Ecol. aspects of transgenic crops summary (fwd)
Chris J. Durden
drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Thu Apr 20 02:38:38 EDT 2000
At 01:14 20/04/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Chris J. Durden wrote:
>> The whole area that was not investigated is on the consumption end. How
>> does GM crops used as food, affect the ecology of the consumer?
>The Bt bacterium produces a protein that is easily digested by
>people and animals--but not by some insects, and it degrades in sunlight.
>Therefore, there is no concern about it being placed in food. There are
>also significant human health benefits as those outlined in the article
>below by the American Phytopathological Society
>Threats To Human Health Reduced With Bt Corn Hybrids
I am fully aware of all the points brought up in the Am. Phytopath. Soc.
statement. These are elements on one side of the equation, and each may be
addressed through other strategies of crop management, product storage,
product testing and inspection, and end-product quality control.
What I am not aware of is specific data that indicate that the ingestion
of bt and bt-related chemical products by humans and livestock is without
deleterious effects to health, nutrition or flavour. I have not seen direct
reference to tests done to establish this, or their outcome or review. All
I have seen are blanket statements by trade organizations assuring us that
their experts deem the product safe. We have seen this before with
asbestos, DDT, detergents, Thalidomide, Styrofoam etc.
I think I can recognize boosterism when I see it. I am not impressed. It
is a red flag that gets my attention and obliges me to ask to see original
sources and data.
Give me references to your specific sources on tests and evaluation of
the safety of ingestion of bt-related chemicals by humans and livestock.
More information about the Leps-l