How One GMO Plant Nearly Took Down the Planet…

[thomhartmann]

[Archae]

1. Absolute bullshit from Putin's pet network.

"Could have destroyed every plant and animal on Earth?"

Absolute, total bullshit.

BTW, when is Thom Hartmann's "Crash Of 2016" going to happen to the world economy?

[panfluteman]

2. And Who Are You - A Monsanto Troll?

[That Guy 888]

4. Aieee!!! That sneaky bastard putin hacked the Missouri University of Science and Technology!!!

Last edited Wed Aug 3, 2016, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Klebsiella planticola
Addison Raine

Klebsiella planticola is an interesting bacterium. It seems to be a normal bacterium with an uninteresting life, but then some scientists in Germany found out how to genetically engineer it for greater purposes, with devastating consequences. The GM (genetically modified) strain was rushed through testing and could have lead to devastating terrestrial problems if it had been left unchecked.

K. planticola is of the genus Klebsiella, which is a non-motile rod-shaped gram-negative enterobacterium . This is one of the exceptions to the enterobacteria family, which are mainly mammalian, gut-inhabiting bacteria. This however resides on the root systems of plants. K. planticola of strain SDF 15 is the environmentally-safe, natural bacterial strain. K. planticola (SDF 15) is the parent cell line for another strain, which is called K. planticola (SDF 20). K. planticola (SDF 20) is a genetically engineered version from Germany which was designed to increase the production of lactose fermentation of agricultural wastes .

Careless testing of this strain of K. planticola allowed it to almost enter the public domain, before research by independent scientists (Dr. Elaine Ingham, et al.; Oregon State University) showed that this GM-strain actually killed any wheat planted into the soil where the GM-strain was dispersed. Plant matter was to be collected along with GM K. planticola in large containers for ethanol production. After the plant matter was decomposed, there would be a deposit left over that would be rich in nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and sulfur-basically a good fertilizer. It was after this residue was redistributed on the fields that it would do its damaging deed. K. planticola actually sticks to the root system of plants by creating a slime-like layer. The GM- K. planticola would then be connected to the plants root system and while it is there it would produce ethanol in levels of 17 ppm (~1-2 ppm ethanol is deadly for plants) , . K. planticola can attach to any plants, not just wheat, so essentially all global plant life could have been put into jeopardy because of a genetically altered bacteria.

This microbe was interesting to me because as a future biochemical engineer, I was interested at how little testing is required before allowing a GM product into production. I hope that I am able to ensure a high level of environmental protection when I am employed later in life. K. planticola is a great example of how seemingly non-dangerous alterations can actually create devastating consequences on the genetic level.

http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2004/K_planticola.htm

And dear deity... not cracked.com too! Oh, the humanity!!!

How a Biotech Company Almost Killed The World (With Booze)
By Robert Brockway April 03, 2010

What Went Wrong?

The fermentation process didn't kill the modified K. planticola--it was still there, ready to turn dead plant material into alcohol. The bigger problem? It didn't even wait until the plants were dead to start. The normal K. planticola bacterium result in a benign layer of slime on the living root systems it inhabits, but the engineered version would also be producing alcohol in this slime--with levels as high as 17 parts per million, and anything beyond one or two parts of alcohol per million is lethal to all known plant life. So the engineered K. planticola basically gives all plant life it touches severe alcohol poisoning, putting them more than 10 times over the lethal limit of fucked up. Like a frat house during pledge week, K. planticola would force all new plants it encountered to drink well beyond their reasonable limits. But unlike frat house rushes, it's not just freshman idiots who are affected, it's everybody. So maybe that analogy isn't entirely accurate: It's more like a bleak dystopian future where frat houses rule the world with a tyrannical fist, hazing and beer-bonging humanity into the grave. Because, you'll remember, K. planticola is present in all plant life.

Every species.

Every variety.

Poisoned.

To death.

Now those wonderful traits that made it such a good candidate for modification in the first place--its notorious aggressiveness and near omnipresence--are no longer such good things, are they? Because if there's one thing you really don't want your poison to be, it's "notoriously aggressive." And if there's one place you absolutely do not want your "notoriously aggressive poison" to be, it's "everywhere." Keep in mind that this was not a theoretical scenario; far-flung, fictional and unlikely to ever actually occur. This bacterium was going to be released; it had all of the necessary approval. It was only a matter of proper marketing and shipping at this point. It was only by virtue of a random review by an independent scientist (Dr. Elaine Ingham, a professor at Oregon State University and possibly the savior of all mankind) that it was caught in time.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html


No, actually I don't miss the astoundingly high stacks of nationalist, hyper-patriotic bullshit from both sides that the cold war provided, why do you ask?

