So not only did the conspiracy theorists get the location of the first Brazil release wrong, they either got the date wrong, too, or got the location of the 2015 releases really, really off. Either way, the central argument that the release of GM mosquitoes by Oxitec coincides with the first cases of Zika virus simply doesn’t hold up.

As this ludicrous conspiracy theory has spread, so, too, has the scientific opposition to it. “Frankly, I’m a little sick of this kind of anti-science platform,” said vector ecologist Tanjim Hossain from the University of Miami, when I asked him what he thought. “This kind of fear mongering is not only irresponsible, but may very well be downright harmful to vulnerable populations from a global health perspective.”

Despite the specious allusions made by proponents of the conspiracy, this is still not Jurassic Park, says Hossain.

http://online.sfsu.edu/repstein/GEessays/Klebsiellaplanticola.html

Klebsiella planticola--The Gene-Altered Monster
That Almost Got Away

The Deadly Genetically Engineered Bacteria that Almost Got Away: A
Cautionary Tale

Web Note: In the early 1990s a European genetic engineering company was
preparing to field test and then commercialize on a major scale a
genetically engineered soil bacteria called Klebsiella planticola. The
bacteria had been tested--as it turns out in a careless and very
unscientific mannner--by scientists working for the biotech industry and
was believed to be safe for the environment. Fortunately a team of
independent scientists, headed by Dr. Elaine Ingham of Oregon State
University, decided to run their own tests on the gene-altered Klebsiella
planticola. What they discovered was not only startling, but terrifying--
the biotech industry had created a biological monster--a genetically
engineered microorganism that would kill all terrestrial plants. After
Ingham's expose, of course the gene-altered Klebsiella planticola was never
commercialized. But as Ingham points out, the lack of pre-market safety
testing of other genetically altered organisms virtually guarantees that
future biological monsters will be released into the environment. Moreover
it's not only genetic engineering that poses a mortal threat to our soil
ecology, the soil food web, as Ingham calls it. Chemical-intensive
agriculture is slowly but surely poisoning our soil and our drinking water
as well.

This article orginally appeared in the Green Party publication
Synthesis/Regeneration 18 (Winter 1999)

Ecological Balance and Biological Integrity

Good Intentions and Engineering Organisms that Kill Wheat

by Elaine Ingham, Oregon State University
<www.soilfoodweb.com>

<snip>

http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html

How a Biotech Company Almost Killed The World (With Booze)
By Robert Brockway April 03, 2010 542,739 Views

In the 1990s, A European biotech company prepared to commercially release a genetically engineered soil bacterium for use by farmers. They were operating under two very reasonable assumptions:

1. Nobody likes plant waste.

2. Everybody likes booze.

Whereas the common man might address these issues by simply not doing any plowing and opting to get plowed instead, scientists at the biotech company thought of a much more elegant solution: Engineer a bacterium that aggressively decomposes dead plant material--specifically wheat--into alcohol. And in 1990, they did exactly that. The bacterium was called Klebsiella planticola, and it nearly murdered everybody; you just don't know it yet.

<snip>

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
INGHAM DEFENDS POSITION "ENGINEERED BACTERIUM COULD HAVE SERIOUS IMPLICATION FOR HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH"

I have not been "discredited" by any group of my peers, as least as far as anyone in scientific arena has informed me. Further, I have not been subject to any academic censure.

Francis Wevers, in a typically virulent letter using tactics designed to obfuscate the truth, made it sound as if review by my University is a terrible thing. But let me point out that most professors are reviewed each year - it's called an annual review. I believe most people are familiar with the concept. My University reviewed my position, but I was not censured, I have not lost stature at my University.

I reported to the New Zealand Royal Commission on the work that a graduate student performed. That information has been published for a number of years. A clarification was submitted to the Royal Commission basically to point out the incorrect reference for the scientific paper. Typographical errors happen. While regrettable, a typographical error does not change the fact that the scientific data are published and in the scientific record.

I was very clear in my testimony to the Commission that I had been told by individuals in the USEPA that the work done by Dr. Michael Holmes had been repeated. Dr. Michael Holmes, Dr. Lydia Watrud, and Lynn Rogers, a technician at the EPA at the time, also told me that information. Dr. Holmes heard me repeat his information a number of times. I gave that information to the Commission by saying that I understood that the USEPA had repeated the work.

Regardless of whether the EPA did or did not repeat the work, addition of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola to soil has been shown to result in death of wheat plants in laboratory units. This information, published in Applied Soil Ecology, was the work of Dr. Holmes' Ph.D thesis. It was his work that I spoke about to the Royal Commission.

