No, it is not. This is law enforcement. 

These are mycoherbicides used as biological controls to enforce national and international law. The United Nations Convention Against Drug Abuse and Trafficking obligates parties to eradicate illicit narcotic crops. The agents would only be applied in countries whose governments agree to use them in their own territory. If a government agrees to use the fungus then it is not biological warfare because there is government consent to use this law enforcement tool.

Yes, it is biological warfare.

The United Nations Convention Against Drug Abuse and Trafficking does not dictate a method of eradication. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) prohibits the development and stockpiling of biological weapons including those used against crops. While some arms agreements have law enforcement exemptions (for example allowing use of tear gas by police), there are no such exemptions in the BTWC. The prohibition on biological weapons applies to arms used in all conflicts, great and small, internal and international.  For example, nobody would argue that is was acceptable when the internal security forces of the former apartheid government of South Africa developed biological agents to use in law enforcement against members of the then-illegal African National Congress. Thus, countries that use biological weapons on drug crops are conducting biological warfare.

Probably; but we need field testing to be sure.

Mycoherbicides like Fusarium oxysporum and Pleospora papaveraceae are a form of biological control. Used to control plants, biological control is the science of using living organisms to attack and control targeted weeds. In Colombia, only locally-found strains of mycoherbicides will be used so that no dangerous foreign biological agents will be introduced. Mycoherbicides are potentially an environmentally safer way to eradicate illicit drug crops than chemical herbicides. In addition, coca and opium poppy farms and processing has a terrible environmental effect. Stopping illicit cultivation of these plants with mycoherbicides will reduce destruction of the rainforest and biodiverse habitats.

No.

Scientific knowledge (and lack thereof) of the agents proposed for use as well as the ecosystems in which they would be used indicates there may be severe environmental problems with the plan.

The origin of the agent has little bearing on environmental safety. All regions of the world are the home of naturally-occuring diseases that can be abused. For example, anthrax lives in Asia, deadly hantaviruses live in the US, and devastating potato diseases related to those that caused the Irish potato famine are in Mexico. Replicating and distributing these diseases in their countries of origin does not make them any more safe - they are deadly both at home and abroad. 

Biologically, what the agent is and how it is used is much more important than where it comes from.  Anti-crop biological agents like Fusarium are designed to be used in very large quantities in unnatural massive distribution methods to provoke widespread epidemics. Research has revealed that Fusarium oxysporum may kill not only to coca grown to produce cocaine; but threatens over a hundred wild relatives of coca and the communities, plants and animals that depend on them. The persistence and transmissibility of mycoherbicides raises important and unanswered biosafety questions. Promoters have given little consideration to the likely reaction of coca and opium poppy farmers to the fungus agents: fungicides, many of which are destructive to forests, farmland, and even contribute to global warming.

Recent history shows a correlation between use of herbicides for eradication and environmental destruction. Coca acreage in Colombia has nearly tripled since the country began using aerial eradication. Chemical herbicides, such as Roundup (glyphosate) are in fact, major destroyers of biodiversity.  Escalating the war on drugs with powerful biological agents will encourage the vicious circle of environmental destruction related to drug crops. Biological agents will not stop the three major driving forces behind environmental destruction related to coca and opium poppy cultivation: 1) high demand for drugs in developed countries, resulting in more production and environmental degradation, 2) forced eradication programs involving aerial spraying that encourage farmers to move from destroyed fields to clear more forest in ever remoter areas and 3) the failure of authorities to effectively collaborate with poor farming communities to find economically viable alternatives to coca and opium poppy.

No, there are no serious human health problems.

United States government scientists have never observed mycotoxin production in the fungus strains with which its they work. Since mycotoxins haven't been seen, they are a non-issue.

Any suggestion that the fungi themselves might pose human health threats is misplaced. The US says, in the case of Fusarium oxysporum, that immunocompromised patients such as organ transplant recipients and AIDS victims are few and far between in remote farming areas. Therefore, fungal infections are not a major worry.

Yes. Basic human health testing has not even been conducted.

Fusarium oxysporum is can cause life threatening infections in humans with a weakened immune system. Invasive Fusarium infections are an emerging disease with a mortality rates up to 70%. Fusarium is known to cause serious dermal and eye infections.

Medical experts from the region do not concur with US assessment of dangers to immuncompromised patients. According to a lung infection specialist from the region, a significant number of the generally poor and often malnourished residents of farming communities in the eastern Andes are immunocompromised and potentially at risk of Fusarium infections.

The laboratory procedures and protocols to test and correctly diagnose Fusarium infections are extremely limited in the Andean region. Thus, if Fusarium were used, there is virtually no capacity available to even detect human health problems it is known to be capable of causing.

Pleospora, the fungus targeted against opium poppy, is a known allergenic agent, and caused dermal and respiratory symptoms during development in the Uzbekistan laboratory. Some strains of Fusarium oxysporum are known to produce mycotoxins with deleterious effects on animals and humans.

Farmers exposed to the fungus during spraying operations or following widespread infections in their fields may suffer from health problems. Ingestion of sprayed plant material poses a health threat (see below).