The GMO industry and it's scientific community have pushed back on this story, and there is a lot of back and forth including a Green Party of New Zealand's (which had used Dr Ingham's research) apology to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering.

If you're looking for a taste of the scientific controversy surrounding this story, try this link. It is responses to an article about the research and controversy surrounding this story. I don't think it's - "Absolute, total bullshit" - to me it looks like there is some validity to the story, with pro-industry scientists muddying the waters. YMMV

Full story of the Dr Elaine Ingham controversy over Klebsiella p.

COMMENTARY: SEARCHING FOR A FAIR RESOLUTION CONCERNING CONTROVERSIAL STORY ON POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF KLEBSIELLA P ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A.V. Krebs EditorPublisher
The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER Issue #119
June 11, 2001
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness From a Public Interest Perspective

One of life's great lessons as one gets older and hopefully more wiser is not to stick your nose into an area of expertise you know little or nothing about and make judgments on the conduct of individuals in such subject areas. The lesson is a tough one for journalists as --- or at least they should be ---- by nature, curiosity seekers in the context of what is news and what news should be laid before the public for its information and enlightenment. Often, however, they find themselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Such was the case in THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER's recent report concerning the possible effects of Klebsiella.p in the environment. (Issue #116). No sooner was the story winging its way to you than we began to get mail defending and disputing the details of the story. Efforts to fashion a subsequent apology for possibly misleading our readers on the facts of the story only exacerbated the controversy (Issue #117).

This editor as a lifelong journalist has never made any pretense about being "objective," an almost unachievable goal when one is dealing with the complexity of the news of the day, but he has sought to make accuracy and fairness a hallmark of his work. It is for that reason that presented below is the original story, a rebuttal by Francis Wevers Executive Director, Biotenz/NZ Life Sciences Network (Inc), Wellington, New Zealand and a letter to THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER from Dr Elaine Ingham, Associate Professor from Oregon State University upon whose work much of the original story was based.

Readers can thus make their own judgment as to the veracity of this story.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/8951-full-story-of-the-dr-elaine-ingham-controversy-over-klebsiella-p

[progressoid]

5. snort.

From your first link...

*Disclaimer - This report was written by a student participaring in a microbiology course at the Missouri University of Science and Technology. The accuracy of the contents of this report is not guaranteed and it is recommended that you seek additional sources of information to verify the contents.

Dr. Ingham's assertions were scientifically rebutted before the Royal Commission by three senior New Zealand and Australian scientists the Green Party was left with the humiliating responsibility of apologizing in writing for misleading the Royal Commission. She was subsequently subjected to professional review by Oregon State University. She then became a Professor of Sustainable Living at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa. That's about as respected as Liberty University.

[That Guy 888]

8. You might want to brush up on your reading skills.

I did mention the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering in my post. Which was mostly in response to the idea that putin and his nefarious RT are the sole providers of this story via "fellow traveler"/"useful idiot" Thom Hartmann.

Was it TLDR? Here's where I mentioned the Green Party apology:

The GMO industry and it's scientific community have pushed back on this story, and there is a lot of back and forth included (edited to including) a Green Party of New Zealand's (which had used Dr Ingham's research) apology to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering.

If you're looking for a taste of the scientific controversy surrounding this story, try this link. It is responses to an article about the research and controversy surrounding this story. I don't think it's - "Absolute, total bullshit" - to me it looks like there is some validity to the story, with pro-industry scientists muddying the waters. YMMV

The last post is about three responses from an article about the controversy surrounding the story. One from a group involved in genetic engineering, another a response from Dr. Ingham, and a third from another scientist.

[progressoid]

9. Much ado about nothing.

Yeah, I read the links. That's why this whole thing is a farce.

Hartmann is building on a sensationalized story that includes errors that Inghram admits to making. Hell, even the title of the video is wrong. It wasn't a GMO plant, it was a bacterium.

There are tests like this going on all over the world right now by governments and industry. Some tests go nowhere, some bring us new and wonderful things. I prefer a world that strives for new and wonderful things rather than fear it's bringing the end of the world.

[That Guy 888]

11. I prefer a world that strives for new and wonderful things - That we can agree on.

Yeah, I read the links. That's why this whole thing is a farce.

Then why post as though I ignored the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering and the public apology in writing that the NZ Green Party made?

Hartmann is building on a sensationalized story that includes errors that Inghram admits to making

What errors? Some knowledge would make a better case than saying "the whole thing is a farce".

