this stuff in the soil where your crops are is not a good idea. It sounds to me like the microbiologists produced exactly what they wanted to. What's next, is somebody going to discover that the seedless watermelon will hurt if drooped off of a building on to your head and then proclaim that the things are dangerous to the world?

[TomB]

The more you dig, the worse it looks for you and this author:

Greens and Ingham apologise to Royal Commission

Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand

Amendment to evidence presented to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Genetic Modification

Due to new facts coming to light since the presentation of our evidence on 01 February 2001, the Green Party wishes to amend its evidence as follows:

1. The Green Party incorrectly cited a paper that it has since discovered in a literature search does not exist. The paper was cited as Holmes M and E R Ingham (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content, Applied Soil Ecology 3:394-399. The Green Party accepts that this reference is wrong and apologises to the Commission for misleading it.

2. We would like to correct the statement in paragraph 39 on page 29 of our evidence that the genetically engineered bacterium has been approved for field testing. The Green Party accepts there are no records indicating that field testing approval was ever given. This has been confirmed to us by Professor Terri Lomax at Oregon State University.

3. In addition, the Green Party would like to request that the Commission disregard the final sentence in paragraph 39, recognising that this statement goes beyond the published literature.

4. The Green Party also would like to make clear in regard to the same paragraph, that the published literature shows that when a genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola was added to one particular type of soil with plants, plants unexpectedly died. The correct reference for this paragraph is MT Holmes, ER Ingham, JD Doyle, CS Hendricks "Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil" Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) 67-78.

5. This is an example of an unanticipated effect from the introduction of a genetically engineered organism. It should be taken to say no more nor less that that. The Green Party does not believe the published research so far supports the further conclusion that the likely effect of allowing a field trial of the genetically engineered bacterium to go ahead would have been to destroy all terrestrial plants.

6. Finally the Green Party would like to apologise to the Royal Commission for providing incorrect information in error, and thank them for allowing us to set the record straight.

Jeanette Fitzsimons

Co-leader of the Green Party




Dear Sir Thomas and Commissioners,

I gave evidence before you on 01 February on behalf of the Green Party. I would like to make the following corrections to my evidence:

1. I was incorrect in stating that the specific genetically engineered Klebsiella Planticola I was talking about had been approved for field trails and was going to be released. I had received this information from third party sources and was mistaken about it.

2. In my written and oral presentations I inadvertently cited a paper co-authored with Michael Holmes which to the best of my knowledge has not been published. I accept and apologise for this error.

3. I stand by the conclusion of the paper co-authored with Michael Holmes et al "Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil" Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) 67-78, which states "further investigation is needed to determine the extent these observations may occur in situ but this study using soil microcosms was the first step in assessing potential for the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms to result in ecological effects". I believe further research can and should be carried out in the laboratory and not in the field.

4. I would like to make clear that the possibility of destruction of terrestrial plants that I referred to as an outcome of releasing this organism is an extrapolation from the laboratory evidence. It is one possible scenario, based on the findings that introducing the genetically engineered bacterium into this type of soil killed or harmed plants. There are other possible scenarios which could occur, we need more data to be able to make a clear judgement on the most likely outcome.

5. I would also like to clarify that soil tests I set out are intended to indicate the kinds of soil tests which could be carried out to determine the effects of introducing genetically engineered organisms into the soil, based on the soil tests I am familiar with. I am not suggesting this is a definitive set of methods for analysing the effects of genetically modified organisms on soil.

I would be grateful if the Royal Commission could take account of this correction when considering my evidence.

Yours sincerely

Dr Elaine Ingham

[cdrw]

To me the issue here is risk versus reward. Leaving all the political entanglements out of it (and there are clearly many), the risks highlighted in this article are very real. However confident we may be in the EPA and agribusiness (not) it will take just ONE oversight like the one described in the article to trash the planet. I understand there were similar concerns regarding nuclear research back in the Manhattan project days (they feared a potentially unstoppable nuclear chain reaction the could consume the planet) but we had a compelling reason to pursue and manage those risks as it would have been suicidal to allow axis victory. In this case the benefits of GE crops can only be considered incremental in light of the catastrophic risk that just once, maybe next year, maybe five years from now, maybe 20 years from now, some company will rush a product to market and make a mistake the entire planet will pay for in eternity.

The arguments I've heared in favor of GE crops all sound to me like marketing campaigns for the crop developers. Most of the arguments against sound like the usual fanaticism coming from the environmental / closed market crowd. I have not taken the time to do independant research on specific GE products / impact studies ... I don't have time. But I do understand that naturally occuring genetic sequences have take hundereds of millions of years to evolve in the environment and I am educated enough to know that no amount of science can ever predict with certainty that a melt down as desribed in this article can not occur.

I am as free market and capitalist as they come and I DO NOT believe we should be releasing ANY GE ANYTHING into the environment. And yes I am American.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

...raising the possibility that, had it been released...

In other words: it wasn't released, the process works, it's big screams over a little mouse.

In other news: scientists have raised the possibility that, if a person was to consume 10 gallons of water in one sitting, that person would quite possibly lower the pH value of his/her bloodstream to fatal levels. Egad! Time to ban water!

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

I am as free market and capitalist as they come and I DO NOT believe we should be releasing ANY GE ANYTHING into the environment. And yes I am American.

It's not your nationality I question. Only your knowledge and powers of reasoning...

[TomB]

See post 16.

This whole thing gets weaker by the minute.