Bunny, this is a great article but it's cut off at the end. Can you send
the rest? --E.
At 07:56 AM 11/5/98 +0800, bunny wrote:
>The New York Times Sunday Magazine
>October 25, 1998
>
>"Playing God in the Garden"
>by Michael Pollan
>
>Planting
>
>Today I planted something new in my vegetable garden -- something very
>new, as a matter of fact. It's a potato called the New Leaf Superior,
>which has been genetically engineered -- by Monsanto, the chemical giant
>recently turned "life sciences" giant -- to produce its own insecticide.
>This it can do in every cell of every leaf, stem, flower, root and (here's
>the creepy part) spud. The scourge of potatoes has always been the
>Colorado potato beetle, a handsome and voracious insect that can pick a
>plant clean of its leaves virtually overnight. Any Colorado potato beetle
>that takes so much as a nibble of my New Leafs will supposedly keel over
>and die, its digestive tract pulped, in effect, by the bacterial toxin
>manufactured in the leaves of these otherwise ordinary Superiors.
>(Superiors are the thin-skinned white spuds sold fresh in the
>supermarket.) You're probably wondering if I plan to eat these potatoes,
>or serve them to my family. That's still up in the air; it's only the
>first week of May, and harvest is a few months off.
>
>Certainly my New Leafs are aptly named. They're part of a new class of
>crop plants that is rapidly changing the American food chain. This year,
>the fourth year that genetically altered seed has been on the market,
>some 45 million acres of American farmland have been planted with biotech
>crops, most of it corn, soybeans, cotton and potatoes that have been
>engineered to either produce their own pesticides or withstand herbicides.
>Though Americans have already begun to eat genetically engineered
>potatoes, corn and soybeans, industry research confirms what my own
>informal surveys suggest: hardly any of us knows it. The reason is not
>hard to find. The biotech industry, with the concurrence of the Food and
>Drug Administration, has decided we don't need to know it, so biotech
>foods carry no identifying labels. In a dazzling feat of positioning, the
>industry has succeeded in depicting these plants simultaneously as the
>linchpins of a biological revolution -- part of a "new agricultural
>paradigm" that will make farming more sustainable, feed the world and
>improve health and nutrition -- and, oddly enough, as the same old stuff,
>at least so far as those of us at the eating end of the food chain should
>be concerned.
>
>This convenient version of reality has been roundly rejected by both
>consumers and farmers across the Atlantic. Last summer, biotech food
>emerged as the most explosive environmental issue in Europe. Protesters
>have destroyed dozens of field trials of the very same "frankenplants" (as
>they are sometimes called) that we Americans are already serving for
>dinner, and throughout Europe the public has demanded that biotech food be
>labeled in the market.
>
>By growing my own transgenic crop -- and talking with scientists and
>farmers involved with biotech -- I hoped to discover which of us was
>crazy. Are the Europeans overreacting, or is it possible that we've been
>underreacting to genetically engineered food?
>
>After digging two shallow trenches in my garden and lining them with
>compost, I untied the purple mesh bag of seed potatoes that Monsanto had
>sent and opened up the Grower Guide tied around its neck. (Potatoes, you
>may recall from kindergarten experiments, are grown not from seed but from
>the eyes of other potatoes.) The guide put me in mind not so much of
>planting potatoes as booting up a new software release. By "opening and
>using this product," the card stated, I was now "licensed" to grow these
>potatoes, but only for a single generation; the crop I would water and
>tend and harvest was mine, yet also not mine. That is, the potatoes I will
>harvest come August are mine to eat or sell, but their genes remain the
>intellectual property of Monsanto, protected under numerous United States
>patents, including Nos. 5,196,525, 5,164,316, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605.
>Were I to save even one of them to plant next year --something I've
>routinely done with potatoes in the past -- I would be breaking Federal
>law. The small print in the Grower Guide also brought the news that my
>potato plants were themselves a pesticide, registered with the
>Environmental Protection Agency.
