______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Genetically Modified Rhizobium a BIG CONCERN !!!
Author: clarkjd@server.multipro.com at cclink
Date: 1/19/98 6:51 PM
January 18, 1998
Hello Folks,
As you walk, it moves and grows. When you step on the earth where it
has been introduced, it is on your feet. It will be in the White House
lawn, in the White House Blue Room, everywhere. Chelsea will take it to
Stanford in the fall. Genetically modified (GMO) Rhizobium bacteria
will pollute the world within 7 years. Genetically modified Rhizobium
will profit no one and has the real potential for disrupting the entire
earth eco-system. It is time to halt and with valid and quality
information rethink our future.
As an organic farmer and a citizen, I went to DC two years ago to
testify against the introduction of genetically modified Rhizobium
bacteria into the environment through inoculation of legume planting
seed. It is now on the agenda for spring 1998 planting which starts two
weeks from now in Texas.
Rhizobium bacteria take nitrogen out of the atmosphere which is composed
of 80% nitrogen. This process is called nitrogen "fixation" among
organic farmers. Rhizobium bacteria, actually growing within the plant
root cell walls in a synergistic relationship, provides nitrogen to
surrounding plants. Nitrogen is the essential and often limiting
building block for protein production in plants, and therefore
ultimately other life who consume the living or dead plants.
On land, to my knowledge, there are really only two methods for
extracting and converting nitrogen from the atmosphere for plant growth
(and ultimately all other life growth): lightning/precipitation and
microbiological action, a large part of that being legume nitrogen
"fixation." All other life, ocean, plant and animal growth,
microbiology, all other forms of life depend on these two natural
occurrences for the ultimate conversion of nitrogen from the atmosphere.
A cow may produce nitrogen rich manure, but it only comes from eating
plants, which receive their nitrogen from a combination of these two
basic conversion processes.
Building on Ms. Suzanne Wuerthele historical understanding, Rhizobium
bacteria have been doing their job since life on earth began. In fact,
they may have been the first life on earth. Rhizobium bacteria were
used by humans in legume based crop rotations for thousands of years in
every part of the world. Legume based crop rotations were perfected by
the anti-baptist, present day Mennonites and Amish, etc. in the
fifteenth century and are today the foundation of organic and all
regenerative based farming. It was only seventy-five years ago the
scientific community validated the primary role of Rhizobium bacteria in
providing nitrogen to annual and succeeding crop growth. Rhizobium
bacteria are essential to all life on earth and a, really the, critical
component in world agricultural ecology health.
In the long run, the proposed introduction of this genetically modified
bacteria into the environment would initiate the most unheralded
experiment (we cannot begin to call it scientific) on the earth since
the first interaction of basic elements and electromagnetic impulses
that produced the first bacteria. Corporate/government labs have
introduced an extra set of genes for the enzyme that fixes nitrogen into
a natural bacteria. This genetic modification has the potential for
upsetting the environmental balance
beyond anything introduced by humans up to now, including nuclear
weapons, which are much easier to control. Ms. Suzanne Wuerthele well
describes the scientific basis for such introduction--simply none.
Rhizobium bacteria "fixing" of nitrogen is the most basic biological
process used to produce the world's human food and fiber supply. It is
regenerative and controllable by humans. Legume nitrogen fixation, in
farming practice, legume based rotation, makes possible sustainable
agriculture. The nitrogen generated provides food and fiber, trees, the
ocean and plants of all kinds with the building blocks of health--
available nitrogen--to make protein. In turn, all other life, including
microbiology, earthworms, birds, insects, animals and humans are all
dependents on the work of Rhizobium bacteria for their nitrogen needs.
To introduce human modified nitrogen "fixing" bacteria that "fixes"
three times more nitrogen than natural bacteria and that are resistant
to two valuable disease preventing bacteria provides the potential of
disrupting the entire earth eco-system.
Questions asked are:
What happens when increasing amounts of nitrogen over normal amounts are
taken out of the atmosphere, or increased amounts of nitrogen are
introduced in the soil? What happens when the soil ecology is upset by
a new race of man-made bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics used in
farming and by humans to cure or prevent disease? By introducing such
bacteria into the soils of our earth, are we not opening the door to
modifying radically the nutrient flow
structure of the earth? What is the effect of synthetically derived
antibiotic resistant bacteria being introduced in the soil ecology? What
happens when the recent discovery that bacteria can exchange genetic
material without reproduction occurs between the genetically modified
Rhizobium bacteria and other types of bacteria? What is the cumulative
effect of such bacteria spreading by footprints throughout the world?
What will be the effect when this mutant bacteria enters the water
tables and interacts?
The US Administration through its environmental office, EPA, has decided
to allow the introduction of these genetically modified bacteria into the
US environment. EPA is proposing introduction of a mutated bacteria they
are ill qualified to make judgement on. How did this occur: A business
petitioned for commercial introduction of the genetically modified
bacteria. EPA, by law, had to respond and did publish the proposal for
public comment in the Federal Register, held a public meeting and seems
to have thought about introduction
of this bacteria the way they attempt to assess pesticides--without the
most experienced and qualified people providing testimony--experienced
farmers, organic farmers, soil microbiologist, ecologist,
bacteriologist, etc. were never consulted in depth. The consequence is
the potential introduction of an ecological catastrophe.
Every step a person takes that contacts such bacteria can and will
transfer the genetically modified bacteria to where the following steps
are made - to the next field, into the house, on the plane and out of
the country. Geometric progression indicates it may only be 7 or less
years before the bacteria is worldwide. Once the progression begins,
there is no control possible without declaring the bacteria a pest and
introducing new, at the present undeveloped, pesticides to control it on
a worldwide basis. The Administration allowing the introduction of
these genetically modified bacteria is unconscionable.
