UNSAFE BIOTECHNOLOGY LABORATORY - NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INJURY - ILLNESS - DISEASE

WAS WORKING FOR A BIOTECH COMPANY SAFE? NOT WHEN ONE IS EXPOSED TO KNOWN AND UNKNOWN MICROORGANISMS. READ ABOUT THE EXPERIENCES OF WORKING FOR AGRAQUEST, INC. IN DAVIS - CALIFORNIA

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Scientific Documentation OOMYCOSIS Lagenidium giganteum (129084) Fact Sheet Related Information * Regulating Biopesticides * Active Ingredient Index Information related to this page: * Factsheet * Products * Registrants Issued: 4/01

Lagenidium giganteum (129084) Fact Sheet Related Information * Regulating Biopesticides * Active Ingredient Index Information related to this page: * Factsheet * Products * Registrants Issued: 4/01

E-mail Print PDF

Lagenidium giganteum (129084) Fact Sheet

from: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_129084.htm

Related Information
Information related to this page:

Issued: 4/01

Summary

This pesticide active ingredient is a naturally occurring fungus that was initially isolated from mosquito larvae in the southeastern United States. Lagenidium giganteum infects and kills mosquito larvae. Although it has been widely tested, the fungus shows no effects on other organisms. Pesticide products containing this living fungus are effective only in freshwater environments such as rice fields, soybean fields, and ponds. Because Lagenidium giganteum is meant to be used against a public health pest (mosquitoes), any pesticide product containing it has met EPA' s stringent standards for effectiveness as well as safety.

  • Description of the Active Ingredient
  • Name of Active Ingredient: Lagenidium giganteum

    OPP Chemical Code: 129084

    Lagenidium giganteum was originally identified from mosquito larvae in North Carolina and Georgia. It is an aquatic fungus that requires freshwater--it does not survive in marine or salty environments. Like most of its closest fungal relatives, Lagenidium giganteum is host specific. It infects only several species of mosquitoes.

  • Use Sites, Target Pests, And Application Methods
    • Use Sites:


      • Non-food sites: Freshwater habitats where mosquitoes live and lay eggs, such as stormwater and drainage systems, wildlife ponds, tires and other small containers that collect water, margins of rivers and streams.


      • Food sites: Rice, soybean fields, irrigated pastures


    • Target pests: Specific kinds of mosquitoes, including some that transmit diseases.


    • Application Methods: Products containing spores of the fungus are sold as a water suspension, which is further diluted before spraying.

  • Assessing Risks to Human Health
  • Based on extensive testing, no harmful effects to humans are expected. Lagenidium giganteum is not toxic to mammals, and only infects mosquito larvae.

  • Assessing Risks to the Environment
  • Lagenidium giganteum has no observable effects on any organisms except susceptible mosquitoes. Because the fungus is specifically used in aquatic environments, its potential harmful effects on aquatic organisms were thoroughly studied. No harmful effects were found in any aquatic or terrestrial species tested, including birds, beneficial insects, aquatic fish and invertebrates, mammals, and other animals.

  • Regulatory Information
  • Lagenidium giganteum was registered (approved for sale) as a pesticide active ingredient in 1991. As of November 2000, there were three registered pesticide end products containing this fungus as the active ingredient.

  • Products Directed Against Public Health Pests
  • EPA defines a public health pest as any organism that can cause or transmit human disease, or can cause human discomfort or injury. Examples include mosquitoes, ticks, and rats. To help protect the public' s health, EPA requires registrants of products used against public health pests to demonstrate that the product meets specific standards for effectiveness as well as for safety. The pesticide products currently registered with Lagenidium giganteum as the active ingredient have met these stringent standards.

  • Registrant Information
  • California Department of Health Services Agraquest, Inc.
    DCDC/Vector-borne Disease Section c/o Technology Sciences Group, Inc.
    P.O. 942732 1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 500
    Sacramento, CA 94234 Washington, DC 20036

  • Additional Contact Information
  • Ombudsman, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)
    Office of Pesticide Programs
    Environmental Protection Agency
    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20460
     