>
>If proof were needed that the intricate industrial food chain that begins
>with seeds and ends on our dinner plates is in the throes of profound
>change, the small print that accompanied my New Leaf will do. That food
>chain has been unrivaled for its productivity -- on average, a single
>American farmer today grows enough food each year to feed 100 people. But
>this accomplishment has come at a price. The modern industrial farmer
>cannot achieve such yields without enormous amounts of chemical
>fertilizer, pesticide, machinery and fuel, a set of capital-intensive
>inputs, as they're called, that saddle the farmer with debt, threaten his
>health, erode his soil and destroy its fertility, pollute the ground water
>and compromise the safety of the food we eat.
>
>We've heard all this before, of course, but usually from environmentalists
>and organic farmers; what is new is to hear the same critique from
>conventional farmers, government officials and even many agribusiness
>corporations, all of whom now acknowledge that our food chain stands in
>need of reform. Sounding more like Wendell Berry than the agribusiness
>giant it is, Monsanto declared in its most recent annual report that
>"current agricultural technology is not sustainable."
>
>What is supposed to rescue the American food chain is biotechnology -- the
>replacement of expensive and toxic chemical inputs with expensive but
>apparently benign genetic information: crops that, like my New Leafs, can
>protect themselves from insects and disease without being sprayed with
>pesticides. With the advent of biotechnology, agriculture is entering the
>information age, and more than any other company, Monsanto is positioning
>itself to become its Microsoft, supplying the proprietary "operating
>systems" -- the metaphor is theirs -- to run this new generation of plants.
>
>There is, of course, a second food chain in America: organic agriculture.
>And while it is still only a fraction of the size of the conventional food
>chain, it has been growing in leaps and bounds -- in large part because of
>concerns over the safety of conventional agriculture. Organic farmers have
>been among biotechnology's fiercest critics, regarding crops like my New
>Leafs as inimical to their principles and, potentially, a threat to their
>survival. That's because Bt, the bacterial toxin produced in my New Leafs
>(and in many other biotech plants) happens to be the same insecticide
>organic growers have relied on for decades. Instead of being flattered by
>the imitation, however, organic farmers are up in arms: the widespread use
>of Bt in biotech crops is likely to lead to insect resistance, thus
>robbing organic growers of one of their most critical tools; that is,
>Monsanto's version of sustainable agriculture may threaten precisely those
>farmers who pioneered sustainable farming.
>
>Sprouting
>
>After several days of drenching rain, the sun appeared on May 15, and so
>did my New Leafs. A dozen deep-green shoots pushed up out of the soil and
>commenced to grow -- faster and more robustly than any of the other
>potatoes in my garden. Apart from their vigor, though, my New Leafs looked
>perfectly normal. And yet as I watched them multiply their lustrous
>dark-green leaves those first few days, eagerly awaiting the arrival of
>the first doomed beetle, I couldn't help thinking of them as existentially
>different from the rest of my plants.
>
>All domesticated plants are in some sense artificial -- living archives
>of both cultural and natural information that we in some sense "design."
>A given type of potato reflects the values we've bred into it -- one that
>has been selected to yield long, handsome french fries or unblemished
>round potato chips is the expression of a national food chain that likes
>its potatoes highly processed. At the same time, some of the more
>delicate European fingerlings I'm growing alongside my New Leafs imply an
>economy of small market growers and a taste for eating potatoes fresh.
>Yet all these qualities already existed in the potato, somewhere within
>the range of genetic possibilities presented by Solanum tuberosum. Since
>distant species in nature cannot be crossed, the breeder's art has always
>run up against a natural limit of what a potato is willing, or able, to
>do. Nature, in effect, has exercised a kind of veto on what culture can
>do with a potato.
>
>My New Leafs are different. Although Monsanto likes to depict
>biotechnology as just another in an ancient line of human modifications of
>nature going back to fermentation, in fact genetic engineering overthrows
>the old rules governing the relationship of nature and culture in a plant.
