All this reminds me of the story told to children about the sky falling. There are two test(bio??) "farms" (actually I would call them plots)near us. Most all local farmers are aware and no one seems to care or even be all that interested. However, I guess it would give the hippies (is that still a active word?) in the city something to occupy there time. Anyway let the band play on.

Millet, think Starlink.

Guess I don't know enough about Ms. Plame to answer that, Marshall. Does she have to worry about walking out her front door and being gunned down by some whacko? Another question would be...is there enough available information to determine the whole story behind that outing?

Millet, it occurred to me that you might think Starlink is some 60's acid rock band. This should help distinguish the gm corn fiasco from the latter, with apologies to Jefferson Airplane (Starship).

Go Ask Millet

One maize makes you larger, and one maize makes you small
And the maize that Marshall gives you, don't do anything at all;
Go ask Millet, when he's ten feet tall.
And if you go planting bt soybeans, and you know you're going to fall;
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call;
To call Millet, when he was just small.
When the men in the boardroom get up and tell you where to go;
And you've just had some kind of gm potato, and your mind is moving low;
Go ask Millet, I think he'll know.
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead;
And the white knight is talking backwards;
And the red queen's off with her head;
Remember what the dormouse said,
Feed your head, feed your head

Good one, Althea! I could hear the tune playing in my head with your new words. They really fit.

Great adaptation, Althea!

Jason, because Ms Plame was a SECRET AGENT SPY working with covers, everyone doing business and otherwise interacting with her could be in danger in their homelands and elsewhere. Because she was a SECRET AGENT SPY, we really don't know whether or not she is in personal danger at home. It is a major federal crime to out an covert intelligence operator or operation. Do the same laws apply to agronomists? Should they?

Think "risk" and "personal responsibility".

EXCELLENT, Althea! An adaptation rich in...slick grace, hee-heee...thanks for the thread.

At the moment, I have mixed feelings about the ruling...it reminds that we are now on Jurassic earth, and nothing in this ruling or any later police state or nanny state, ever, will secure us from monstrosities of genetic manipulation-for-business (whether the "business" is the classic Yankee profit-pursuing kind, or the schemes of technologically sophisticated, genocidal nihilists or other nutcases)...so what can we really do now, besides start literally assassinating genius whenever it appears - but oh, no, there's that insane "preemption doctrine" that nobody wants to vote for, it seems...there are the usual dilemmas related to how to respect "privacy" and "private enterprise" while assuring that the "reasonably expected" public impacts of private behaviors are weighed justly in the interests of ALL who deserve "full disclosure" ("Can't an inventor work in peace?!" versus "Can't the rest of us have a little peace of our own?!").

Then thoughts turn inexorably to the Manhattan Project, work like that, and its aftermath. The "outing" ruling has a hint of "making fairness" to me. Does there have to be a way to make sure that those wielding the "power of knowledge" are thwarted at every turn "when necessary," from exploiting anyone's "bliss of ignorance?" (Is such a way achievable? I think not.)

Still, for example, if drug legalization keeps "moving forward," out of concerns for my own safety, I would like to know if my next-door neighbor has a crystal meth lab. The neighbor might also like to know I own and possess automatic small arms and live ammunition, and am a certified marksman with them. The "beat" of risks and "responsibilities" goes on...

Like I said Marshall....don't know enough about that specific story to comment.

"Certified marksman"? Certified by whom?

Ohh...by my targets...of course, they can't talk... Maybe a few "protected witnesses" are still alive...

I guess I was trying to poke a little fun at certified organic farms.

Plame's a big girl - justice for spies is less common than babies from mules. Pass any law you want, but to enforce it, fuhgeddaboudit.

Good point earlier, though, Jason, about "choice doctors" - works for militant clerics, for that matter...

stitches, I wish I could understand your expositions.

Stitches....can you or can't you answer MY question?

I think Forest_er says what he thinks, literally and instantaneously; stitches has moved into the entertainment field - with us as his albeit small audience.
Back to the subject: I think locations of biopharms should be made public (minimum - their immediate neighbors). They may have reason to be concerned.

