|
|
e-NEWS from National Vaccine Information Center
"The corn and sugar cane plants, already harvested because the experiments
involving them were completed before the case was decided, had been modified
to produce human hormones, drugs and ingredients for vaccines against AIDS
and hepatitis B....Advocates believe that some drugs and vaccines may be
produced more economically in crops than in the laboratory cultures that are
commonly used today. Some even envision "edible vaccines," such as bananas
laden with proteins that would boost blood levels of protective antibodies
-- an attractive strategy for developing countries, where the refrigeration
needed for many conventional vaccines is often not available. But opponents
fear that ordinary crops may become contaminated with drug- spiked versions
grown in open fields, and that unwanted drug exposures from foods could
trigger allergic reactions or other problems in people or animals." -
Washington Post, August 16, 2006
BL Fisher Note:
These scientists and vaccinologists just can't stop fooling around with
Mother Nature. Perhaps they need to develop a vaccine to inject into
themselves to protect the rest of the humanity from their obsessive desire
to fix what isn't broken. Now they are mucking around in our food supply,
experimenting with spiking our corn on the cob and the sugar we put in our
coffee with drugs and vaccines we never said we wanted in the first place.
What is with these people? And why do we give those who choose to enter the
scientific profession so much power to alter the biological integrity of the
world humans successfully inhabited long before Jenner came up with the idea
of smallpox vaccine or Pasteur was hired to save the beer industry?
At least one U.S. District Court judge in Hawaii is slapping the hands of
USDA scientists for genetically engineering crops on hundreds of acres of
Hawaiian land to produce drugs and vaccines in them without first
investigating whether the genetic hybrid plants posed a threat to the
state's hundreds of endangered species. Opposing the new practice of "bio-pharming,"
environmental groups are calling for a moratorium on open-air testing of
bio-engineered crops that could permanently contaminate the food chain and
make animals and humans sicker.
As more Americans demand organic foods which are pure and unadulterated, why
would these bio-pharmers think that people would want to eat drug and
vaccine contaminated crops? Unless they believe they can persuade the
politicians to force us to eat them - for the greater good, of course.
Gene-Altered Crops Denounced
Environmental Groups Seek Moratorium on Open- Air Tests
The Washington Post
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; A03
By Rick Weiss
Environmental groups yesterday called for a moratorium on open-air tests of
crops genetically engineered to produce medicines and vaccines, citing a
federal court's conclusion last week that the Agriculture Department
repeatedly broke the law by allowing companies to plant such crops on
hundred of acres in Hawaii.
In a toughly worded 52-page decision released without fanfare late last
week, a U.S. District judge in Hawaii concluded that USDA's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which grants permits for the planting of
genetically engineered crops, should have first investigated whether the
plants posed a threat to any of that state's hundreds of endangered species.
The corn and sugar cane plants, already harvested because the experiments
involving them were completed before the case was decided, had been modified
to produce human hormones, drugs and ingredients for vaccines against AIDS
and hepatitis B.
"APHIS's utter disregard for this simple investigation requirement,
especially given the extraordinary number of endangered and threatened
plants and animals in Hawaii, constitutes an unequivocal violation of a
clear congressional mandate," wrote Judge J. Michael Seabright in his Aug.
10 decision.
The ruling is the first by a federal court on the controversial practice of
"bio-pharming," in which crops are engineered to produce potentially
therapeutic human proteins. But it is not the first damning federal critique
of APHIS's oversight. A December 2005 audit by the Agriculture Department's
Office of Inspector General found multiple failings in the agency's
enforcement of research rules for gene- altered plants.
APHIS spokeswoman Rachel Iadicicco said yesterday that the agency had
already corrected the major problems cited in the 2005 report and had
recently made policy changes to satisfy the court's concerns, as well. In
addition, she said, APHIS is crafting a sweeping "programmatic"
environmental impact statement addressing larger, long-standing concerns
about its oversight of biotech crops.
But opponents said they have heard such assurances before.
"We are asking the judge to enjoin the issuance of any biopharma permits
anywhere in the country unless and until APHIS completes a programmatic
analysis of their regulatory program," said Paul H. Achitoff, managing
attorney for Earthjustice in Honolulu, which litigated the case with the
Washington-based Center for Food Safety.
The judge has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to decide what remedies to
impose. The court ruling is the latest in a decade-long struggle that has
pitted biotech companies against an uneasy coalition of environmentalists
and conventional food producers and distributors.
Advocates believe that some drugs and vaccines may be produced more
economically in crops than in the laboratory cultures that are commonly used
today. Some even envision "edible vaccines," such as bananas laden with
proteins that would boost blood levels of protective antibodies -- an
attractive strategy for developing countries, where the refrigeration needed
for many conventional vaccines is often not available.
But opponents fear that ordinary crops may become contaminated with
drug-spiked versions grown in open fields, and that unwanted drug exposures
from foods could trigger allergic reactions or other problems in people or
animals.
Fears of admixture gained credence in 2002 when a Texas company was found to
have broken rules in its cultivation of corn plants engineered to make a pig
diarrhea vaccine. The error necessitated the destruction of 500,000 bushels
of potentially contaminated soybeans, and left the now defunct company,
ProdiGene, stuck with millions of dollars in cleanup costs.
"The use of food crops to produce materials not intended to be in the food
supply must only proceed under systems proven to prevent any contamination
or adulteration of the food supply," said Jeffrey Barach of the Food
Products Association in Washington. "To date, effective control programs
have not been demonstrated to our satisfaction."
The federal court decision responds to a 2003 lawsuit filed by several
public interest groups. Taking a novel tack, the groups charged that APHIS
failed to consider the potential impacts on endangered species when it
approved four Hawaii field studies in the previous three years. The plants
were produced by ProdiGene, Monsanto, the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center
and Garst Seed of Slater, Iowa.
The plaintiffs -- including Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network
North America and Kahea, a Hawaiian environmental alliance -- noted that
Hawaii is home to 329 endangered or threatened species, more than any other
state, including many birds with easy access to test plots.
Seabright agreed with the groups that, although proof of harm is lacking,
APHIS's issuance of the permits for 800 acres on four Hawaiian islands
without consideration of those potential impacts was "arbitrary and
capricious."
"This is probably the strongest message yet to USDA that they need to do a
much better job at regulating all genetically engineered crop field trials,"
said Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, noting that about a dozen
pharma permits are approved in a typical year.
"They've been rubber-stamping for too long, and they need to get serious
about these crops." But the judge rejected the groups' broader claim that
APHIS had broken its promise to improve its overall system of oversight.
"Although the Plaintiffs are understandably upset by the fact that this
process has taken over three years, the court accepts APHIS's
representations" that the delay is justified and progress is under way.
Stephanie A. Whalen, president of the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center,
which ran the studies involving sugar cane engineered to make a human blood
protein, said the ruling "looks backward" at problems already corrected.
"The idea that this has got the potential for harm has been all blown out of
proportion," she said. "We're really proud of the work we do, and we know
how important it is to safeguard the environment."
Click here for the URL: requires registration
NVIC E-News is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and
is supported through membership donations.
NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not
receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-
founder.
Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent
rights at www.nvic.org
NVIC
National Vaccine Information Center
|
|
|