 |
||||||||||||||
|
Malicious MediaScience is often confounding, even to scientists who think they understand its nuances. That’s part of the reason that good science writing is a rare exception. When the science involved has elements of controversy, loose writing can be not only misleading, but can do both the science and the researchers in question a great disservice. Such has been the case with the subject of the mycoherbicide biocontrols of narcotics producing plants. Accusations, intentional misinformation and even pure demagoguery often parallels innocently misinformed or partially informed writing, and almost always contains well overused and fear-mongering language. These fall into the always broad categories of: It will harm the environment. It will cause physical harm to humans. It will mutate uncontrollably. It will attack other plants or commercial crops with devastating effects. It uses ‘strong-arm,’ bullying tactics, on poorer, drug producing countries. Botanical bullies, the St. Petersburg Times called them. Here is an attempt at a reasoned response to many of those generic, knee-jerk responses. Let’s begin at the very beginning. Mycoherbicides (fungal pathogens) are drawing attention from the global community as a potential means of permanently eliminating drug-producing plants, and many other pest plants as well. Advocates maintain these pathogenic fungi are safe, specific to the illicit crop intended for control and environmentally compatible. Opponents raise concerns of human and plant toxicity and severe ecological consequences. Between those positions, what can we agree upon? First we need to agree on standards of performance and risk assessment. The first standard should be to set standards which are not unreasonable. Currently, standards for mycoherbicides are set within the rigorous purview of governmental oversight, monitored by the USDA. The testing demands also include controlled field tests after having met prior laboratory regulations. It would not seem reasonable that any scientific result, no matter how stringently applied, also include the provision of a 100% guarantee that nothing might have been overlooked. Intelligently, USDA does not ask for proof of eternal freedom from risk. Never is a long time. Surely, everyone can agree to have biocontrol policies that are environmentally sound and based upon sound scientific principles. These principles should share a broad recognition by both citizens and the media. Perhaps we can also agree that scientists are better at evaluating the efforts of other scientists than are unqualified laypersons. Further, in the case in question, we can probably agree that plant pathologists are better suited to evaluating plant pathology in the same sense that neurosurgeons are best qualified to judging other neurosurgeons. It is not that there is any protection of a ‘good old boy’ (or woman) network involved, but that the disciplines are so specific that persons not academically qualified in them are not appropriate judges. Second, there is no incentive for creating error. There is enough professional diversity of opinion within an academic discipline that only the foolhardy would seek unqualified opinion. This is not to say that discourse should exclude divergent opinion from outside a discipline, but that outside voices should be to pose reasoned concern, not to provide scientific evaluation. Perhaps it is not true that everyone can agree that one person’s opinion is not as valuable as another’s, but no one thinking otherwise would go to their butcher to have their brain tumor removed. Some reason must prevail. Addressing such key scientific issues apart from emotional and political
issues is useful. At the conclusion of this inquiry, this study presents a significant ‘scientific paradox’, the introduction of an almost identical mycoherbicide into Africa for large scale Striga (noxious weed) control , which is totally devoid of the contention surrounding coca control. That lack of contentiousness is the paradox, so let’s condense it. We can return with the rest of the story and reconsider this paradox following the intervening discussion. The African Scientific Paradox In Africa’s sub-Sahara, thousands are dying of starvation because a pest plant called ‘witch weed’ (also known as Striga) is destroying a major food source crop; sorghum. To kill this African pest plant ‘witch weed,’ researchers at McGill University in Montreal are using a similar strain of the same mycoherbicide (Fusarium oxysporum) we use to kill coca. However, the Canadians are heroes, perhaps even to win a Nobel prize for saving these suffering poor of Africa. That’s good. They should be applauded. But, surprise! The U.S. coca shrub researchers are often painted as pariahs, devils! That’s not good. How can the almost exact use of the same science be applauded for saving lives in Africa, but decried of saving lives elsewhere? Why is that? That is the paradox. Who are the detractors speaking for? No one in Africa asks why it’s good to attack suffering from starving. Why is it possible to have a civil debate on the unproven missile defense shield solution and not possible to discuss a proven cocaine defense solution? Hello! Is anybody there? Knowing that we will again encounter the paradox we should look at idea of: The Balance of Nature: Plants and animals exist in a continuous balance with microbial organisms, moderated by the environment. Culture a few cells from the surface of a plant and you would find a combination of bacteria, fungi, viruses and nematodes—some of them benign and some disease-causing pathogens. Under