Althea, that you very much, what a distinguished poem. I feel right proud. I have never had my name in verse before until today. Have you reserved all rights or am I free to copy, publish and market "my" poem? Also I had no idea what Starlink was, I had never heard of it before. Lastly, I really do not mean to be a schmo about the topic of Biofarming. I under stand that there is allways two sides to every issue. I can tell you that amoung the major farming community (at least in eastern Colorado) bio is viewed without any apprehension. Farmers look on biofarming as a promising future for agriculture that will bring a larger economic reward to the heartland than what the present agricultural market provides; especially for commodity farmers. I would say most all recent advances such round-up ready crops, and the various genetic altered seeds are readily accepted and valued highly. Our own farm planted the new ABOVE wheat which enabled us to spray it with BEYOND herbicide for the control of rye, which has been a big problem to all wheat farmers. Personally I do not know of a single farm (not one) that does not take advantage of producs such as Round-Up and many of the other Monsanto advances. Major American agriculture would look at many of the ideas expressed on forums such as this one as preposterous and comming from a sector of people out numbered 100,000 to one amoung the main stream. Farmers really pay no attention to city people telling them what thay can do, what they can use or how they should farm. The genetic future will come, and in fact has already started to arrive, and is being received with open arms and minds (at least with MAJOR agricultural America)..... Above said without any disrespect for divergent views. - Millet

Thanks all. Millet, I was hoping you would be honored.

Your Above wheat isn't transgenic, but developed by induced mutagenesis. This is not biopharming. Biopharming uses transgenic technology to produce plants having desireable pharamceutical properties, hence the nickname, biopharm. The FDA is very strict about control of traditional drugs. A biopharm accidentidal contamination would have serious consequences for the farmer whose crop was contaminated and also for any consumer who may not want or need the particular drug the plant carries.

Sorry to hear such disdain for city folks who are ultimately your customers. If you think urbanites have no influence on farming decisions, please explain why Monsanto withdrew rr wheat.

Stitches, I don't see controls as a case of scientific genius being shackled by regulations. Instituting as many safeguards as possible to protect the population should be the first consideration. Your reference to the Manhattan project isn't clear to me.

Althea, your remarks concerning Monsanto's withdrawl of its wheat is a point that I must in all honesty give you. As your argument is correct, however, it is merely a step backward where 10 steps forward have already been won. I well realize that ABOVE and BEYOND is a mutagenenic program, but was offered as an expmple of a helpful advance by science for agriculture. I realize that bio is the addition of a gene not normally found in a plant to cause a benefit here to fore unavalable to mankind. I also realize saafeguard must and are being taken, but I also realize that biofarming is here to stay and the objection of the few will only cause roadblocks and delay advancement. - Millet

Then why has Congress passed laws outlawing or greatly restricting company liability for bioag (and pharmaceutical) products if such products are so safe ? Why have some states passed and have applied laws against those questioning the safety of ag products? Why does Monsanto consistently win suits against farmers having even inadvertent patented genetic material present in their crop. Gene pollution seems not to be an actionable matter.

Of course products of genetic engineering are safe, is that why?

Marshall, I could not have conceived any stronger arguments in support of all the new and exciting advancements going on in American agriculture today (certainly including genetic engineering) than the ones you have so clearly advanced above. Thank you. Genetic engineering may well be the mother load for US farming, both corporate and private. The miracles that are now being engineered in the laboratories of science will come to fruition in American farm fields in the next 50 years has not even entered into the mind of man. - Millet

I have no doubt about that either, Millet; in fact, I am in principle in favor of such advances. I just wish the companies would give up current primitive and imprecise horizontal transfer methods and give up pushing mostly new lines of products resistant to proprietary chemicals. Even without transgenics, new varieties of crop plants can be engineered within genomes to resist pests, disease, poor weather, marginal moisture, and poorer soil nutrients. Many of the same micro-techniques used in transgenic work are applicable to in-genome work.

There's little money to be made from high yielding crops requiring ever reduced inputs of crop-promoting and crop-protecting materials. So, I'm not holding my figurative breath waiting for such advances.

What kind of a world will it be and what kind of message to we give our children if the high point of ag technology is spraying RU over 10s of millions of acres whether the weed pressures justify the spraying or not.

Oh, I forgot, we'll all be driving around in hermetically sealed rigs applying fertilizers, crop-protection materials, and programming altered irrigation schedules based on satellite sensor readings and GPS. We would therefore be finessing RU applications over those 10s of millions of acres. Sounds like an industrial process to me, one equally applicable to many areas of Asia.

