Skip to main content.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

This is the first in a two part series.

In the category of Worst Ideas You've Probably Never Heard Of, some Republican politicians are once again pushing the use of mycoherbicides -- fungi that kill plants -- for use in their beloved drug war.

Like a fungus itself, this idea just won't go away. The theory as presented by the drug warriors is quite simple -- take a fungus that kills poppies or coca or marijuana, spread it around Afghanistan or Colombia or Florida, and -- voila! -- no more drug problem.

I can't decide whether they really are that stupid about science, or whether they're operating from some movie villain playbook, but the idea really is as ridiculous as it sounds and they're taking action now.

From the Miami Herald this June via the house.gov website (emphasis in all quoted material is mine):

Burton, Souder Urge Research of "Revolutionary" Anti-Drug Herbicide

Reps. Dan Burton and Mark Souder, both Indiana Republicans, on Thursday called for research into a new herbicide they said could "revolutionize" the war on drugs. In a joint press release, Burton and Souder said scientists have recently begun to study the possibility of manipulating "mycoherbicides," naturally occurring plant fungi that are currently used for weed control, to combat certain drug crops under specific conditions. "If proven to be successful, mycoherbicide could revolutionize our drug eradication efforts," said Souder, who is chairman of the House Drug Policy Committee. "Mycoherbicide research needs to be investigated, and we need to begin testing it in the field. The potential benefit of these fungi is tremendous."

That certainly makes it sound as though this is a new and exciting discovery that merits immediate research. They call it a "new herbicide" and say that scientists have "recently begun to study" it, but there's nothing new about it.

Researcher Jeremy Bigwood gives us this history of the idea:

The once-secret mycoherbicide program has a long history. The concept was first proposed during the 1970s. [...] Much of the original work was done secretly, mainly by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Energy (DoE)-contracted scientists. The clandestine work focused on multiple strains of two major species of fungi, Fusarium oxysporum for marijuana and coca, and Pleospora papaveracea for opium poppy. US scientists also made genetically modified versions of Pleospora -- souping it up with genes from Fusarium.

[snip]

During the 1980s and 1990s, the USDA took over and repeated much of the earlier clandestine research done by the CIA and DoE and took the work much further, developing various means of mass-producing spores, of storage, and media for application of the fungus. Other countries did similar work.

The idea has been around since at least the 1970s and has been researched and studied for many years. Most of these studies, however, were done on the "naturally occurring" fungi. The "recent" refers to the "manipulating" of the fungi -- tinkering with the genetic code to weaponize it for certain plants.

Naturally occurring fusarium oxysporum -- the species being considered for marijuana and coca -- is already a problem. It kills many broad-leafed plants. It is a menace that has damaged the tomato industry, spreading from Florida to Georgia and now cropping up in many other places.

The fungus is so deadly to Palm trees, that California has a quarantine and fears it will decimate its date industry. Fungi can be devastating to crops and economies. It lives in soil and spreads through produce, seeds, and even tools. Once introduced into an evironment, it can be impossible to get rid of it. Let us not forget it was a fungus that caused the Potato Famine and which lives on to this day.

The proponents of mycoherbicides are also downplaying the risks to people, but people can and do get fungal infections, particularly those with compromised immune systems. The EU is on the brink of adopting a medication designed specifically for fusarium infections -- evidence that fusarium does infect humans. Anti-fungal medication is known for being hard on the the liver and kidneys, so may be harmful to those people most likely to become infected.

While fusarium has been around for ages, the weaponizing, or genetic manipulation, is the "new" ingredient, and is the basis for the politicians' flimsy claim that mycoherbicides are safe. The drug warriors are characterizing this as a "natural" herbicide and safe substitute for chemical ones -- as though it's an organic alternative to spraying Roundup.

The scientific community is not buying this and environmentalists say the fungus could be worse than the chemicals. No one can predict how the fungus will act in nature and what plants it will damage and kill. Unlike chemicals, a living fungus in the soil cannot be contained or eradicated.

Fungi are simple organisms and, as such, they are as prone to mutation as other simple organisms like viruses and bacteria. Perhaps the ideas proponents' faith in this springs from the fact that they don't believe in evolution, but in my opinion it's more likely a power and greed thing.

So far as we know (or are admitting), the new, weaponized fusarium has not been tested in the field. There was, however, an incident in Peru. Coincidentally, right when we were pining for a real world test, Peru had an outbreak of fusarium oxysporum immediately following reports by the indigenous people that our planes had flown over spraying stuff. From the Colombia Journal:

The Peruvian outbreak also brought to light alarming facts that U.S. government researchers had previously noted and suppressed: that specific strains of Fusarium--including EN-4--attacked not only target crops, but a slew of other plants as well. The U.S. embassy in Lima monitored the situation in the Huallaga Valley carefully, and an ARS-hired Peruvian specialist concluded that, aside from coca, the Fusarium was killing tomatoes, achiote and papaya. Peasants reported that tangerines, palms, and other broadleafed plants had also succumbed to the fungus.