normal circumstances the plant’s immune system defeats attack by the pathogens and a state of equilibrium exists. However, an environmental change (such as abnormal temperature, precipitation, fertilizer or pesticides) can alter the natural balance. Monocropping may also alter the balance by increasing the density of the pathogens over time. (This happened naturally with coca in Peru.) This is the lesson learned by farmers over eons; grow crops in the same field, year after year, and the likelihood of disease will increase. Ecologists have long recognized that monocropping is the antithesis of biodiversity and leads to highly unstable situations where a single disease may destroy vast areas of plant growth. This is a fact recognized both by farmers and by science. And It Happened. A Fungus Attacked Peruvian Coca: Definitive reports of the presence of a vascular wilt disease of coca in Peru can be found as early as 1932. With the advent of large scale coca monocropping, intensified fertilization, and shortened cultivation time in the early 1980’s, its incidence increased sharply. By the end of the decade farmers were reporting an epidemic of wilt disease that spread eventually over thousands of acres and forced abandonment of fields. Coca leaf production reduced significantly in the 1990-1992 period, particularly in the major growing region of the Upper Huallagua River Valley in the north central Andean foothills. Peruvian agronomists inspected the diseased crops and concluded that a subspecies of Fusarium oxysporum, a common type of soil-borne fungal pathogen, had caused the epidemic. Subsequently, a joint US/Peruvian survey sampling ten different areas in Peru showed that the fungus existed in both northern and southern growing areas, a region over 500 miles long, and running along the eastern slopes of the Andes. Claims by farmers that the coca disease was attacking other crops were investigated by Peruvian scientists and never validated. However, the joint survey indicated that about 22 percent of the coca isolates were other strains of Fusarium oxysporum (there are approximately 60 strains) that , while non-pathogenic to the coca, may have caused some of the wilt diseases on the other crops. (It is often the case that more than one strain subspecies, or race of a pathogen will infest the same soil. More than one of these can be out of balance with nature simultaneously. This typical result does not imply any sort of mutative behavior, but does, to some extent, validate the farmers complaints). It also explains the haphazard research of science writers who routinely report that Fusarium oxysporum killed some plant or another other than coca, or killed an immune deficient cancer patient. Saying that the pathogen did something or other can be true while being completely false in relationship to the actual plant or human killer. In addition, Fusarium is not the only wilt disease. For example, it is not unlikely that both Fusarium oxysporum and Ralstonia solanacaerum could inhabit the same geographic range. Today, a wide variety of both cultivated and wild plants grow in the abandoned coca cultivation areas; presumably still infected with the long surviving spores of the fungus. No animal or human fungal diseases related to Fusarium oxysporum have since been identified. The evidence is clear: for at least 68 years, and most probably, for centuries, this species of fungus has existed in equilibrium with the ecology of Peru. Only when man destabilized the environment with coca monocropping, did epidemic levels of the disease occur. Therefore, you see how easily a writer either not doing their homework, or one determined to misrepresent the truth can mix species, subspecies or races of a plant pathogen just as easily as they can mix a metaphor. And It Happened Again; In Hawaii: A similar situation occurred on the Hawaiian island of Kauai in the mid-1970’s where the coca shrub was being cultivated for the extraction of alkaloids used in soft-drink manufacture. Thousands of seeds from Trujillo and Cuzco (Peru) were found to be infected with a ‘damping off’ disease and only 20 percent germinated. In 1975, in an attempt to overcome the seed disease problem, healthy seedlings were planted in three separate field nurseries. Quite rapidly, a soil-borne wilt disease of the genus Fusarium, species Fusarium oxysporum, began killing these plants. Systematic DNA testing conducted in 1988 confirmed that a previously unnamed species (forma specializes Erythoxyli) was the fungal pathogen. The standard plant pathologist ‘Koch Postulate’ was employed to verify these findings (wherein a pathogen is isolated, tested against the plant, re-isolated and re-tested against other plants) Although the fungus was easily transported from one field to another, presumably on the surface of shoes and tools, there was no evidence of it affecting other nearby plants. This stable ecological situation continues today, over 20 years later. US Government Greenhouse and Field Research: At the USDA laboratory, more was learned about species of Fusarium oxysporum. Species of this pathogen exist worldwide and are identified as ‘forma specialies’ by the specific plant species (or range of related species) that they attack. For example, forma specialies lycopersici attacks only plants in the tomato family. It does not attack plants outside the tomato family, such as the pea. Notably, forma specialies Erythoxyli has been observed in both Peru and Hawaii not to attack other plants, consistent with the taxonomy of the pathogen. This apparent host–specific nature is one of the essential properties