Steve2416, entertainment aside, you summarized well some of my thoughts about biopharming rights, risks and responsibilities, and I appreciate it.

Geez Jason, whats this "can you or cant you"?? Let Perry Mason or Bill OReilly entertain with that. You have your answer. Now of course, all kinds of people are touchy about all kinds of notions of certified - whether the subject is certified organic whatever, certified marksmanship, certified environmentally safe genetically modified organisms, or certified elections in Venezuela or Florida.

Marshall, I, too, wish you could understand my expositions. Im convinced that somewhere across the Web and under your skin, theres another Rap just like me, just like theres another Marshall right over here, under these here fingertips. We are two seasoned voices singing most of the same notes in the same choir.

Althea, the Manhattan Project was conducted with great secrecy. Many participants believed the project intended great eventual public benefits even benefits in the "sense" of desired success in acts of war. At least several of the key participants, even amidst the secrecy, indicated strong conflicts within themselves about their work and its known, intended and unintended consequences. (Speaking of war, I still wonder: Did the 9/11 suicide pilots document their internal conflicts? Did they have any such conflicts?)

Sixty or so years later, many people of conscience ponder the Manhattan Project, and see parallels between it and transgenics of today. Its fair to speculate: What if every detail of the project had been made public from day one, such that Americans who desired, could (as opposed to the reality that they could not) at least try to hold accountable the agents of their government, plus all the individuals and entities supporting those agents? What then would the known, intended, and unintended consequences have been? After pondering that what-if, its fair to ask next: what lessons can we say nuclear technology history has taught us? How, if at all, can we apply those lessons to our greatest benefit today, in regard to the rights, risks and responsibilities inherent to biopharming or for that matter, in regard to the universe of enterprise involving knowledge of DNA whether the enterprise is entirely private, or government-supported? What if the recent Hurricane Charley has caused an unintended, unknown-for-now biospheric Chernobyl-scale (or worse) disaster?

Millets posts validate my earlier point about "Jurassic earth." (In case I am still being too vague in my reference to the movie Jurassic Park, I'll explain further, but only if someone asks.) I work closely with scientists and engineers almost every day. I know that for many of them, any regulation of their activity, any requirement for them to account for their work to anyone, is in their view an undue burden, a disastrous intrusion, a chilling threat, an unjustified presumption theyre doing something wrong, and ultimately a murderous smothering of their chosen work. "Red tape." ("How dare anyone infer were insensitive to our environment?! We just want to be left alone isnt that enough?!") And yet - once they desire to publish their work everybody had better stay out of their way then, too! How dare anyone question the whole worlds need to know everything the wannabe publishers want to disclose! Thats a snapshot of the "culture" of just the governments techies!

So when you combine that reality with the entirely private GMO work and the rural-vs.-urban power struggles Millet alludes to, the sum of risks is, I believe, worthy of alarm perhaps, worthy also of stronger grass-roots efforts at heirloom gardening.

Suns up, survival calls...

Stitches asks, "(Speaking of war, I still wonder: Did the 9/11 suicide pilots document their internal conflicts? Did they have any such conflicts?)"

Mohammed Atta left a "diary" concerning his thinking about what they were going to do 9/11. His thoughts were SO berift of internal conflicts as to be frightening.

Stitches, just wanted to let you know I started a comment on your post, but have been too busy to finish.

Getting back to the subject of this thread...in this case, the paper (regulatory) tiger called the FDA.

VIEWPOINTS: Report takes aim at biotech foods
By Todd Leake
Grand Forks Herald, Editorial
Sun, Aug. 22, 2004
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/9464244.htm

EMERADO, N.D. - We are eating genetically engineered foods that could do us serious damage in the long run.

A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences revealed gaping holes in the regulation and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. This should give us pause, considering we in the United States have been producing GE crops, such as soybeans, corn and canola, that wind up in many of the foods that we put on the table.

The academy, a science advisory body chartered by Congress, prepared the report for the federal agencies that regulate biotech crops and foods. The report says that those agencies and the Food and Drug Administration are falling behind the times and are not keeping up with advances in science.