>For the first time, breeders can bring qualities from anywhere in nature
>into the genome of a plant -- from flounders (frost tolerance), from
>viruses (disease resistance) and, in the case of my potatoes, from
>Bacillus thuringiensis, the soil bacterium that produces the organic
>insecticide known as Bt. The introduction into a plant of genes
>transported not only across species but whole phyla means that the wall of
>that plant's essential identity -- its irreducible wildness, you might say
>-- has been breached.
>
>But what is perhaps most astonishing about the New Leafs coming up in my
>garden is the human intelligence that the inclusion of the Bt gene
>represents. In the past, that intelligence resided outside the plant, in
>the mind of the organic farmers who deployed Bt (in the form of a spray)
>to manipulate the ecological relationship of certain insects and a certain
>bacterium as a way to foil those insects. The irony about the New Leafs is
>that the cultural information they encode happens to be knowledge that
>resides in the heads of the very sort of people -- that is, organic
>growers -- who most distrust high technology.
>
>One way to look at biotechnology is that it allows a larger portion of
>human intelligence to be incorporated into the plant itself. In this
>sense, my New Leafs are just plain smarter than the rest of my potatoes.
>The others will depend on my knowledge and experience when the Colorado
>potato beetles strike; the New Leafs, knowing what I know about bugs and
>Bt, will take care of themselves. So while my biotech plants might seem
>like alien beings, that's not quite right. They're more like us than like
>other plants because there's more of us in them.
>
>Growing
>
>To find out how my potatoes got that way, I traveled to suburban St. Louis
>in early June. My New Leafs are clones of clones of plants that were first
>engineered seven years ago in Monsanto's $150 million research facility, a
>long, low-slung brick building on the banks of the Missouri that would
>look like any other corporate complex were it not for the 26 greenhouses
>that crown its roof like shimmering crenellations of glass.
>
>Dave Stark, a molecular biologist and co-director of Naturemark,
>Monsanto's potato subsidiary, escorted me through the clean rooms where
>potatoes are genetically engineered. Technicians sat at lab benches before
>petri dishes in which fingernail-size sections of potato stem had been
>placed in a nutrient mixture. To this the technicians added a solution of
>agrobacterium, a disease bacterium whose modus operandi is to break into a
>plant cell's nucleus and insert some of its own DNA. Essentially,
>scientists smuggle the Bt gene into the agrobacterium's payload, and then
>the bacterium splices it into the potato's DNA. The technicians also add a
>"marker" gene, a kind of universal product code that allows Monsanto to
>identify its plants after they leave the lab.
>
>A few days later, once the slips of potato stem have put down roots,
>they're moved to the potato greenhouse up on the roof. Here, Glenda
>DeBrecht, a horticulturist, invited me to don latex gloves and help her
>transplant pinky-size plantlets from their petri dish to small pots. The
>whole operation is performed thousands of times, largely because there is
>so much uncertainty about the outcome. There's no way of telling where in
>the genome the new DNA will land, and if it winds up in the wrong place,
>the new gene won't be expressed (or it will be poorly expressed) or the
>plant may be a freak. I was struck by how the technology could at once be
>astoundingly sophisticated and yet also a shot in the genetic dark.
>
>"There's still a lot we don't understand about gene expression," Stark
>acknowledged. A great many factors influence whether, or to what extent, a
>new gene will do what it's supposed to, including the environment. In one
>early German experiment, scientists succeeded in splicing the gene for
>redness into petunias. All went as planned until the weather turned hot
>and an entire field of red petunias suddenly and inexplicably lost their
>pigment. The process didn't seem nearly as simple as Monsanto's cherished
>software metaphor would suggest.
>
>When I got home from St. Louis, I phoned Richard Lewontin, the Harvard
>geneticist, to ask him what he thought of the software metaphor. "From an
>intellectual-property standpoint, it's exactly right," he said. "But it's
>a bad one in terms of biology. It implies you feed a program into a
>machine and get predictable results. But the genome is very noisy. If my
>computer made as many mistakes as an organism does" -- in interpreting its
>DNA, he meant -- "I'd throw it out."
