permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] is Harpin allowed in organic crops?
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:59:16 -0500
From: jcummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Hi John,
Thanks for your comments.  In the academic world the plant immune system
has finally been accepted and largely identified.  The  plant immune
system has an innate immunity layout that  has features in common with
the innate immune system of animals including insects. It is rather
shocking that harpin has not been studied for its impact on animals even
though it does interact to control insects and  and nematodes.According
to EPA Harpin is one of a class of proteins produced in nature by
certain bacterial plant pathogens. It acts by eliciting a complex
natural defense mechanism in plants, analogous to a broad spectrum
immune response in animals. While most pesticides act directly on the
target pest, Harpin, by contrast, elicits a protective response in the
plant that makes it resistant to a wide range of fungal, bacterial, and
viral diseases. Because Harpin does not interact directly with disease
pests, these organisms are not expected to develop resistance to it.

Science 3 July 1992:Vol. 257 no. 5066 pp. 85-88 DOI: 
10.1126/science.1621099 Harpin, elicitor of the hypersensitive response 
produced by the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora
A proteinaceous elicitor of the plant defense reaction known as the
hypersensitive response was isolated from Erwinia amylovora, the
bacterium that causes fire blight of pear, apple, and other rosaceous
plants. The elicitor, named harpin, is an acidic, heat-stable,
cell-envelope-associated protein with an apparent molecular weight of 44
kilodaltons.

The elicitor  is a part of the the disease  but it is necessary but not
sufficient to cause entire disease progression instead it activates the
plants innate immune system.. I do not agree with the EPA view that
resistance of pathogens to the elicitor  will not be observed even
though the pathogens are dealt with by actions brought about by the
elicitor. I think it likely that the pathogens will circumvent the
hypersensitive response in time. At any rate it is presently unclear
what exactly has been done to the elicitor  that Monsanto and others are
exposing the world to. USDA and EPA really should open up information on
the exact molecule being released around the world. sincerely,

joe cummins

On 11/25/2011 6:16 PM, John D'hondt wrote:
> Joe, I am far from convinced that even human vaccines are harmless
> and working. Take for instance the flu vaccine. In an average year
> 2.6% of the population may get the flu. Vaccinated people have a 1.4%
> chance to get the flu. So at best it seems that flu vaccination may
> protect an extra one % of the population at great cost. And if you
> look carefully then you will find that all the studies in favor of
> vaccination are sponsored by the vaccine producers. Many other
> studies find that vaccines give no extra protection at all or may
> cause a disease worse than the one vaccinated against. Shingles were
> almost exclusively the problem of elderly people but as soon as the
> vaccine against chicken pox came on the market even children now get
> shingles. Gardasil to me is too foul for words but it makes it
> obvious what drives this : profit.
>
> I also am not sure that plants have an immune system that is anywhere
>  the same as that found in mammals. It is possible that plants
> produce more phytochemicals as a reaction to a pathogen challenge but
> I have never found that quantified. I have instead found many more
> complex ecological responses in plant diseases I have studied not as
> a scientist but as a farmer. I suspect that plants may exude a sort
> of attractant to organisms that eat the disease that threatens them.
>  (definitely potato blight, clubroot in crucifers and onion rot) One
>  can get easily rid of these diseases completely by creating
> ecological conditions that suppress the disease. I would suggest that
> this is also the reason that compost tea works. And if fire blight
> were a problem to me I would first try to compost infected plant
> parts and make a compost tea from this going on past experience.
>
> Further, even if Harpin actually works as advertised now, does this
> not train plants eventually not to react to the real treat rather
> instead of the opposite? Producing a phytochemical is always
> expensive for the plant and if it is forced to do that continuously
> when there is no real treat it might soon stop to react even when
> eventually the real treat shows up. If on the other hand there exists
> an organism that naturally fights fire blight and that is attracted
> by Harpin then this may soon become extinct since it finds nothing to
> eat when it arrives.
>
> I have other questions. Is the harpin protein identical to the one
> produced by fire blight? That is not completely obvious to me.
>
> John
>
> > Thanks Margaret and all others responding to my question. I find
> > that those selling Harpen as an organic pesticide tend to very
> > misleading regarding the fact that the commercial product is
> > produced by a transgene in E coli. An example of such a pitch is
> > given below. Also its use in organic production is a slippery slope
> > and the GM harpen products are looming and these will likely be
> > used as a wedge to allow USDA to declare transgenic crops to be
> > organic? Bothell, Washington-based Eden Bioscience has developed
> > the pesticide alternative they've dubbed Messenger—a product that
> > works on plants much the same way that a vaccine protects humans
> > from disease.Utilizing harpin, a naturally occurring protein first
> >  discovered at Cornell University, Messenger—which received EPA
> > approval in 2000—activates a plant's natural defense and growth
> > systems. Eden says Messenger's harpin technology provides broad
> > protection against disease and reduces damage caused by pests.
> > This, claims Eden, leads to improved plant growth, crop yield and
> > quality. Even though the EPA classifies Messenger as a biochemical
> > pesticide, growers can be assured they are being ecologically
> > conscious when they use Messenger. That's because the harpin
> > protein in Messenger is virtually nontoxic. In addition, the plant
> > never actually absorbs the protein.
> > http://www.albrightseed.com/newtechnology.htm cheers, joe cummins
> >
> > Important: EMPLOY is a natural product, but is not certified USDA
> > Organic and may not be used as part of a USDA Organic agriculture
> > program. On 11/25/2011 8:05 AM, Margaret Lauterbach wrote:
> > > At 03:50 AM 11/25/2011, you wrote:
> > > > Check out the fact sheet at
> > > >
> > > > http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006477.htm