It says they are not capable of spotting unplanned, manmade, adverse changes brought about in biotech foods or determining the human health effects of those changes. It concludes that we need more rigorous premarket testing and post-market surveillance.

This is what many other countries in the world have told the United States for years and is why they regulate, restrict or ban the importation of GE crops and foods from the United States.

The FDA's current regulatory process is a voluntary consultation between the biotech company that produced the genetically engineered crop or food and the FDA. Biotech companies voluntarily submit information of their choosing, and the FDA may ask questions about the material.

The FDA does no independent testing or analysis and makes no independent finding. The determination is based on the companies' own findings of safety and nutritional assessment. The FDA has no authority to deny or restrict the release of GE crops.

The report supports the argument that the FDA's process is worth less than a rubber stamp. The process makes no sense. The company makes all the decisions. The FDA cannot request or conduct its own specific scientific studies. In the end, it's just a recording mechanism for the biotech industry's approval of itself.

The FDA's process does not determine safety of GE foods. It does not conduct independent, science-based tests. In fact, in a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch story, a FDA spokesperson was quoted, "A safety declaration is not something we make" in regard to the review of GM crops.

Nevertheless, the FDA determined that Monsanto corporation's Roundup Ready wheat to be "substantially equivalent" to conventional spring wheat in late July, even though Monsanto shelved Roundup Ready wheat, stating that there was worldwide market resistance to it. Even so, this step toward the commercialization of GE wheat does not go unnoticed and does nothing to promote the reputation or market share of North Dakota spring wheat worldwide. That doesn't do North Dakota's economy any good, either.

Our overseas customers know the FDA's process does not assure safety. They will continue to refuse any GE wheat. North Dakota wheat growers' export markets remain in jeopardy unless the North Dakota Legislature protects our markets and farmers from untimely release of any GE wheat by passing legislation giving North Dakota the power to say if and when GE spring wheat would be grown.

Until this issue is dealt with at the federal level, North Dakota has to stick up for itself because nobody's going to do it for us.

Unfortunately, decision-makers in both Washington and Bismarck have tried to turn this issue on it's head by insisting that if a GE crop has not been proven harmful by FDA it must, therefore, be safe. This is what decision-makers and pro-biotech wheat organizations, supported by biotech dollars, have touted as the buzz phrase "sound science."

When all is said and done, when it comes to science, I'd rather listen to the National Academy of Sciences.

Leake is an Emerado farmer and member of the Dakota Resources Council.

So, it's true: The fox is guarding the henhouse!
That should make all of us pause and think, but I'll bet that 98% of Americans have no clue that the FDA is so powerless. I was one of them.

I'm an other one of them. I thought FDA approval meant they actually tested the products.

This is a genuinely good article, one of the most clear and well thought out critiques I've ever read. Hope it makes an impact on many others.

The fox is in charge of inventory control, silly!

Speaking of fox, I think Marshall made a reference to the FL Faux News case on another thread a short ime ago. Here is an update on the status of the case and a bit of background for anyone else who might not be familiar with it.

.....
This latest decision stems from a case filed in 1998 by former Fox journalists Akre and Wilson who charged they were pressured to broadcast what they knew and documented to be lies about an artificial hormone injected into dairy cows, then fired when they refused and threatened to report the matter to the Federal Communications Commission.

After a five-week trial in 2000, a jury decided unanimously that Akre was fired solely because she threatened to blow the whistle to the FCC the broadcast of a false, distorted or slanted news report. The panel that found in Akre's favor awarded nothing to Wilson who represented himself at trial.

The Fox appeal was largely on an argument that it is not technically illegal for a broadcaster to deliberately distort the news on television. The appellate justices reasoned that since state law provides whistleblower protection only for employees who object to misconduct which is against an "adopted law, rule, or regulation" and they decided prohibitions against news distortion are merely a "policy" of the FCC, the reporters' eight-year-old lawsuit must have been without merit from its
inception.

"The appellate judges were wrong to overturn the jury on the notion that it's not illegal for a broadcaster to lie in a television news report," Akre said.

"And what's even more shameful is that a broadcaster would argue that the First Amendment is broad enough to protect outright lies and deliberate distortion," Wilson added. "Remember this case the next time you hear `fair and balanced,' or `we report, you decide'."