needed by a coca mycoherbicide. Therefore, in 1987, USDA began a systematic program of research into the properties of the organism. During the ensuing years, over 100 plant species have been tested for susceptibility, further confirming the host-specific behavior observed in the natural environment of Peru. Additional testing has been conducted to verify the absence of any mycotoxins or other plant produced toxins of forma specialies Erythoxyli. None were found. Additional efficacy field tests were conducted in Kauai with the two primary varieties of coca used for the production of cocaine. The naturally occurring form is highly effective when used in sufficient density to change the natural balance. And It Exists in Colombia A series of isolates were secured from accessible areas to determine if the disease existed in Colombia. Cultures and DNA tests confirmed the presence of forma specialies Erythoxyli. This discovery gives credence to the supposition that the disease probably exists throughout the entire coca growing area of South America. Since Fusarium oxysporum has been found in many of the world’s soils, chances are that it has been there for centuries, not waiting for a mutation to erupt, but merely waiting for the balance of nature to become sufficiently disturbed for the specific pathogen to attack its host. Therefore, it is also common for other scientists, even botanists, microbiologists and biologists to be mistaken in their interpretations of an plant pathology event. We do not suggest that such opinions should not be expressed, but that one should pause before jumping to conclusions that only sufficient and specific research by experts can establish. The former disciplines, though related, are not qualifications of expertise in the diseases of plants, just as a scientist proficient in the diagnosis of human disease does not carry the same authority into the realm of the diagnosis of plant disease. What’s All The Fungus Fuss About? In the current debate, plant pathologists familiar with the details of the particular mycoherbicide discussed and with the accumulated body of scientific data, believe the evidence is sufficiently compelling to proceed with a systematic program of field trials consistent with both mycoherbicide registration and with international standards. This is what happens normally when non-narcotic plants are the subject of control. However, in this instance, opponents of the prevailing standards, none of whom are plant pathologists, insist there are too many unresolved issues for even a controlled test to occur. This despite the twenty plus year test in Hawaii, or the evidence of over fifty years in Peru. Their alarmist concerns have been relayed to the media, but with little scientific validation to support their claims, as discussed above and in the writings of many. These fearmongering approaches are even more misleading at the lay reader’s level. What are its most persistent claims? If we do not trust the writer or the closely allied scientist, who do we trust and what do we think needs to be done? We trust plant pathologists, weed scientists and biological controls specialists to be more knowledgeable as responsible parties to the risk assessment of biological controls, whether those controls be fungi, viruses, bacteria, etc. We think that the government should establish testing procedures (as they have already done) and that if they wish to make them more demanding, so be it, but that then, once any standards thus established are met, that licensing of the biocontrol in question should proceed, both legally and in fact and without delay by litigants. We do not believe that a demand for 100% assurance that standards had no margin for error is realistic in any scientific endeavor. Since man first developed the automobile and the airplane, although both have improved, death tolls associated with the use of both increase with their use. This does not suggest that we will soon stop driving cars or using the airlines. In any risk assessment, there is a benefit factor, too, not just a risk component. The benefit in risk/benefit analysis seems to have been overlooked. We are not a species of perfection and perhaps are not ourselves perfectible. We are, however, capable of rational thought, discussion, and action. We believe that is what is intended for us, and is a logical path to follow. We believe that societies have the right and the obligation to ignore their minority opinions once those opinions and concerns have been evaluated and declared minimal in comparison to benefits. This, or any other society, cannot ignore its voices from the wilderness, but by the same token, it cannot be deaf to the full resonance of its voice in order to listen to a whisper in the choir. 1.) Toxicity Claim: “Fusaria are dangerous to public health; they produce fusariogenin, a known toxin.” Answer: This misleading statement comes from confusing the genus Fusaria, with the species (There are approximately 60) and subspecies Fusarium oxysporum forma species Erythoxyli. This latter is non-toxic as measured by USDA testing at Tifton, Georgia. This mistake is the same as stating that the mushroom genus Amanita is poisonous because some species produce ananitine, a known toxin, while the species Amanita calyptrate is an edible and quite excellent food. There are even forma specialies of Fusarium oxysporum that produce mycotoxins (and most of these already exist in South American agriculture) However, the latter is not the case for the strain of interest in coca mycoherbicide control. 