Plan for Field Tests of Frost-Fighting Bacteria Draws Heated Criticism

Plans for the first field test of genetically altered bacterial agents have drawn heated criticism in this sleepy corner of northern Monterey County, the self-described “Artichoke Capital of the World.”

The experiment, reportedly scheduled for mid-February by Advanced Genetic Sciences Inc., could mark a watershed in the field of genetic engineering by proving the viability of genetically altered bacteria outside a laboratory. The historic test was approved in November by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

But concerns over safety and the secrecy surrounding details of the test, a release of about 8 trillion altered bacteria into the environment, have stirred some residents to demand that the test be moved out of this, the nation’s No. 1 vegetable-growing county.

Public Hearing

Monterey County supervisors, alarmed at what they said was a lack of local participation in the EPA permit process, have scheduled a public hearing today in the county seat of Salinas. If the meeting fails to assuage local concerns, the board may consider a county land-use ordinance banning such experiments.

One lawsuit challenging the test already has been filed in federal court in Washington by the environmentalist Foundation on Economic Trends. Another suit in state court is threatened by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, said executive director Larry Odle.

“I would not say that there is a real panic or hysteria,” said Supervisor Barbara Shipnuck of Salinas, “but they (county residents) are really concerned about the secrecy” in which they allege that federal regulators approved the test.

Shipnuck, as did other local officials and residents, was upset because she was not told of the test by the company or federal regulators. She and others learned of the test by reading newspaper accounts of its approval.

Dr. Don King, a Salinas pediatrician who said he is skeptical but open-minded about the test, said many residents feel they have become virtual participants in the test “without their approval--or even their knowledge.”

That mistrust jells the doubts of some people.

“We have been told it’s safe and is being monitored closely, but how many things have they said that about before?” said Judy Pennycook, a school board member from the tiny hamlet of Elkhorn. “And look at the problems we have now with pesticides and toxic waste.”

At issue are genetically altered forms of the bacteria Pseudomonas syringae. Advanced Genetic Sciences has been working with it and a similar bacteria, Pseudomonas fluoresceins, under the trade name Frostban.

Normally, 90% or more of all natural Pseudomonas syringae bacteria excrete a protein that hastens the formation of ice crystals. Thus, when they collect on plants, they promote the creation of frost.

Under a process developed at and owned by the University of California, the genetic coding responsible for producing the protein is deleted with enzymes. The resulting altered bacteria mimic the tiny fraction of naturally occurring bacteria that do not produce the ice-nucleating protein.

By taking up space normally occupied by the ice-forming bacteria, these new “ice-neutral” bacteria effectively shield plants from frost to a lower-than-usual temperature.

The process has the potential to cut by one-third the $3 billion American farmers lose annually to frost--and establish Advanced Genetics as a commercial leader in genetic engineering, a field that is expected to generate sales of $100 million by 1990.

Prepared for Own Tests

Although a variety of companies have dabbled in genetic engineering, seeking to create such things as soybeans unfazed by weed-killing chemicals or blue flowers that literally glow in the dark, none is known to have field-tested their results.

UC scientists tried in 1984 to test the frost-fighting bacteria on a potato field outside Tulelake, Calif., near the Oregon border. They were blocked by a federal court injunction.

But that order applied only to government-funded research, not to private, commercial trials. Soon, Advanced Genetics bought the rights to the process from the university and proceeded to prepare for its own field tests.

EPA approval of the test followed study of extensive data from government scientists and experts outside of government. The agency’s conclusion was that the product was “very unlikely to pose unreasonable hazards to man or environment.”

In its lawsuit to block the test, the Foundation on Economic Trends argues that no one has tested the altered bacteria for its effect on things ranging from hospital patients and others with weak immune systems to the formation of clouds and changes in global weather patterns.

Douglas Sarojak, a plant pathologist and marketing director for Advanced Genetics, dismissed the suit’s arguments.

“It won’t have any long-term, or short-term, effects on the environment,” he said of the test bacteria strain, “simply because it (the unaltered form) is already so common in the environment, and all we have done is alter one specific feature. Our science is safe.”

Many Accept Assurance

Many people here, including other growers, accept that assurance.

“I don’t envision it as some tremendous threat,” said Don Nucci, a local broccoli grower and shipper.

“I don’t think there is any concern on the part of local agriculture,” said Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner Richard W. Nutter.

Several shoppers interviewed at random in Castroville last week said they were unaware of the test. Of those familiar with the issue, about half said they were unconcerned by the trial.

“It doesn’t really bother me,” said one shopper, Roxane Mazzei. “They’re always spraying chemicals on the fields around here. You get used to it in an agricultural community like this.”

Indeed, Nutter said Monterey and other agricultural counties in California frequently are used in pesticide experiments, usually without any publicity.

Pennycook and other opponents, however, said bacterial tests are different because “chemical pesticides have no ability to regenerate and grow; microbial pesticides can do both.”

Sarojak said 30 strawberry growers refused to allow tests on their property before his firm found a willing participant. He declined to pinpoint the test location, saying he was forbidden to do so by his company’s agreement with the grower.

Nutter said he was told that the test will be conducted within a half-mile of some homes near Castroville. Supervisor Shipnuck said the location is kept secret “because they don’t want anyone tampering with the experiment . . . (or) lying down in the fields.”

Sarojak also declined to discuss precisely what will be hand-sprayed on the 2,400 strawberry plants in the one-fifth-of-an-acre test plot. But documents obtained by opponents to the test indicate the plants will be dosed with a 1% solution of altered P. syringae in a potassium phosphate fertilizer base.

Sarojak explained the test is designed to see how well the altered bacteria compete with their natural cousins for room on the plant, especially on the blossoms. Lab tests already have shown Frostban’s ability to inhibit frost, he said.

Six weeks after Frostban is first sprayed--a second application is planned later--several plants will be removed to the company’s Oakland laboratory for further analysis. Sarojak said all remaining strawberry plants will be burned in the field.

The test’s start date will not be announced, Sarojak said, although he said the company will comply with federal and state regulations on this subject. He said these require notice to the Environmental Protection Agency 15 days in advance and to adjoining property owners on the day the bacteria are applied.

By late Friday, an EPA spokesman in Washington said no such notice had been given.