News » 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.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Great, idiot right-wingers from the Indiana Congressional delegation once again represent my home state shamefully and tar the image of Indiana through the mud. Burton is a disgrace and represents the darkest form of the War on Drugs. An irrational obsession with the failed project leads to him supporting insane laws such as the one described in the article.

  Posted by Liberal on Jun 6, 2006 at 3:31 PM

  Seems odd to use this fungus, considering half the crops they spray are food anyways. Sounds like a fun way to increase gain imports in the 3rd world.  (cough cough, Indiana) Seriosuly, when was Cocain ever a serious issue in Indiana?

  Posted by Vanella on Jun 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM

  Posted by Vanella on Jun 6, 2006 at 3:40 PM

  It never was, not that I know of. Crystal meth is more of a problem, but that is made in the basements of farmhouses out here, not imported from South America.

  Posted by Liberal on Jun 6, 2006 at 3:57 PM

  Fusarium kerititas is not just any Fusarium. Equating it with the crop-control Fusarium is not accurate. Mutation would only rarely produce the equivalent to F. kerititas from Fusarium adapted to grow on plants.
  And such mutations would typically fall far from eyes suitable for its growth. In short, there is virtually no danger that sprays of Fusarium would result in serious eye infections.

  Posted by briancady413 on Jun 6, 2006 at 5:00 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 13 posts.

Also featured Saving Secular Society
Delphi Dodges Union Contracts
Bankruptcy Law in Shambles

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Jeremy Bigwood

• Reinventing Demons
  The Obama administration plans a new round of 'public safety' programs in Latin America.Posted on May 13, 2009
• No Strings Attached?
  How U.S. funding of the world press corps may be buying influence Posted on June 4, 2008