Cannabis Chronicles

As we mentioned in our last journal entry, as a scientist trained specifically in the field of fungus species like Fusarium, Jeremy Bigwood is uniquely qualified to speak against the ill considered development and use of biological herbicides in the War on Drugs. Here’s an article he penned for In These Times just two years ago . . .

June 6, 2006
Drug Warriors Push Eye-Eating Fungus
Why are members of Congress advocating the use of a dangerous crop-killer in Colombia?
By Jeremy Bigwood

An infection caused by Fusarium fungus destroys a human cornea

On April 16, the New York Times ran a full-page ad from contact lens producer Bausch and Lomb, announcing the recall of its “ReNu with MoistureLoc” rewetting solution, and warning the 30 million American wearers of soft contact lenses about Fusarium keratitis. This infection, first detected in Asia, has rapidly spread across the United States. It is caused by a mold-like fungus that can penetrate the cornea of soft contact lens wearers, causing redness and pain that can lead to blindness—requiring a corneal replacement.

That same week, the House of Representatives passed a provision to a bill requiring that the very same fungus be sprayed in “a major drug-producing country,” such as Colombia. The bill’s sponsor was Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and its most vocal supporter was his colleague Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been promoting the fungus for almost a decade as key to winning the drug war.

The Colombian government has come out against it. And those entities of the U.S. government that have studied the use of Fusarium for more than 30 years don’t recommend it either: The Office of National Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar’s office, CIA, DEA, the State Department and the USDA have all concluded that the fungus is unsafe for humans and the environment.

“Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. … Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide,” wrote David Struhs, then secretary of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, in a 1999 letter rejecting the use of the fungus against Florida’s outdoor marijuana crop. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to control the spread of Fusarium species.”

Mutation of the fungus allows it to attack other “hosts.” The eye-eating Fusarium seems to be a result of such a mutation. After all, the soft-contact lenses that it grows behind are a recent development—having only been commercially available since 1971.

The DEA stopped funding Fusarium research in the United States during the early ’90s after it learned that Fusarium infections can be deadly in “immunocompromised” people—not only AIDS patients and those with other illnesses, but also those who are severely malnourished. The University of the Andes in Bogotá has recently reported that 12 percent of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition. Spraying this fungus on a vulnerable population could be perceived as using a biological weapon.

The CIA has been against the use of Fusarium to kill drug crops since at least 2000. At that time, one official told the Times, “I don’t support using a product on a bunch of Colombian peasants that you wouldn’t use against a bunch of rednecks growing marijuana in Kentucky.”

A top scientist from the USDA, which has studied the fungus the longest, said that his agency “cannot support” its use. And the State Department, whose Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement carries out drug crop eradication all over the world, does not support it, either.

In 2000, when Congress first passed “Plan Colombia,” the Colombian aid package that ordered the use of the fungus in Colombia, President Clinton waived the part of the bill that dealt with the fungus because he thought its use would be perceived as biological warfare. At the same time, the Andean Community of Nations, an organization comprising Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, banned it within their territories.

So, who does support the spraying of the eye-eating fungus over other countries? Only a few adamant drug war jihadists in the House, led by Burton, who are frustrated by the lack of progress in the drug war.

The fungus provision has already passed the House, but the Senate version of the bill contains no similar language. Responsibility for a final decision rests on the conference committee where the House and Senate bills will be reconciled—scheduled to happen before this summer.

As can be learned from the ongoing battle to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, something that’s a bad idea may end up defeated again and again, only to rear it’s ugly head once more in times of crisis. Just as happened historically in the case of alcohol prohibition, it time to wake up and realize this it not a winnable war.

The potential “collateral damage” from the deployment of Fusarium is absolutely and totally unacceptable. At it’s essence, the fungal bioherbicide has the potential to become a weapon of mass destruction, and it’s shameful that our leaders would even consider opening that Pandora’s box and unleashing their plant plague on unsuspecting persons in third world countries.

“Aye there’s the rub”, as they say. Our drug warriors have invested far too much in the drug war now to admit defeat, and find themselves in a position not unlike the Nazi’s of 1942-43. They are trapped in an unwinnable war, but because of the atrocites they have commited, they are too far gone to ever admit defeat.

After all, history teaches that it’s only the defeated who are ever tried for war crimes against humanity.