permaculture

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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Harpin
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:50:47 -0500
From: jcummins <jcummins@UWO.CA>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU

Hello Klaas Martens,
I certainly hope that your expectation about harpins is correct. 
However, the situation with the harpins  has changed drastically in the 
past few years. The main thing that happened was that Monsanto entered 
the seed treatment area with harpin and they are among the world's 
largest producers of seeds. Both GM and non-Gm crops may be seed treated 
 treated with GM harpins.
Along with that a clique of National Academy scientists are are 
agitating to stop government regulation of GM crops all together and 
these people wish to make GM orgaic. In UK the harpins are being 
advertised as 'organic' products  while in USA the net  advertises 'The 
original Messenger® product containing the patented Harpin Protein was 
manufactured by' Your Organic Gardening Supply Store or 'Organic 
Control; Messenger - A New Gardening Tool Against Plant Diseases'. I 
expect many certified organic  producers may get fooled into using GM 
harpins for seed treatment, crop production or post harvest treatment of 
fruit and vegetables.
I think that we need to be vigilent about these developments. A quick 
ELISA color  test for harpins could be produced at a reasonable price 
and that should be done asap.
sincerely, joe cummins


On 11/27/2011 1:10 PM, Mary-Howell & Klaas Martens wrote:
> I live near Cornell and knew the people who did the early work on Harpin.  I
> also remember Eden Biosciences' early efforts at selling 'Messenger' and
> getting it reviewed for possible use on organic farms.
>
> There was never any real doubt that it could not be used on organic farms.
> The gist of the review was that while using natural harpin proteins to
> stimulate disease resistance in plants could have been allowed under NOP
> rules, the product called 'Messenger' was clearly not allowed because it is
> produced using 'excluded methods'.
>
> That seems like a simple common sense ruling and there is no reason for it
> to be any different now.
>
> I also remember that the bigger problem with Messenger was that it did not
> perform reliably.  In some trials, it gave excellent protection, while in
> others it had no measurable effect.  It seemed that there were some
> environmental interactions that determined the effectiveness of the product.
>
> Klaas Martens