    FEATURED VIDEOS, AUDIOS, ARTICLES, EDITORIALS, BLOGS





    marti.sandi.cssandra3.16.11show





    martiSHOW3.23.2011

    ****

    *IS THE WORLD BEING  LED TO BELIEVE THAT ONLY "NATURAL" (naturally found in the environment)  BACTERIA AND/OR FUNGUS IS ONLY BEING USED IN MICROBIAL PRODUCTS; BIOPESTICIDES, BIOINSECTICIDES, BIOFUNGICIDES ETC. WHICH ARE BEING USED ON OUR FOOD CROPS, ORNAMENTALS AND/OR USED FOR INSECT CONTROL?   THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE... "MUTANTS" ARE BEING USED THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF
    Are we being led to believe these microbial products are safe??
    *It seems that using "mutants" and mutants created using recombinant techniques. (last 2 patents below) doesn’t qualify the claim of "naturally found" bacteria and fungus which are claimed as being the “active ingredient” in microbial biocontrol products.
    *When searching the United States Patent Office for the search terms of “Agraquest” and “mutants” the results were twenty (20) United States patents; that were assigned to Agraquest alone and furthermore does not take into account International patents. These patents uses the wording; mutants, mutants thereof and/or recombinant techniques.  There are many MANY more patents that don't list Agraquest as the holder of the patent; but Agraquest's scientists were listed as "inventors" on other company patents. (these are not listed below)
    *The reader is invited; NO... encouraged to view the following twenty (20) Agraquest United States patents and decide for themselves whether we can be 100% certain that only “naturally found in the environment” bacteria and/or fungus is being used on our food crops, ornamentals and/or used for insect control.... OR are mutants being used?

    READ MORE HERE


    AUDIO:   "Falling To Be Held" fallingTObeHELD

    Song: "Control" Listen → HERE

    Applicable Lyrics:

    You Can’t Control Me
    You Know Me
    I’ve had it up to here with your lies and your ties
    ~WHAT ABOUT MY LIFE ?~

    PRESENTATION - FRAUD IN THE COURT - COMMITTED BY JUDGE SUZANNE F. DUGAN IN CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM; by Sandi Trend

    VIDEO - INJURED AGRAQUEST BIOTECH WORKER, DAVID BELL TELLS HIS STORY; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - Workers Comp, The Destruction Of Ca-OSHA/EPA And The Case Of David Bell; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - Conflict of Interest By Judge Says Sandi Trend, Mother of Injured Agraquest Biotech Worker Bell; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - INJURED WORKERS AND ADVOCATES DEMAND THAT INSURANCE COMP FRAUD BE PROSECUTED; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - 12/10/2009; SANDI TREND, MOTHER OF INJURED BIOTECH WORKER DAVID BELL ASKS CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON HEALTH AND SAFETY & WORKERS COMPENSATION WHAT "GAMING THE SYSTEM IS?"; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - Injured Worker, DAVID BELL's Mother Charges Fraud On 9/9/2009 At the California Department of Insurance; Fraud Assessment Comission Meeting; by Labor Video Project

    VIDEO - JUNE 17, 2009 SANDI TREND SPEAKS OUT ABOUT FRAUD BY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; FRAUD ASSESSMENT COMMISSION; by Labor Video Project

    AUDIO - KDRT 95.7 PODCAST of Davis California's Journalist Interview - with David Bell, Doug Haney and Sandi Trend; by Davis, CA Journalist, David Greenwald *Yolo Judicial Watch)

    ARTICLE - Biotech Workers Struggle For Safety Measures; by Seth Sandrosky: The Populist

    ARTICLE - Biotech canaries - Sickened workers get little relief; by Seth Sandrosky: The Sacramento News & Review

    ARTICLE - MARCH-APRIL 2010: COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS "GeneWatch MAGAZINE EDITORIAL on David Bell and Agraquest titled; TeaTime In The Lab; by GeneWatch Editor, Sam Anderson

    ARTICLE - The Fungus and Bacteria of Deregulation and biotech Worker David Bell; by Steve Zeltzer - LaborNet.org

    ARTICLE - Cal-Osha: Going Down The Tubes?; by Larry Rose MD, MPH Cal/OSHA Medical Unit

    ARTICLE - The Last Physician/Medical Officer Position is Eliminated at Cal/OSHA; by Larry Rose MD, MPH Cal/OSHA Medical Unit

    ARTICLE - Blood, phlegm and tears; by Seth Sandronsky - Sacramento News & Review

    ARTICLE - The Criminal Cover-up Of Pam Marrone's Agraquest Operation; www.indybay.org/newsitems Central Valley | Labor & Workers

    ARTICLE - Toxic Dump Sites And Agraquest/Pam Marrone Case May Get Light In Davis, California Hearing; by David Greenwald - Central Valley | Environment & Forest Defense | Health, Housing, and Public Services | Labor & Workers

    ARTICLE - Local biotech employee says health affected by work.. Officials say no threat to public health; by California Aggie - Oooja Kumar

    BLOG - Biotech Worker Safety; by JEEG, The Council for Responsible Genetics - GeneWatch

    BLOG - Mother of Injured Biotech Worker Speaks Out On Conflicts Of Interest; by JEEG..."This could prove sufficient evidence to reopen the worker's compensation claim." by Council for Responsible Genetics

    BLOG - MAN BECOMES INFECTED WHILE WORKING AT BIOTECH, AGRAQUEST; by WatchDog on Science

    BLOG - Did Davis Biotech Firm Expose Davis to Potentially Dangerous Pathogens?; by The People's Vanguard of Davis

    BLOG - California Aggie Covers Issue of Agraquest; Yolo County Health Discounts Health Concerns; by The People's Vanguard of Davis

    BLOG - The Vanguard's Article on AgraQuest Provokes Strong Response From both County Health Director and Building Owner; by The People's Vanguard of Davis