As a result, the Andes Nations have since banned mycoherbicides. The idea was also proposed in Florida and rejected -- the DEA is against it, respected scientists and environmentalists don't want anything to do with it, and Bill Clinton vetoed it on the advice that it would be considered biological warfare.

You might think the biological warfare description is extreme, but here's how the fungus works and a little more history:

The mycoherbicide fungus acts as a living micro-chemical factory, producing toxic compounds called mycotoxins that it itself is immune to. When the fungus encounters a target life form, such as a plant root, it secretes the mycotoxins, which dissolve the target's cell walls. The fungus then ingests the liquefied contents of the target cell and reproduces itself, moving into the dead cell space as an uninvited and deadly guest. From there it produces more mycotoxins and repeats the process with adjacent cells until it has taken over a substantial area of the plant. Since the fungus usually attacks through the roots, the plant's stem withers and the plant dries out and dies.

[snip]

The cell-dissolving "mycotoxins" that are produced by the proposed mycoherbicides were intitially discovered after hundreds of thousands of people died due to internal hemorrhaging after eating bread made from Fusarium-contaminated overwintered grain during the mid-1940s in the Soviet Union.

The use of mycoherbicides is dangerous and using them on an unwilling populace is, in fact, biological warfare. The risks are tremendous and the outcome is not predictable. The effects on crops, economies, and people could be harmful beyond measure. Tomorrow I'll attempt to shed some light on how certain zealots on the right hope to make this nightmare a reality.

Part two of this series has now been posted.

Comments

20 comments

[1]
Unreal. The hubris and associated recklessness of our society never ceases to amaze me. No care. No caution. Will they not be content until the Earth becomes an uninhabitable wasteland?

What astounds me is the hatred of humanity engendered in these zealots. First, they refuse to deal with the root causes of drug addiction in America because it would involve actually 'helping' human beings with socio-economic and education problems. Then, failing to do that, they proceed to enact biological warfare on people in other countries.

Where's the humanity? There is none.

Posted by environmentalist at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 07:02:23

[2]
BTW, Izzy. Very well researched and put together. Thanks for bringing this out. This is alot of great work that should not remain just within our circles. How can we get this out to the larger press?

Posted by environmentalist at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 07:04:33

[3]
What Burton and Souder are advocating is nothing short of biological warfare. Despite the fact that they are declaring certain plantlife as enemies of the state, there will undoubtedly be human casualties.

In the advent calendar of war excuses, didn't Bush allege that Iraq had an interest in bio-warfare?

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Excellent job, Izzy!

Posted by em dash at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 09:43:10

[4]
Great work, Izzy. I find this part especially chilling:

"Coincidentally, right when we were pining for a real world test, Peru had an outbreak of fusarium oxysporum immediately following reports by the indigenous people that our planes had flown over spraying stuff."

Apparently, the US government views inhabitants of other countries as guinea pigs.

Posted by DCvote at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:15:15

[5]
Thanks, everyone -- sorry I'm late to my own comments. I'm claiming time-zone differences. I share your outrage at the situation -- it's just wrong on so many levels. And you're right, environmentalist -- where IS their humanity?

I'm just glad that the word is getting out there before they've done anything. It too often seems like I'm hearing about this sort of thing after they've done it. This time, we have a chance to take action before it's done.

The other thing that gives me hope is that this idea was proposed for Florida in 1999 and Colombia in 2000 and defeated both of those times. Tomorrow's post has more links which mention other politicians, including those on the committee, and some scientists involved.

Suggestions for taking action are welcomed.

Posted by Izzy at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:36:18

[6]
If Reps. Burton and Souder are so concerned about the scourge of drug addiction, may I suggest that they turn their attention to rural Indiana meth labs:

"Methamphetamine poses the second greatest drug threat to Indiana, and abuse appears to be increasing..."

From the Department of Justice >> http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/p...

Posted by em dash at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:50:58

[7]
lol, em, only I'd be leery of turning these guys' attentions at anyone!

I need a bullhorn -- Calm down and step away from the Republicans. There is no need to aim them at anyone and go waving them at innocent bystanders. Let's not do something rash we might all regret later.

Posted by Izzy at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 13:01:13

[8]
A fusarium strain targeted at Cannabis will, even if it doesn't evolve to take out other species, pose a threat to Canada's legal, regulated agricultural hemp industry, and forestall a possible return to hemp fiber and oilseed farming in the US.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 14:19:09

[9]
The Coca variation of Fusarium originally turned up at a coca research station the Coca Cola company operated in Hawaii in the early '70s, until their facility was wiped out by the mold. Presumably they held a federal licence.

It's not known whether this was a Hawaiian fusarium which found a new host, or a South American strain which hitchhiked with infected seed or cuttings.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 14:26:17

[10]
The War on Drugs is clearly not about stemming demand nor is it about the social/medical implications of drug use in American society.

Is it about punishing impoverished little brown people trying to scratch out a living in some of the harshest environments known to humankind?

Is it about the billions of dollars funnelled to the military-industrial complex, law enforcement, and--as Izzy's post features--the millions of dollars in grants to bio-science researchers toiling for universities and private sector firms in the hopes of lucrative tech-transfer dollars and ag product manufacturing?