Although the US-Government was informed as early as 1989 that the fungus poses a health threat, the project was not stopped. Researchers of the US Department of Agriculture are aware of the mycotoxins problem, but have chosen to downplay it.

No. 

The United States says it has not genetically-engineered Fusarium oxysporum strains for narcotic crop eradication. The US has not proposed the use of genetically-engineered fungi.  Colombia says that its research program would comply with the Cartagena (Biosafety) Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity.  UNDCP funded scientists in Central Asia say they have not genetically engineered Pleospora papaveraceae, yet.

Maybe.

It is correct that the United States has not openly proposed field deployment of genetically-engineered fungus strains.  The public record, however, contradicts US statements that it has never created genetically-modified of Fusarium oxysporum.  As early as 1995, US government researchers created genetically-modified Fusarium oxysporum strains with antibiotic resistance in laboratory experiments.  According to the scientists' report, the purpose of introducing antibiotic resistance was to select strains with enhanced virulence against coca.  This research into GMO Fusarium may have been abandoned several years ago (the status of the research is unclear); but the US has not renounced continuing such work. 

Colombia's position, that its research will comply with the Biosafety Protocol, also leaves the door open to using GMO eradication agents since the Protocol does not prohibit GMOs - it only places restrictions on their use. 

The UNDCP-funded scientists qualify their statements regarding genetic modification of Pleospora papaveraceae.  The chief scientist on the project told the BBC in mid-2000 that genetic modification of Pleospora had not been necessary yet, since they had isolated naturally virulent strains.  But the researcher went on the indicate that GMO Pleospora would be created if it becomes desirable to enhance the pathogen's virulence.

[US and UNDCP officials have not directly addressed this question.] 

It is a threat to indigenous peoples and local communities rights under international law.

Under international law, most notably in the Convention on Biological Diversity's Article 8(j) and the International Labor Organization's Convention 169, indigenous peoples have the right to their culture, knowledge, genetic resources, and traditions. Biological eradication threatens these rights by taking indigenous peoples sacred and medicinal crops from them, denying them the right to peacefully perpetuate and develop their own culture and traditions.

Microbes are not capable of asking a farmer questions and deciding whether or not they should attack. Across the world, many illicit crops also have legal, legitimate, and traditional uses not connected to drug trafficking. In the Andes and Asia, legitimate coca and opium poppy crops are physically close to illegal ones used to produce prohibited narcotics. In Colombia and some other countries, the illicit crops are sometimes planted by colonists who have invaded indigenous peoples land, propelled by drug policies that victimize indigenous people and small farmers.

In the absence of any evidence, claims by the Colombian company that its "biological controls" won't effect indigenous peoples noncommercial coca crop are not credible. Once evidence is produced, it should be subjected to careful scrutiny.

The US, UK (with opposition), UNDCP, Colombia (with strong opposition), the private companies and scientists with a financial interest in biological eradication. Maybe Uzbekistan and one or two more Central Asian countries.

The United States is the major financial, political, and technical supporter of biological eradication, specifically the narcotics unit of the US State Department, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the US Department of Agriculture, which has been researching "biological control" of narcotic crops since at least 1987. According to the New York Times, the idea to use microbes to eradicate narcotic crops originated in the Central Intelligence Agency. There is evidence, however, that the National Security Council and Department of Agriculture are divided on the issue.

The United Kingdom is the only other country to financially support biological eradication. The UK has made a modest cash donation to work on opium poppy eradication agents and lent the support of government scientists. A British cabinet minister and members of Parliament have questioned this policy.

The United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP), based in Vienna, supports the idea by coordinating and funding research projects, especially in Asia. US attempts to rally other governments and international organizations have failed. 

Colombia has rejected US-developed Fusarium oxysporum EN-4; but refused to rule out using biological agents to eradicate coca. The Colombian Environment Ministry has prepared a proposal to conduct research on biological eradication agents and their formulation and dispersal methods. There is strong opposition in Colombia.

Uzbekistan hosts research in Asia on opium poppy-killing agents at its Institute of Genetics, formerly a research facility of the Soviet offensive biological weapons program. According to UNDCP, some other Central Asian countries have agreed to testing programs. While allowing research, senior officials from Uzbekistan and neighboring countries are not on public record for or against biological eradication to the Sunshine Project's knowledge.

Practically everybody else - governments, nonprofits, and indigenous people.

The most important opponents of biological eradication are Colombia neighbors, especially Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia, who are promoting action against the use of biological agents in the Andean Community and Amazonian Cooperation Treaty. Outside of South America, at the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ethiopia has led the African Group in opposition and Kenya, Solomon Islands, and many other developing countries, have voiced their opposition. Germany maintains a strong position against the use of biological agents which is supported by many other European countries. In Argentina legislation is being considered, while even in the United Kingdom - which funds research in Asia - cabinet members have raised questions about biological eradication in Colombia. 

Indigenous peoples organizations and many environmental, science, arms control, and drug policy nonprofits oppose. Indigenous peoples' opposition has been led by the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon. At a recent biosafety meeting in Montpellier, France, an international group of dozens of nonprofits big and small called on governments to cease development of biological agents to eradicate illicit crops. For that lengthy group of nonprofit organizations, please click here.