It is time for US citizens to stand in the gap. The gap between
governmental approval of genetically modified Rhizobium bacteria and it's
use in the fields this spring. The use of genetically modified Rhizobium
bacteria is potentially distorting the future soil health for all
citizens of the world, of potentially sending the US and world soil
ecology into a whirlpool of defensive battle between bacteria. Sounds a
little extreme? At the bacteria level, it is for real--there will be a
war for survival. The implications to humans, the environment, are not
clear or even diagnosed. The gain to humans
by introducing this genetically modified bacteria is unsubstantial,
unsubstantiated and an extreme risk. We have done well without it for
10,000 years of agriculture and 300,000,000 years of life, why introduce
it in the spring of 1998?
I encourage all of us to seek more information and move to calling,
writing, emailing your Congressional Representative. I believe it is
essential to use every legal means possible to stop the EPA supported,
corporate introduction of synthetically derived, mutant Rhizobium soil
bacteria. Congressional action and investigation plus an injunctive
relief should be sought immediately. Who ever is preparing to market
these products to the farming sector needs to cease and desist. The
issue needs to become a national discussion.
I stand to be corrected on any of these points, but it appears to me
that Oprah, whoever, publicly needs to discuss this very important issue
and about to happen world event.
Best Regards,
Eric Kindberg, organic farmer for 24 years.
Hello, I'm Suzanne Wuerthele, and I am afraid that
my introduction will not bring you any comfort. I
have a B.S. in Biology, a Master of Arts in
Teaching Science, a Ph.D. in Pharmacology seven
years of post-doctoral work and I'm a
Board-certified toxicologist. I've worked in one
of the regional offices of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for 13 years, and am considered
a "national expert" in toxicology and risk
assessment. I provide information on the potential
harm to humans from chemicals for EPA's pesticide,
toxics and air programs. I'm also an expert
witness in enforcement cases and have opportunity
from time to time to shape national policy on risk
assessment in EPA.
I was introduced to GE a few years back when I was
shown the "risk assessment" for a GE
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, Rhizobium meliloti. EPA
was reviewing it for environmental release. R.
meliloti had been given an extra set of genes for
the enzyme which fixes nitrogen, genes to help it
produce extra internal energy and a gene
conferring resistance to the antibiotics
streptomycin and spectinomycin. It's supposed to
be coated on alfalfa seed in an effort to boost
yields (farmers have used the wild strain of this
bacteria for about 75 years as "insurance" that
they will get good yields; some people think it's
effects are imaginary).
It was instantly apparent to me that my colleagues
in our HQ office in Washington did not know what a
risk assesment was, as this one was simply a few
pages of speculation that this organism would be
harmless. It didn't address issues like whether
or not this would alter the ecology or fertility of
the soil, or cause increases in
antibiotic-resistant organisms. It contained only
the results of a couple of field trials on
nitrogen fixation which were equivocal. The basis
for approval was that "the parent organism has
been used without ill effect". The staff which
reviewed the application had no idea why I was
concerned; they thought this organism would be
"green" technology because it would presumably
reduce the need for fertilizers.
To make a long story short (for more details,
contact me at wuerthele.suzanne@epamail.epa.gov),
we wrangled over this for a couple of years, and I
learned some very disturbing things about
regulation of GE:
o EPA has an official position of "fostering"
biotechnology.
o There is no process - across all U.S. federal
agencies - to evaluate the hazards of GE
organisms (We have such a process for chemicals,
and it works pretty well). For GE, however, no
formal risk assessment methodologies. No
science policies (These are positions you take
on unresolved issues. For example you might
decide to consider a chemical to be carcinogenic
by all routes of exposure if you only know for
sure it causes cancer by inhalation). No
conferences where scientific issues of GE are
debated. No understanding of the full range of
hazards from GE organisms. No discussion of or
consultation with the public to determine what
consititutes "unacceptable risk". No method to
even measure magnitude of risks. Etc, etc.
In the U.S., each risk assessment for GE
organisms is done on an ad hoc basis by different
scientists in different departments of different
agencies. Some of these agencies have
conflicting missions - to promote and to
regulate; to consider "benefits" as well as
risks". There is rarely any formal peer review.
o When peer review panels are put together, they
are not necessarily unbiased. They can be
filled with GE proponents or confined to
questions which avoid the important issues, so
that a predetermined decision can be justified.
These revelations and others have convinced me that
this technology is being promoted, in the face of
concerns by respectable scientists and in the face
of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which
are supposed to be protecting human health and the
environment.
The bottom line in my view, is that we are
confronted with the most powerful technology the
world has ever known, and it is being rapidly
deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its
consequences. In fact, we don't even know yet the
full extent of what it can do to the environment
and to our health. The few scientists in
regulatory agencies who are concerned are ignored
or their concerns are dismissed. Or they are told
to be silent. Good risk assessment and good
science, which if they were used rationally, would
tell us that we're making a big mistake, is not
being used or is being twisted.
Thus, I'm afraid that the only effective control
of GE will be political: groups such as this one
raising public consciousness, especially that of
the economically powerful American public.
In the U.S. there has been little debate over GE,
because there are few popular stories and little
news coverage of the issues. To be sure, we need
scientists to point out the detailed technical
problems with GE, but it is equally important for
the majority of citizens to realize the
implications of GE and to use their collective
power to say no.
Sorry this was a bit long, but I thought you
should know. And the Rhizobium? Based on a much
longer, but equally flawed "risk assessment", it
was approved and will be released into farm fields
all over North America this Spring.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".