    BLOG - Did Congressman Lungren Ignore Potential National Security Threat Posed By AgraQuest's Imporation of Foreign Soils?; by The People's Vanguard of Davis

     


    RedditDel.icio.usGet more widgets at VivoCiti.comDiggGoogleHuggReddot@eShiok!LiveFacebookSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponSpurlWistsSimpyNewsvineBlinklistFurlFarkBlogmarksYahooSmarkingNetvouzShadowsRawSugarMa.gnoliaPlugIMSquidooco.mmentsBlogMemesFeedMeLinksBlinkBitsTailranklinkaGoGo
    Module is designed by http://www.vivociti.com
    eXTReMe Tracker

    Newsflash

    Identification and Characterization of Novel Genetic Markers Associated with Biological Control Activities in Bacillus subtilis
    -Raghavendra Joshi and Brian B. McSpadden Gardener Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, OARDC, 1680 Madison Ave., Wooster 44691.
    Accepted for publication 3 October 2005.

    PAGE 4:
    RESULTS
    Characterization of strain-specific DNA fragments. In order to identify DNA markers for biological control in B. subtilis, SSH was conducted to identify sequences present in the genomes of strains GB03 and QST713 but absent in the genome of strain 168. In all, 149 subtracted fragments (74 from GB03 and 75 from QST713) were cloned and analyzed. Fragment lengths varied from 180 to 1,520 bp, with a median fragment size of 560 bp. Se- quence analyses revealed that 80 of the subtracted fragments (36 from GB03 and 44 from QST713) had significant nucleotide homology (E value <1E-4) to previously identified Bacillus sequences. The sequences of these fragments can be found in GenBank under accession numbers DQ011366-401 (GB03) and DQ0113402-446 (QST713) in the same order as presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In several instances, clones from both strains GB03 and QST713 were identified that had similarity to gene fragments from homologous operons. These included genes for the biosynthesis of cyclic lipopeptides (bam/bmy, fen, and srf ) and the cell wall component teichuronic acid (tua). Subtracted fragments matching the yndJ gene from B. subtilis subsp. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42 also were recovered from both strains GB03 and QST713. Additionally, multiple sporulation gene fragments (spo) were found in both subtracted libraries.

    DISCUSSION:
    We characterized over 60,000 bp of genomic sequence obtained from strains of B. subtilis used in two different biocontrol prod- ucts. Nearly half of the 149 sequences we analyzed were sufficiently different from those presently in GenBank that no functional assignments could be made (data not shown). We expect that many of those unique sequences represent noncoding regions which are likely to be strain specific and therefore of limited value for population studies. Nonetheless, further characterization of these unique sequences is warranted because some may encode novel genes, an unknown fraction of which may be involved in biological control. Of the 80 Bacillus-like sequences we obtained, 65 were associated with genes predicted to encode a variety of metabolic functions. Much research has gone into establishing the function of B. subtilis genes, but such work has yet to reveal the function of all of the ORFs identified in strain 168 (48). In addition, their potential roles in bacterial fitness in the natural environment and biocontrol activities in a managed environment remain highly speculative. Nonetheless, several of these gene fragments identified present intriguing new avenues for investigating the nature of antibiotic-mediated biocontrol. For example, dppC is pre- dicted to code for dipeptide transporters and the homologs identi-

    Nearly half of the 149 sequences we analyzed were sufficiently different from those presently in GenBank that no functional assignments could be made

    Identification of subtracted genome fragments obtained from Bacillus subtilis QST713 [AGRAQUEST]

    Bacillus amyloliquefaciens- RESULTS
    Subtracted fragments matching the yndJ gene from B. subtilis subsp. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42 also were recovered from both strains GB03 and QST713.
    Bacillus  cereus - RESULTS
    .....with the exception that one of two faint bands amplified from most B. cereus strains comigrated with the ituC product amplified from the positive control strain, QST713.
    ...And, interestingly enough, only some of the B. cereus isolates and B. pumilus GB34 were maximally antagonistic to Phytophthora sojae in these assays, though QST713 did show a marginal degree of inhibition in all assays (i.e., average score of 1.0).

    Bacillus  licheniformis (page 7)
    ...However, similar types of associations were observed in other Bacillus spp. As a group, all of the B. pumilus and B. licheniformis isolates scored (weakly) positive for one or more gene markers and were more inhibitory to R. solani (P = 0.01) compared with those strains lacking the scored markers. Additionally, the two B. pumilus isolates that were scored weakly positive for the bmy gene (i.e., 1.1a2 and 2.5a) were significantly more inhibitory to Pythium ultimum than the other isolates lacking all of the markers (P = 0.04). However, presence of the amplifiable markers was not necessarily a good predictor of biocontrol capacity in B. pumilus because the commercialized biocontrol strain GB34 was scored negative for all of the amplifiable targets, yet displayed in vitro in- hibition capacities similar to those of the commercialized B. subtilis strains GB03, MBI600, and QST713.