In her ruling yesterday, Judge Maye noted, "Three different trial court judges believed this case had legal merit." Six times before Fox appealed its loss, those judges rejected that very same argument, deciding prohibitions against deliberate distortion of the news on the public airwaves was more than a mere violation of government policy.
.....

Oh My G! Faux News continues to demonstrate its twisted values and mean-spirit-ness. Ain't it just wonderful that while losing a case and having to pay a jury award, one can collect court costs far in excess of the award from the winning plaintiff, including the subsequent costs of appeal. I guess this is what is meant, in part, by "tort reform." Look for the day when awards are limited by legislation to a small fraction of the costs of bringing suit, that day being when people loose their effective right for judicial redress of claimed harm.

They decide then report?....or They distort then report? Ahhh, Fox, the thinking man's network. Does one need pre-approved tickets and a secret handshake to visit HQs?

Here is an interesting take on potential agri-bio-terrorism posted to another listserv by a bioscientist, Suzanne Wuerthele of the epa:

"It's good that there are new efforts to prevent the intentional
introduction of disease into farm animal populations.

But Hank Parker, USDA expert who wrote the report: "Agricultural
Bioterrorism, a Federal Strategy to Meet the Threat" for his agency (
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair65/01_toc.htm) concludes that it is
our cereal crops which are most at risk of intentional mischief.

What are agricultural authorities doing to make sure that grains
genetically modified to make drugs and industrial chemicals won't be
used against us?

Biopharm crops present a tempting target for terrorists. Just a few
bushels of a corn that makes an experimental drug, if sown in Iowa seed
corn areas, would when harvested, distributed to seed companies, and
planted by unknowing farmers, render the entire US crop unfit even for
animal consumption. That would ruin markets and livelihoods, to say
nothing of a possible public health emergency.

Amazingly, USDA does not require any guards around pharmfields, no
surveillance cameras, no fences. They think if they just don't publish
the locations of pharmfields in the Federal Register, no one can find
them. Surely some of the USDA officials who are allowing the open
planting of these crops know how word travels in rural areas. Yet, this
is their only safeguard.

Nor are there any plans to monitor the US grain supply for the novel
proteins and transgenes the pharmaceutical companies are adding to these
food crops. The exact nature of the additions are kept secret, too, so
seed companies can't test their own grain for contamination.

How ironic, if while everyone is working hard to keep crops
disease-free, GE pharmcrops were used to hurt us."

-------------------------------
An earlier contribution from her address the contentious WTO debate between the EU and the US on gmo food safety. The comment is worth repeating here:

"The essence of the trade argument is that the EU says there isn't
evidence that GE food is safe (and some preliminary data suggesting
otherwise), while the US says there isn't any evidence that it is
unsafe. It would seem that long-term safety testing of GE food is
indicated.

Isn't it strange that it hasn't been done?

One would think the big multi-national companies would be falling all
over themselves to produce long-term feeding studies which they could
wave under the noses of EU officials. They have the resources. They
are willing to do them to get conventional pesticides registered. Why
have they not done them for the GE crop-pesticides? True, they require
a different and complex protocol, but there are experts who could design
studies which everyone could agree in advance would answer the safety
questions.

Either the promoters of GE food are supremely confident that the US
Trade Representative can convince the WTO with the "absence of evidence
is evidence of absence" rationale, or (this is the conspiracy theory)
they've done studies and found that they do in fact raise questions
about safety.

Regulatory agencies could resolve the dispute by requiring the studies.
FDA and EPA have the authority. And now they have independent backing:
The National Academy of Sciences' new report: "Safety of Genetically
Engineered Food" acknowledges that GE foods have a higher probability of
unintended effects than conventionally-bred foods, and recommends that
new methods of identifying toxins in GE foods be developed. They even
recommend surveillance of people who are eating GE foods. Of course,
this isn't possible in the US, because epidemiologists can't identify
people who eat foods which are not labeled.

But controlled animal sudies are possible. When are we going to see the
data?"

Ain't genetic engineering wonderful! The Colombian drug lords have created a new and more productive coca plant resistant to Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides. So you cocaine abusers out there will now be using "recreational gmo." :)

Fri 27 Aug 2004
The New Scotsman

New super strain of coca plant stuns anti-drug officials

JEREMY MCDERMOTT IN BOGOTÁ

DRUG traffickers have created a new strain of coca plant that yields up to four times more cocaine than existing plants and promises to revolutionise Colombias drugs industry.