I think where we disagree is the level of trust that should be given to a very new industry. When I hear industry hacks saying that humanity has engaged in genetic engineering for centuries, it really makes me doubt the industries ability to be truthful especially in regards to safety. Selective breeding and plant grafting is very different then cross-species genetic engineering.

[progressoid]

12. Here you go.

Soil Foodweb Inc
1128 NE 2nd St
Suite 120
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
01 March 2001

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

signed


Dr Elaine Ingham

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2001/Mar/msg00013.html

[That Guy 888]

13. Thanks, but aparently neither of us read the last link closely.

Specifically Dr. Ingham's response to the LTE feud set off by the article"Ecological Disaster Averted???? U.S Environmental Protection Agency; Treating the World's Soil Like Dirt":

Regardless of whether the EPA did or did not repeat the work, addition of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola to soil has been shown to result in death of wheat plants in laboratory units. This information, published in Applied Soil Ecology, was the work of Dr. Holmes' Ph.D thesis. It was his work that I spoke about to the Royal Commission.

I was very careful to say that if you extrapolate the results of the laboratory work to the field, based on the facts that most terrestrial plants cannot tolerate alcohol production in the root system, that this bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol, that this bacterium typically grows in the roots systems of all plants, then there is a clear risk if this bacterium were to be released into the natural environment. This bacterium was being considered for release, and my understanding was that release was mere weeks away when the results of Dr. Holmes' work was given to the EPA.

Dr. Holmes has said that he cannot repeat his Ph.D. research. Why? Because he no longer has the engineered organism in his possession. Does this suggest that his Ph.D. work was inaccurate or poorly done? Does his inability to repeat the work now suggest his Ph.D. is somehow tainted? Not in any way. If he still had the engineered bacterium, he could repeat the work.

I did not say in my testimony, or at any other time, that release of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola would end life on earth. That was a fabrication by a newspaper reporter. That this engineered bacterium could have serious implications for human life on earth is something that I would say, however. But it would not end life on earth. After all, the bacterium would survive and happily continue to make alcohol. Other bacteria would happily consume that alcohol, and so on. The web of life could be altered, but would not come to an end.

I think, for what it's worth, Thom Hartmann liked the cautionary tale and did not go back and fact check any follow up stories on it. But again, the story is not put out solely by putin or rt .

[FighttheFuture]

10. 2016 ain't over.. and I am willing to give a margin of error... regardless, Thom trumps U!

[panfluteman]

3. Joke: You Know What GMO Means?

GOD MOVE OVER!!! That little gem was told to me by one of my best friends, who owns a health food store in Altadena, California. These GMO companies are playing God, and they think they can do a better job, but they don't have nearly the necessary wisdom or moral stature. When the Book of Genesis gives the creation account, after each step in the creative process, it says, "And God saw that it was good." That's good, period, which means good for the whole, for all concerned - not good for the bottom line of Monsanto or some greedy and reckless corporation - good for the whole, for all concerned. Monsanto is too blinded by their own greed to have even the slightest inkling of what is good for the whole.

[progressoid]

7. God saw that this was good?

Here's what carrots look like if left up to God:





How about Watermellon?







More than 3,000 grains, fruits and vegetables have been “created” in a laboratory by subjecting them with gamma rays and/or highly toxic chemicals to artificially scramble their DNA–and have since been marketed as organic, including Ruby Red grapefruits and almost all of the most flavorful and top selling organic Italian pasta.

[livingonearth]

14. You're not trying to say that modern day watermelons were created in a lab, are you?

Are they not the result of selective breeding, which entails a more natural approach than that of creating something in a lab with gamma rays?

Yes, man has been breeding characteristics into plants and animals for centuries, but it has only recently been through genetic modification.

[progressoid]

15. Of course not.

But most papayas are. We've been eating transgenic papayas for nearly 20 years without a problem. If it weren't for genetic engineering we might not have a papaya crop in the US.

And it's funny you should mention gamma rays. You know we had been using radiation to induce mutations in plants for decades prior to genetic engineering right? Ironically, those irradiated mutations qualify as "Organic".

The Ruby Red grapefruit is a prime example. I wonder if people know that their precious organic grapefruit juice is the product of RADIATION!!!


Ruby Red grapefruit, along with 3,000 other crop varieties consumed by millions every day, were actually created through mutation breeding, or mutagenesis.

The idea that nature's way or God's way is better is ridiculous. If left to nature or god, we'd be eating some awful stuff.

Also, why just GMO food? Why aren't activists going after the medical industry too? Most insulin is the result of genetic modification.

[progressoid]

6. Yeahhh,