2.) Human Health Claim: “The death rate caused by Fusarium infections in humans is 76%.” Answer: This statement is entirely misleading and suffers from the same faulty logic as the toxicity claim. Generalized statements about the Fusarium genus attacking humans are not applicable to Fusarium oxysporum, forma specialies Erythoxyli. In the cases of the referenced death rate statistics, the victims were all immune-suppressed cancer patients whose defense levels were so low as to make them highly vulnerable to almost any infection. Furthermore, the normal EPA mycoherbicide registration procedure requires extensive testing related to animal and human health, thus ensuring that no unhealthy products would be released. 3.) Pathogen Host Range Claim: “Some strains have a broad host range, infecting even distantly related plant species.” Answer: This is another incorrect statement, perhaps due to a misinterpretation of the literature. Of the approximately 70 strains of Fusarium oxysporum, the host range is narrowly defined. As previously indicated, the forma specialies receives it’s definition from its host plant or closely related range of plants. They do not attack other plants—and do not mutate to attack other plants. Beyond the forma specialies, the micro-organism is further divided into races. Races are specific to individual cultivars (varieties) of the plant. These strict considerations are part of the reason that Fusarium oxysporum forma specialies Erythoxyli, Race EN4, was initially selected for its host-specificity to novogranatense and Erythoxylum Coca. 4.) Mutagenesis Claim: “Fusarium oxysporum forma specialies Erythoxyli can change from one form to another.” Answer: This is wrong! Once again, the forma specialies receives it’s definition from its host plant or closely related range of plants. In this case, the plant taxonomy has been vigorously studied since 1910 and has been found to be highly stable. Due to the economic importance of Fusarium oxysporum wilt diseases, each of the principal agricultural strains has received extensive attention by the world’s best plant pathologists, and over decades. There are no documented cases of mutations extending the host range. The detailed genetic reasons for this specificity are complex, but compelling. The most profound in situ test of the mycoherbicide is its stable behavior even at the epidemic levels found in Peru. The ecological and environmental conditions of the Andean foothills in Peru and those in Colombia and Ecuador are essentially identical from a plant pathogenesis perspective. While Count Dracula can change easily from a human into a bat, this strain of Fusarium does not mutate! 5.) Ecology Claim: “Anti-narcotics mycoherbicides will cause great ecological harm.” Answer: These claims are the weakest attacks, particularly egregious because they lack balance, perspective and scientific validation. As already noted, the pathogen selected already exists in South American countries and has reached epidemic levels in Peru during the 1990’s without creating any ecological issues. On the other hand, coca cultivation has devastated the ecology of the Upper Huallagua River Valley and sadly, is currently doing the same in many areas of Colombia. Consider the following well documented ecological impacts in those areas:
A mycoherbicide would eliminate the slash and burn approach because it can be applied without concern (host–specificity) and can exist for decades. An attempt to clear treated forest land adjacent to coca growing areas would result in rapid kill of new coca seedlings and discourage all further coca expansion. 6.) Claim: “Biocontrol advocates are biological bullies, trying to use strong-arm tactics to get smaller, weaker nations to use mycoherbicides against their will.” Answer: The claim has some validity. Some drug producing nations may voluntarily apply mycoherbicides on drug-producing plants. Twenty of twenty-four suggest they may do so voluntarily. The largest heroin producer, Afghanistan, says it will not. In many cases, sovereign governments are less than indirectly complicit in the illegal trafficking of drugs. They are not expected to respond to anything less than political pressure, if even to that. Unfortunately, many nations will, when push comes to shove, countenance no curtailment of their cultivation of narcotic plants. It is a case where stronger nations may have to act covertly or unilaterally. Botanical bullying may be the required medicine. A Model Answer For The Future: And that brings us back to The African Contribution. It is a curious fact that while a contentious debate is building over the use of one Fusarium oxysporum strain to eradicate approximately 200,000 hectares of coca in South America, in sub- Saharan Africa another strain of Fusarium oxysporum is being field tested to eradicate up to 50,000,000 hectares of Striga. (250 x) Better known as ‘witch weed’ Striga invades fields of cereal crops such as sorghum, depleting the nutrients and decimating the crop. Farmers are forced to give up, to move to the cities, increasing the problems of urbanization, overcrowding and disease, while at the same time having to turn to expensive imported grains for sustenance. Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have recently achieved major successes in the control of Striga and have received international recognition for their contributions. From a scientific standpoint there is no significant technical difference in the two initiatives, Certainly the overall risk associated with coca is far less, both because of the relatively smaller areas to be treated and the significantly greater body of data that has been acquired. Nonetheless, the Striga work is proceeding along an established methodological approach for testing and qualification of a new mycoherbicide. It has political and policy support and should contribute significantly to the global challenges of sustainable food in the new Millennium. Is the coca research any less valuable? Will it receive comparable political and policy support to help eliminate the global scourge of drug use? Addendum: These are some of the facts. Once one considers the claims made above and their answers, and given the fact that the answers rely on fact rather than conjecture, who is to blame for the generally shoddy reporting that has so far characterized the preponderance of media coverage? Is it the fault of the media for not having done proper homework, of shooting from the hip? Or, is it the fault of advocates for not having provided the media with all the necessary background material? Is it possible that doing reliable homework is no longer a prerequisite to maintaining professional journalistic standards, merely a nuisance to be avoided in light of busy travel schedules? Hopefully, science writing in the future will show a greater respect for the validity of authenticated research. Obviously, we feel the media has a moral obligation to be better acquainted with the facts. One must also bear in mind that reporting on this type of biotech research and the persons who do it is not always news best entrusted to the general public. Perhaps it need not be reported at all? It is, due to nature of the problem, a media sensitive issue, one that when reported, makes mature, responsible journalism even more obligatory. The researchers are putting much more on the line than their detractors, and much more than their professional reputations. Does this mean that dissent should be stifled or ignored. By no means. Even as much as we advocate a full examination of the controversy surrounding mycoherbicides, we are activists for both public and environmental safety. In many regards, so are persons like Jeremy Rifkin or organizations like Greenpeace. Sadly, despite the latter’s organization’s concern over carbon monoxide and greenhouse effects, one of its founders perished in an automobile accident. He was killed while gaining the benefit side of a risk/benefit analysis. There are significant differences between being properly cautious and being obstinate. Even serious environmentalists make tradeoffs, the benefit of easy transportation, balanced against real or imagined risks. That, too, is part of a real world. To other people with activist mindsets, even civil disobedience is acceptable as an opposition posture. Being sorry is not as bad as being dead, they might say. Burn the crops, destroy the fields, say whatever you have to, true or not. The problem is, they never say they are sorry, even when proven wrong. They would also rather be dead than wrong. Through their activism, Rifkin’s and his supporters held back the release of Frostban three to four years beyond what would have been the legitimate legal time of release. Forget for a moment the millions of dollars their actions cost the product’s developers, or the lost revenues Frostban would have spared the strawberry growers the product so well protects. But what happened? Since the product’s release, it has performed excellently, and without any of the problems predicted for it, or attributed to it by its opponents. What is most revealing is that. Rifkin’s group has never made a public retraction; nor ever admitted they were wrong. They proved themselves worse than a bad newspaper. It seems that being wrong, even destructive in the name of a cause, means never having to say you’re sorry. And that’s the big mistake. Such zealous activism would be better accepted if it included the responsibility of owning up to mistakes and false accusations. People who call wolf had better find a real wolf, or eventually earn the credibility they deserve. It is a perfect example of how a small minority can translate their numbers into inordinate political power. While it would be better for the general society if the poor and inattentive exercised greater civic responsibility relative to their numbers, it is just as regrettable that super-attentive activists, though small in number, are so often over rewarded for their zeal. For the benefit of all, it is best when civility in dissent be accompanied by mutual respect of the combatants, both for each other, and also for the rule of law. Civil dissent should not be permitted to overrule the established law under the guise of First Amendment rights. That is merely an exercise of the right without the precondition of that right—responsibility. The latter is the truest requisite for civil society. We believe justifiably classified, sensitive, or classifiable research, research facilities, and/or researchers personal identification should not be subject to Freedom of Information Act release. The reason is to prevent the intimidation of institutions or persons from opponents, some criminals and some not. The perfect example of this is the unfortunate situation of Montana State University, in Bozeman. Mycoherbicide research was taking place at that institution under a series of USDA grants. A local chapter of NORML, the organization promoting the legalization and relaxing of marijuana laws, sued successfully under the FOIA for the release of this taxpayer funded research data. In the process, they also successfully intimidated the university administrators with the planted suggestion that powerful drug lords seeking retaliation represented a potentially ‘explosive’ threat to unarmed students on the campus of a public university, one in which both the university and the students would find themselves to be at a distinct disadvantage. Wouldn’t they now? Fearing the worst, the administration capitulated. NORML was elated. In our view, it is within the bounds of propriety to represent your interests. Being in favor of relaxed laws is a defensible position. However, it borders on shouting in an airport that you are taking a gun aboard a plane to match the civic irresponsibility of the suggestion of violence made in the Montana State affair. Such implied violence would get one thrown in jail if made even facetiously in an airport. At a university it is somehow judged to be a protected form of free speech. Violence is not a defensible position. It doesn’t compute. Intimidating the opponent in such a manner is not within the legitimate bounds of the right to one’s speech. Mycoherbicides are a potential weapon against illicit drugs. Even NORML knows there would always be enough marijuana for medical uses should courts legitimize such restricted use. Another truth is that much weapons research takes place within scientific academia, not just in Montana, but at university labs throughout the nation. Some of this research involves missile defenses, uses of nuclear power and other weapons of mass destruction. Other research has controversial genetic and medical implications. Shall these all be intimidated by their detractors, their personnel threatened, their students and physical plants put at risk? Both irresponsible activism and slanted journalism almost invariably make reference to mycoherbicide research using words such as clandestine, classified, secret, obscured, hidden, and ‘drawn-shades’ as though there were something inherently wrong about conducting research behind closed doors. Predictably, disinformation relies on half-truth and innuendo to fan the fires of fear. The reader of such slipshod writing should be immediately alert toward the bias of the words. The fact is that almost every type of innovative technological or scientific concept is pursued out of the public spotlight, whether it’s a new laundry detergent, a computer chip, or a cure for cancer As to the FOIA, and in our view, what the Clinton Administration did at Montana was ill advised, as was their action at other sensitive facilities, including government nuclear facilities. We disagree with the current too narrow view of protected research data. In our view, taxpayer rights are not a license for mischief. The last problem is one difficult to measure or explain, but perhaps there isn’t as much controversy surrounding mycoherbicides as one is led to believe. We have already presented the evidence of the African ‘witchweed’ biocontrol initiative, which has met with no controversy, even though the land to be treated is over two-hundred times greater, or that the control agent represents a greater uncertainty due to less testing. What elusive factor may be confusing that which meets the eye? We can’t help but feel that at least some mathematical proportion of those who may appear to be concerned journalists or environmentalists, may in fact, represent darker forces. Life experience suggests that there is just as good a statistical likelihood of there being persons in the service of criminal interests in the journalistic public as there are for crooked bankers, businessmen, etc., in the general public. People do many things for money and in this case, there is plenty of money. We have estimated that as much as five hundred to seven hundred billions of laundered dollars are available for bribery each and every year. We have no fingers to point other than to suggest that the criminal underworld has two great golden geese in the coca shrub and the opium poppy. We believe it is not out of the question, but highly reasonable to assume that these great sources of income would be jealously protected, even at the cost of infiltrating environmental groups and influencing journalists and freelance writers. How else would one explain why the current furor surrounds illicit drugs only, and not African witchweed? It gives one cause to wonder what powerful forces read the handwriting on the wall (or in the newspaper). Once coca and poppy growing areas are contaminated by host-specific pathogens, those two golden geese will cease to lay their rotten eggs. Therefore, unless detractor’s are willing to support their claims (as the mycoherbicide researchers are legally required to do through APHIS) with scientific evidence that relates to the species, subspecies, and/or race of pathogen under consideration, it seems legitimate to assume that their intentions are, at best, questionable, and at worst, criminal. The people who want drugs and the criminal income it produces to be a problem of the past are not being paid or paid-off by anyone. There is no ongoing profit to be squeezed from a drug-free populace—not a cent! Even the most jaded person would have to agree that the opposing groups have vastly different potentials in their positions. In our opinion, its just a re-run, another discreditable Frostban scare. This strain and subspecies of Fusarium does not mutate, has not mutated, has not been genetically engineered, does not effect other host plants and has not killed humans. In Columbia alone, the drug war kills 100,000 persons a year! There is nothing wrong with a truly environmental position, but once those concerns are met, no further objection should be defensible, or tolerated.
Comments?  ©2001-2008 Public Policy Press
Website design by Packetrat Communications |
 |