The new variety of coca, the raw material for cocaine, was found in an anti-drug operation on the Caribbean coast, on the mountainsides of the Sierra Nevada, long known as a drug-growing region.

Samples of the plant were sent for laboratory analysis and experts then pronounced drugs traffickers had developed a new breed.

"This is a very tall plant," said Colonel Diego Leon Caicedo of the anti-narcotics police. "It has a lot more leaves and a lighter colour than other varieties."

A toxicologist, Camilo Uribe, who studied the coca, said: "The quality and percentage of hydrochloride from each leaf is much better, between 97 and 98 per cent. A normal plant does not get more than 25 per cent, meaning that more drugs and of a higher purity can be extracted."

Experts estimate that the drugs traffickers spent £60 million to develop the new plant, using strains from Peru and crossbreeding them with potent Colombian varieties, as well as engaging in genetic engineering.

The resulting plant has also been bred to resist the gliphosate chemicals developed in the US that are sprayed on drugs crops across Colombia.

While traditional coca plants are dark green and grow to some 5ft, the new strain grows to more than 12ft.
[[[snip]]]

Hummmmm.....wasn't new coke already tried once ;o). vgkg

Marshall; That report by the National Academy of Sciences, how does one find it?

We (Calif. and ourselves) had the worst prune (excuse me, dried plum) crop in history, the earliest in history. One bin/acre was not uncommon...we figured that covered payroll and fuel...kept the full time employees busy. One day we covered 220 trees for the bin...a three dry ton crop equates to something of 7 trees.

Thanks for the help, David

I'm a bit unclear on which item you want. The web site for:

US National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change
A detailed overview of the consequences
of climate change and mechanisms for adaptation

is accessible through the hyperlink below.

==================================

Really sorry about your troubles with prunes. Down here the strawberry crops were devastated by the overly warm growing season; then the wine grape folks are complaining about poor quality and uniform ripening leaving a glut of lousy grapes on the market.

I personally am very good at planning and planting for market windows for vegetables but have had two winters when nearly every Fall-planted crop matured at the same time, regardless on the staggering of transplantings.

So you cocaine abusers out there will now be using "recreational gmo." :)

As long as they get the high, they won't care. Besides, it's probably as safe as the other chemicals that go into the "refining" process.

In reference to a much earlier post- you guys regard Starship as "acid rock"? Are you kidding? They were benign enough for children to watch.
Mrs H

"I'm a bit unclear on which item you want."

I suppose it would have helped to mention the article of interest..."Report takes aim at Biotech Foods, by Todd Leake; the editorial; "A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences revealed gaping holes in the regulation and safety testing..." I was hoping to find the report or a brief synopsis of some sort. Cannot seem to find anything of the sort in the NA of S web site.

Interesting you should mention the grapes and uneven ripening...that happened also in the prunes; of the few on the tree half were more than ripe and the other half needed a week to 10 days to go. About a week into harvest the soft stuff fell. Walnuts look real good though...David

David, you can read the whole thing online via the URL, the link below.

By the way, I am having a heck of a European and Asian Pear harvest this year. Very little brown rot or or bacterial pressures.

Thanks Marshall, don't know why I couldn't find it. But $31.50 and 256 pages...I'll trust the editorial (read the "skim(s)"). And no one has addressed the post in the other forum so, it appears, I won't have to defend it. The Coca article was classic. David

On the upper left side of the website, there is a link to free access to at least part of the report.

During my time in Peru, I saw a lot of backyard coca plants (and a few fields too). Some of the shrubs then were well over 5 feet tall (and funny hemp over 10 feet tall).

Nice segway from modifying crops to produce drugs to modifying drug crops.

Here's a follow-up on the Columbian strain of glyphosate resistant cocaine. I read the earlier article to mean the cocaine was engineered, but according to this one, it was a natural mutation. This is a long story. so I'll clip some essentials.