You don't think Burton and Souder are trying to grab genomic science dollars for Indiana's public and private research facilities, do you? Nah, nobody could be THAT cynical to endanger the lives of millions of indigent indigenous farmers. Right?

As in most cases with BushCo, follow the money and ye shall find the answer.

Posted by em dash at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 14:33:35

[11]
Ben, IIRC there is a fairly strong sentiment in Congress against the hemp industry, no?

Could the promotion of mycoherbicides simply be a nice side effect or do you think there may be another agenda going on here?

Posted by em dash at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 14:35:02

[12]
This project's long been the baby of a pair of research teams, at the Ag schools at Iowa State and Montana State. Both were originally interested in mycoherbicides as an alternative to chemical herbicides in crop farming.

(research topic: Was there an ancestral connection to CIA or Military biological warfare research in the Cold War era?)

They were squeezed between Big Chem hostile to competition, and an Organic milieu skeptical about the risks. Research funding was a trickle in the good years.

Retooling their pitch to the War on Some Drugs opened a funding spigot an order of magnitude greater than the drip for straightforward agricultural research. They don't ned to see actual implementation to prosper.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 14:52:05

[13]
Thanks for the info, Ben. That's what I feared. It's all about the money. The planet be damned.

Posted by em dash at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:06:57

[14]
i'm not sensing all that much anti-hemp sentiment in Congress. We've passed resolutions in a number of State Legislatures (ND, MN, IL, HI, MD, with favorable votes from single houses or Ag Committees in many more, usually with Republican sponsors from farm districts.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced a Hemp bill in the US House in June. All of his 6 cosponsors to date are Dems, but I expect a number of midwest GOPers to sign on soon, when they hear from their homestate Legislators who've held hearings in their respective Agriculture Commitees.

I suspect Souder's obsession with cannabis is a personal pathology, rather than financial.

There's a group at U of Indiana headed by Prof. Paul Mahlberg, who've long held a license for hemp. Their gimmick is developing a hemp strain that's super weak, and has a highly visible marker so any cop can tell it's not marijuana *. The Purdue Ag School maintains the <a href="http://index.cc.purdue.edu:...">New Crop Search Engine</a>, with the most extensive online collection of modern research papers on hemp, featuring, for example, <a href="http://www.hort.purdue.edu/...">Hemp: Specialty Crop for the Paper Industry</a>.

* Mahlberg and I don't mix well. He hasn't forgiven me for pointing out I could take a potent stash grade female a quarter mile downwind of the facility where he's producing seed from his "marked" hemp, catch pollen, and within a year distribute seeds that were "marked" but high in THC.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:29:24

[15]
Thanks for the info, Ben. Funny you should mention the Cold War era ancestral connection -- I think there is and some of it will be in tomorrows post.

One of the Heritage Foundation's background papers from several years ago mentions the need to get the research on fusarium from Soviet scientists. The paper was not written to support the current "herbicide" line, but as a position paper on biological warfare.

Also, another politician, Dana Rohrabacher, is involved and he says the "herbicide" was discovered in Uzbekistan. One of the UK's scientists was linked to the mycoherbicide program when it was being forwarded in the Plan Colombia budget in 2000, and he was working in Uzbekistan.

I'd come across the information on the Montana ag research, but not Iowa, so thanks much.

Posted by Izzy at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:29:44

[16]
Here's a couple of quotes from The Guardian in September of 2000:

"US State Department documents obtained by The Observer name British scientist Michael Greaves as a key player in its programme to spray a fungus known as Fusarium oxysporum over Columbia's rainforests in the hope of destroying it coca crops - the source of 80 per cent of the world's cocaine. Until recently Greaves worked for the government-funded Institute of Arable Crop Research in Bristol. He is also the co-ordinator of a secretive UK-funded research project located in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan.
[...]
The programme is based at the Institute of Genetics in Uzbekistan and run by many scientists who used to work on the Soviet germ warfare programme during the Cold War."

Posted by Izzy at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:42:16

[17]
The Uzbek strain kills poppy.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:53:14

[18]
That makes sense, since they're pushing it for Afghanistan now, as well as Latin America.

Posted by Izzy at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:55:26

[19]
More on Afghan Poppies

There's a proposal kicking around the EU to buy up the Afghan Poppy crop at the price the heroin processors are currently paying, and then resell it as morphine in the licit prescription channel. Acording to the email I've unfortunately deleted, this would still come in at half the price of the patented synthetic opioids currently dominating the prescription pain management market.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 16:59:01

[20]
Some additional environmental impacts of the Drug War

Chemical Eradication.

Disposal. by pushing meth and cocaine production underground, we lose any opportunity to regulate disposal of toxic chemical byproducts.

Marijuana. Domestic production is pushed either indors, with attendant high electrical use, and the pollution from power plants, or into the wilds outdoors, frequently to spots important to preserving diversity, since they're the least accessible.

Posted by Ben Masel at Wednesday, August 03, 2005 17:11:12

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Buy Viagra