I was very careful to say that if you extrapolate the results of the laboratory work to the field, based on the facts that most terrestrial plants cannot tolerate alcohol production in the root system, that this bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol, that this bacterium typically grows in the roots systems of all plants, then there is a clear risk if this bacterium were to be released into the natural environment. This bacterium was being considered for release, and my understanding was that release was mere weeks away when the results of Dr. Holmes' work was given to the EPA.

Dr. Holmes has said that he cannot repeat his Ph.D. research. Why? Because he no longer has the engineered organism in his possession. Does this suggest that his Ph.D. work was inaccurate or poorly done? Does his inability to repeat the work now suggest his Ph.D. is somehow tainted? Not in any way. If he still had the engineered bacterium, he could repeat the work.

I did not say in my testimony, or at any other time, that release of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola would end life on earth. That was a fabrication by a newspaper reporter. That this engineered bacterium could have serious implications for human life on earth is something that I would say, however. But it would not end life on earth. After all, the bacterium would survive and happily continue to make alcohol. Other bacteria would happily consume that alcohol, and so on. The web of life could be altered, but would not come to an end.

I do not believe that either George Lawton or Acres have suffered because of the publication of the information about Klebsiella planticola. I think that's probably wishful thinking by people who don't want others to consider the implications of putting something that makes alcohol, using the root's own exudates, into the root systems of alcohol-intolerant terretrial plants. Certainly, neither George or any editor from Acres have said anything to me about any negativity. A few rather outrageous blips have appeared that have flamed me, but most people can see through the rhetoric to the facts.

Confused about what is what? Read the scientific paper. Halfway through the abstract, read the line that says: "When SDF20 was added to the soil with plants, the numbers of bacterial and fungal feeding nematodes increased significantly, coinciding with death of the plants." The plants died when the engineered bacterium was added to the soil. The plants did not die when the parent, not-engineered bacterium was added.

Why isn't there a title on the paper that screams "addition of GE bacterium kills plants"? Because it is a scientific paper reporting on a series of experiments, not sensationalistic journalism. Klebsiella planticola is merely an example that human beings can engineer organisms that can cause serious problems. This engineered bacterium has never been released into the natural environment, and hopefully, never will be.

You want the facts about the potential Klebsiella planticola has? Read the paper. Check the line on page 73, "However, at the end of the experiment, plants in soil inoculated with with SDF20 were chlorotic and wilting, while plants in the uninoculated soil and soil with SDF15 were flowering." SDF20 is the engineered bacterium, and SDF15 is the parent, not-engineered bacterium. Chlorotic and wilting means the plants had no color, and were, mostly, lying dead on the surface of the soil.

Make your own decision about whether this engineered bacterium is something that could cause significant impacts on terrestrial systems. Ignore the rhetoric, read the facts, decide for yourself.

The paper? Holmes, M.T., E.R. Ingham, J.D. Doyle and C.W. Hendricks. 1999. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 11: 67-78.

Sincerely,

Elaine Ingham
President, Director of Research, Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis,
info@soilfoodweb.com
President, Soil Foodweb Institute Pty. Ltd., soilfoodwebinst@aol.com
President, Sustainable Studies Institute, www.sustainablestudies.org
Director of Research, Soil Foodweb New York Inc, www.soilfoodweb.com/newyork
Partner, Unisun Communications, Inc., www.unisun.org
Treasurer, Illinois Tilth
Board Member, OSALT, Canby, OR www.osalt.org
Associate Professor, Courtesy, Research, Oregon State University

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/a_biological_apocalypse_averted/

But the scientists discovered something else in these experiments, something that sent chills down their spines. They found that the genetically modified bacteria were able to persist in the soil, raising the possibility that, had it been released, the genetically engineered Klebsiella could have become established–and virtually impossible to eradicate.

“When the data first started coming in,” says Elaine Ingham, the soil pathologist at Oregon State University who directed Michael Holmes’ research on Klebsiella, “the EPA charged that we couldn’t have performed the research correctly. They went through everything with a fine tooth comb, and they couldn’t find anything wrong with the experimental design–but they tried as hard as they could... If we hadn’t done this research, the Klebsiella would have passed the approval process for commercial release.”

Geneticist David Suzuki understands that what took place was truly ominous. “The genetically engineered Klebsiella,” he says, “could have ended all plant life on this continent. The implications of this single case are nothing short of terrifying.”

Meanwhile Monsanto and the other biotech companies are eagerly developing all kinds of genetically modified organisms, hoping to bring them to market. How do we know if they’re safe? According to Suzuki: “We don’t, and won’t for years after they are being widely used.’’