The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die The war on Colombia's drug lords is losing ground to an herbicide\-resistant supershrub. Is it a freak of nature \- or a genetically modified secret weapon? By Joshua Davis One possible explanation: The farmers of the region may have used selective breeding to develop a hardier strain of coca. If a plant happened to demonstrate herbicide resistance, it would be more widely cultivated, and clippings would be either sold or, in many cases, given away or even stolen by other farmers. Such a peer\-to\-peer network could, over time, result in a coca crop that can withstand large\-scale aerial spraying campaigns. But experts in herbicide resistance suspect that there is another, more intriguing possibility: The coca plant may have been genetically modified in a lab. The technology is fairly trivial. ((clip)) Perhaps they haven't been to La Hormiga. Everyone I talk to here knows about the resistant plant. Three hours after leaving the coca fields, I attend a meeting of two dozen heads of local farmer cooperatives \- they represent more than 5,000 farmers in Putumayo \- and they nod knowingly when asked about the new breed. "Nobody listens to us because they think we are dumb farmers," says one man. "The Americans are arrogant. They don't talk to the people who live here. We are the ones who are sprayed. We are the ones who live with the plants." ((clip)) Four weeks later, the scientist sends me an email saying that he has completed the DNA analysis and found no evidence of modification. He tested specifically for the presence of CP4 \- a telltale indicator of the Roundup Ready modification \- as well as for the cauliflower mosaic virus, the gene most commonly used to insert foreign DNA into a plant. It is still possible that the plant has been genetically modified using other genes, but not likely. Discovering new methods of engineering glyphosate resistance would require the best scientific minds and years of organized research. And given that there is already a published methodology, there would be little reason to duplicate the effort. Which points back to selective breeding. The implication is that the farmers' decentralized system of disseminating coca cuttings has been amazingly effective \- more so than genetic engineering could hope to be. When one plant somewhere in the country demonstrated tolerance to glyphosate, cuttings were made and passed on to dealers and farmers, who could sell them quickly to farmers hoping to withstand the spraying. The best of the next generation was once again used for cuttings and distributed. This technique \- applied over four years \- is now the most likely explanation for the arrival of Boliviana negra. By spraying so much territory, the US significantly increased the odds of generating beneficial mutations. There are numerous species of coca, further increasing the diversity of possible mutations. And in the Amazonian region, nature is particularly adaptive and resilient. "I thought it was unlikely," says Gressel, the plant scientist at the Weizmann Institute. "But farmers aren't dumb. They obviously spotted a lucky mutation and propagated the hell out of it." The effects of this are far\-reaching for American policymakers: A new herbicide would work only for a limited time against such a simple but effective ad hoc network. The coca\-growing community is clearly primed to take advantage of any mutations. A genetic laboratory is not as nimble. A lab is limited by research that is publicly available. In the case of Fusarium, the coca\-killing fungus and likely successor to glyphosate, there is no body of work discussing genetically induced resistance. If the government switched to Fusarium, a scientist would have to perform groundbreaking genetic research to fashion a Fusarium\-resistant coca plant. The reality is that a smoothly functioning selective\-breeding system is a greater threat to US antidrug efforts. Certainly government agents can switch to Fusarium and enjoy some short\-term results. But after a few years \- during which legal crops could be devastated \- a new strain of Fusarium\-resistant coca would likely emerge, one just as robust as the glyphosate\-resistant strain. The drug war in Colombia presupposes that it's eventually possible to destroy cocaine at its source. But the facts on the ground suggest this is no longer possible. In this war, it's hard to beat technology developed 10,000 years ago.

This last post of yours is a very interesting post, Althea.
The suggestion of fusarium oxysporum fungus to combat cocoa growing is not good. Fusarium wilt in watermelons is something that has been battled for many years with 3 races of the fungus now known. No totally resistant varieties have cropped up that I know of.

Hmmmm... Nice short story. I like the "Chucky" symbolism of US cultural imperialism to accompany the "aw shucks" attitude about US chemical warfare against a peasant agrarian society.

In other words, I am sceptical. The drug lords would not sit around passively while the US/Colombian military destroyed the basis for its business. I know of no weed that managed to develop resistance to glyphosate in a single generation. Mpdern plant breeding using (genetic) marker assistance techniques to identify designed genetic traits. If glyphosate-resistance exists in the genome of the coca plant, such techniques can identify, isolate, and reproduce that genetic material found within the coca gene pool. Thousands of plants can be cell-generated. If the Colombian "scientist" had tested and analyzed the DNA profiles of multiple samples, I might have been more inclined to accept this story.

