permaculture

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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] is Harpin allowed in organic crops?
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:03:05 -0500
From: jcummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group 
<SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>, jcummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Hi John,
I believe that your concerns more than legitimate. The GM Harpin
proteins  are being widely disseminated around the world and their
approvals outside of USA  are very difficult to locate. Germany has
approved them as pesticides  and UK seems to sell them openly they may
be on sale in North Ireland  but the government approvals have not been
difficult to locate. Recently the US EPA allowed  that Monsanto can
treat seeds with harpin proteins without adding indelible dye to the
seeds to signify that the seeds are treated with the GM protein. The
reason being that the seeds of soybean, corn, wheat m barley etc.  can
be used as food or for planting without alarming people fed the seeds.
Of course nations  importers of the GM  treated seeds will not be
alerted to the trickery. A newly emerging use of nanoparticles to
encapsulate harpin proteins  will also be hidden from those consuming
seeds from USA.
EPA's approval of harpin  proteins  was based mainly on the  comment
that  the protein from Erwinia bacteria  was safe because  the bacteria
were plant pests not human pests However, that opinion is not based on
the solid fact that some Erwinia bacteria are serious nosocomial
(hospital based )  pathogens! EPA has had so much general criticism from 
the National Academy of sciences  representatives of Monsanto that they 
seem to have grown gun shy  and they have begun to grow unconcerned 
about the safety of the human and animal populations of the world. 
Harpins  may finally be proven to be effective plant disease  control 
drugs  while many of the claims of promoters of the harpins that the 
drug enhances photosynthesis and crop yield while killing  most 
everything  that crawls, molds or generally turn foods into goo are 
unlikely to be held up outside of the National Academy.
I hope that I have not seemed too dire in my approach. sincerely, joe
cummins

On 11/25/2011 11:59 PM, jcummins wrote:
> 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