Klebsiella Planticola, now Raoultella Planticola, was stopped from field trials in 1994 because it was found that when present in biologically active soil it could kill plant life present. Was the worst case scenario kill all plant life on the planet purported by some possible if Planticola had out competed local strains? What could the extent of the damage been?

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Friday, 26/06/2015 11:49

The GE Klebsiella planticola subject to which you’re referring is related to research conducted by former Oregan State University faculty member, Dr. Elaine Ingham, who is now the president and director of research for SoilFoodweb Inc. In this rebuttal to her scientific claims made to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering in 2001, Dr. Christian Walker, Dr. Michael Berridge, and Dr. David Tribe address and provide context to the claims made by Dr. Ingham. Below is an excerpt, and the full written rebuttal is available here.

“In this rebuttal we detail scientific issues arising from the brief of evidence and analyse conclusions drawn by Dr Ingham based on scientific results published in cited reviewed papers.

“The main conclusion presented by Dr Ingham is that a genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola bacterium, if released into the environment, has the potential to kill all terrestrial plant life on the planet.

“Her further assertion is that US authorities approved field trials involving the modified bacterium with little or no understanding of the ecological consequences and it was only as a result of independent action by herself and a student Michael Holmes that possible environmental disaster was avoided.

“Dr Ingham cites a paper: Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399. to justify reaching the above conclusions.

“It is our opinion, having reviewed the published results of the research undertaken by Holmes and Ingham, that Dr Ingham's conclusions are not substantiated by that research, and are therefore scientifically unsustainable.

“Dr Ingham’s assertions have been published widely on the Internet and elsewhere. However, we have been unable to find any evidence that Dr Ingham has submitted her assertions about threats to terrestrial plant life to scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

“Our own literature search and resulting evidence further demonstrates that natural alcohol producing varieties of Klebsiella planticola already exist, and are routinely found in nature; however, no adverse consequences of this alcohol production on any organisms including plants have been observed.

“We are presenting this rebuttal statement because it is our strong opinion Dr Ingham has presented unsupported and inaccurate information to the Royal Commission by incorrectly interpreting published scientific information. We are therefore of the opinion that Dr Ingham's assertions have no scientific validity.”

“Not only are we concerned about the scientifically unsupportable and exaggerated assertions made, we are also concerned that a number of other submitters have relied on those assertions to support their own claims about the impacts of genetic modification.”

If you have any additional questions, please ask.

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Friday, 26/06/2015 11:49

The GE Klebsiella planticola subject to which you’re referring is related to research conducted by former Oregan State University faculty member, Dr. Elaine Ingham, who is now the president and director of research for SoilFoodweb Inc. In this rebuttal to her scientific claims made to the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering in 2001, Dr. Christian Walker, Dr. Michael Berridge, and Dr. David Tribe address and provide context to the claims made by Dr. Ingham. Below is an excerpt, and the full written rebuttal is available here.

“In this rebuttal we detail scientific issues arising from the brief of evidence and analyse conclusions drawn by Dr Ingham based on scientific results published in cited reviewed papers.

“The main conclusion presented by Dr Ingham is that a genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola bacterium, if released into the environment, has the potential to kill all terrestrial plant life on the planet.

“Her further assertion is that US authorities approved field trials involving the modified bacterium with little or no understanding of the ecological consequences and it was only as a result of independent action by herself and a student Michael Holmes that possible environmental disaster was avoided.

“Dr Ingham cites a paper: Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399. to justify reaching the above conclusions.

“It is our opinion, having reviewed the published results of the research undertaken by Holmes and Ingham, that Dr Ingham's conclusions are not substantiated by that research, and are therefore scientifically unsustainable.

“Dr Ingham’s assertions have been published widely on the Internet and elsewhere. However, we have been unable to find any evidence that Dr Ingham has submitted her assertions about threats to terrestrial plant life to scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

“Our own literature search and resulting evidence further demonstrates that natural alcohol producing varieties of Klebsiella planticola already exist, and are routinely found in nature; however, no adverse consequences of this alcohol production on any organisms including plants have been observed.

“We are presenting this rebuttal statement because it is our strong opinion Dr Ingham has presented unsupported and inaccurate information to the Royal Commission by incorrectly interpreting published scientific information. We are therefore of the opinion that Dr Ingham's assertions have no scientific validity.”

“Not only are we concerned about the scientifically unsupportable and exaggerated assertions made, we are also concerned that a number of other submitters have relied on those assertions to support their own claims about the impacts of genetic modification.”

If you have any additional questions, please ask.