Coca is a perennial shrub reproduced vegetatively or from seed. In Peru (years ago) farmers in the Tingo Maria area mostly planted from seed when growing coca for their and local uses as part of family farming. Better plants were used to expand planting as rooted cuttings. As the drug gangs came to dominance, the gangs distributed better strains as rooted cuttings. It's tough to start soft woody cutting directly in farm soil.

Marshall, what are you concluding? That there are likely no resistant strains to glyphosate and the whole story is a wild goose chase? Or perhaps there are gm plants? or....?
I have read where marajuana is far more potent with "improved" strains today than 30 years ago.

Wayne, I conclude there is no good evidence either way. OTOH the drug leaders would not remain passive while their sources of coca were killed off by glyphosate. We know that over the past decades, the potency of coca alkaloids have been increased by at least programs of selection and extension service to growers. I suspect that this multi-trillion dollar business would develop advanced R&D capabilities when pressured by chemo-eradication of coca crops.

The article read like a good war story but reported neither good science nor credible results. Our "Chucky" was sent out on his own to collect samples of the RR-Bolivian negra plants. We have no confirmation that he actually collected that variety. Why didn't the author collect samples while he was touring the reputed fields of RR-coca?

In spite of what the author wrote, other sources I've read report that the coca farmers have taken to growing the shrubs in scattered low-density plots to avoid spectral targeting by remote sensing technology from aircraft. The vast(?) fields of coca plants that he saw may well be the new variety but whether the plants are gmos we still don't know conclusively.

A tall tale? Definitly long on speculation, short on facts and inconclusive, not to mention melodramatic. However, "Chucky" was interviewed on public radio last night which gives his story an aura of credibility. No one asked if Monsanto would sue a drug cartel for rr patent infringement, if it was discovered to be a ge'ed strain.

"Chucky" the tacturn body guard and former coca-leaf harvester from a frontier town in guerrilla-controlled jungles on US public radio? Why not the mayor or heads of the farmer association?

If this was Chucky, the interview may have confirmed that our intrepid reporter was there doing what he wrote. The devil is in the details.

Yes, live on US public radio. But, the show "The World" is a co-production with the BBC, so that could explain it. Maybe those others will demand equal time. He wasn't upfront with any detail. When asked about the scientist who ran the tests, he could only say the individual was well qualified but asked to not be identified and "Chucky" felt he should protect his sources I guess.

The journalist, J. Davis, is not "Chucky", a name he applied to the Mayor's bodyguard who was sent back to the coca fields to collect the samples for Davis. These samples were in part tested using reactive strips (negative) and "smuggled" back to the city for the unknown scientist to run more thorough tests. The "chain-of-custody" protocol stinks. The drug-sniffing dogs working the airline baggage (and backpack loaded with coca leaves) must have been having a bad day too. Would make a great screen play for an action film.

Oh, sorry. I have the cast confused before the screen play has even been written. ~(

I thought his wrapping the leaves in his dirty socks & ziplock bags outwitted the dogs.

I'm hoping this is a significant setback for continuing efforts to experiment with pharm crops.

Published on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 by the Associated Press Beer Giant Says it Won't Buy Rice from States That Grow GM Crops WASHINGTON \-\- Anheuser\-Busch Cos., the nation's No. 1 buyer of rice as well as its largest brewer, says it won't buy rice from Missouri if genetically modified, drug\-making crops are allowed to be grown in the state. The St. Louis\-based beer giant, which says it is concerned about possible contamination, is the latest company to express concern over plans by Ventria Biosciences to grow 200 acres of rice engineered to produce human proteins that can make drugs. \[snip\] Last month, Arkansas\-based Riceland Foods Inc., the world's largest rice miller and marketer, asked federal regulators to deny a permit for Ventria's project, saying Riceland's customers don't want to risk buying genetically modified rice. Anheuser\-Busch is believed to be the first major company to threaten a boycott over the issue, according to comments filed last month with the Agriculture Department. "Given the potential for contamination of commercial rice production in this state, we will not purchase any rice produced or processed in Missouri if Ventria introduces its pharma rice here," Jim Hoffmeister, a vice president at Anheuser\-Busch, said Tuesday.

Cheers!