Bt corn flap

[Rob Knell]

On 28 Mar 2000 19:16:41 GMT, rcjohnsen at aol.com (Rcjohnsen) wrote:

><< >How about that corporations can add it to your food and not tell you about
>it? 
>>Is the right to know or freedom of choice such a little thing when it is a
>food
>>additive?  How about people who may be allergic to it?  
>
>Why are the above points more important when it's a protein expressed by the
>plant rather than one grown in a vat and sprayed on?>>
>
>Perhaps it's because things sprayed on can be washed off but the engineered
>food has it buillt in.  

Well yes, you can wash it off if it's sprayed on. Of course, if you're
concerned about allergies then this probably won't be good enough. If
it's sprayed on, of course, then you will get spray drift and under
some conditions this can be quite extensive. Moreover, spray
applications will probably add more toxin to the soil than will be
released from GM plants.

If anyone does have an allergy to BT then they're going to be pretty
stuffed anyway, since it's a pretty ubiquitous bacterium and can be
isolated from insects, soil, stored grains, leaves etc. very easily.
Everyone on the planet has been exposed to low doses of BT for a very
long time indeed, and since BT came into use as a control agent in the
80s then lots of people have been exposed to quite high doses. 

That's why the organically grown industry has grown up
>because people didn't want produce sprayed with pesticides.  Now there is no
>choice.  An organic farmer may plant engineered crops and not even know it.  No
>label, you see!
>

Am I right in thinking that Paris Green, a salt of arsenic, is
approved by the Soil Association for pest control on organic foods? I
believe their reasoning is that it's 'natural' and therefore OK. I
could be wrong here of course.

<snippety-snip>

>And the evidence is once resistant, the predators don't go away.  We are doing
>the same sort of things to crops that we did to microbial pathogens and I
>wonder if that is such a good idea.  We ought to have a better understanding of
>these processes before we proceed to shotgun approaches.
>

Thank you for explaining how resistance evolves. This is not, of
course, an issue that only applies to GM engineered plants. The strain
of BT used for leps is BT Kurstaki serotype HD1, which is the most
effective. It's been known since 1985 that resistance to this
particular serotype can develop quite quickly, but since growers and
suppliers of the bacterium are all human as far as I'm aware not a lot
as happened about, for example, mixing in different strains to reduce
the onset of resistance. Certainly when I worked on BT (early 90s)
there was no great clamour from organic growers for more kinds of BT
preparations to alow them to manage resistance more effectively. In
fact, the only attempts to manage resistance that I've heard about
have been the stands of unmodified maize that some farmers have been
planting in with the GM maize.

><< for example. BT endotoxin is completely harmless to mammals. You can eat it
>by the handful and all that will happen will be that you might get a slightly
>better diet as a consequence. >>
>
>Would you like to test this out?  A handful of Bt endotoxin each day washed
>down with a cup of glyphosphate???  There was a fellow who ate a tsp of DDT in
>front of his lectures to prove it wasn't harmful.  Where is he now??
>

I'll eat Bt toxin, no problem. I'm not so sure about glyphosate but
then I don't know so much about it. Do you have any evidence (any
evidence at all) that this anecdotal DDT eater suffered any ill
effects? The stuff has a higher mammalian LD50 than salt does.

<blah blah>

>I have met some hysteria from some of the readers, however.  On both sides.

Well that told me. I'll go away now and stop being so hysterical.

R