>
>I asked him for a better metaphor. "An ecosystem," he offered. "You can
>always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing
>what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the
>environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the
>organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get
>one rude shock after another."
>
>Flowering
>
>My own crop was thriving when I got home from St. Louis; the New Leafs
>were as big as bushes, crowned with slender flower stalks. Potato flowers
>are actually quite pretty, at least by vegetable standards -- five-petaled
>pink stars with yellow centers that give off a faint rose perfume. One
>sultry afternoon I watched the bumblebees making their lazy rounds of my
>potato blossoms, thoughtlessly powdering their thighs with yellow pollen
>grains before lumbering off to appointments with other blossoms, others
>species.
>
>Uncertainty is the theme that unifies much of the criticism leveled
>against biotech agriculture by scientists and environmentalists. By
>planting millions of acres of genetically altered plants, we have
>introduced something novel into the environment and the food chain, the
>consequences of which are not -- and at this point, cannot be --
>completely understood. One of the uncertainties has to do with those
>grains of pollen bumblebees are carting off from my potatoes. That pollen
>contains Bt genes that may wind up in some other, related plant, possibly
>conferring a new evolutionary advantage on that species. "Gene flow," the
>scientific term for this phenomenon, occurs only between closely related
>species, and since the potato evolved in South America, the chances are
>slim that my Bt potato genes will escape into the wilds of Connecticut.
>(It's interesting to note that while biotechnology depends for its power
>on the ability to move genes freely among species and even phyla, its
>environmental safety depends on the very opposite phenomenon: on the
>integrity of species in nature and their rejection of foreign genetic
>material.)
>
>Yet what happens if and when Peruvian farmers plant Bt potatoes? Or when I
>plant a biotech crop that does have local relatives? A study reported in
>Nature last month found that plant traits introduced by genetic
>engineering were more likely to escape into the wild than the same traits
>introduced conventionally.
>
>Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Center for Technology Assessment in
>Washington, told me he believes such escapes are inevitable. "Biological
>pollution will be the environmental nightmare of the 21st century," he
>said when I reached him by phone. "This is not like chemical pollution --
>an oil spill -- that eventually disperses. Biological pollution is an
>entirely different model, more like a disease. Is Monsanto going to be
>held legally responsible when one of its transgenes creates a superweed or
>resistant insect?"
>
>Kimbrell maintains that because our pollution laws were written before the
>advent of biotechnology, the new industry is being regulated under an
>ill-fitting regime designed for the chemical age. Congress has so far
>passed no environmental law dealing specifically with biotech. Monsanto,
>for its part, claims that it has thoroughly examined all the potential
>environmental and health risks of its biotech plants, and points out that
>
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elizabeth L. MacNabb, PhD
Service Learning, Career Development Center
Richmond Hall, UR, Richmond, VA 23173
phone 804-2898686, fax 804-287-6465
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 6 02:39:13 1998
by gehenna.netnation.com (8.8.6/8.8.5)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:39:08 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: URGENT - From a Friend - Please Help End Vivisection!
gwendolyn griffin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your friend has visited the Barry Horne Support Web Site and recommends that
you should HELP END VIVISECTION.
** This is an automatic letter. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO IT. **
You should visit the Barry Horne Support Web Site at:
http://www.animal-liberation.net/barry/
Animal liberation prisoner, Barry Horne, currently serving an 18-year sentence for
animal rights 'offences', has been on a hunger strike since, 6th October.
His demands include that the UK Labour government keep its election pledges on
vivisection.
Send a prepared email message to the UK Labour Government. It takes only a few
minutes of your time.
You can go directly to the Automailer System at the Barry Horne Support Web Site:
http://www.animal-liberation.net/barry/automailer.html
Barry Horne's message to the Movement at the commencement of this third hunger
strike was "For these demands we fight and for the animals we will win."
You can make a crucial difference - YOUR SUPPORT COUNTS!
