Bt corn flap

[Pierre A Plauzoles]

Rob Knell wrote:

> On 27 Mar 2000 10:18:37 -0800, rbenavid at hotmail.com (rudy benavides)
> wrote:
>
> >Here is another view sent to the MonarchWatch list by Mike Quinn.  I don't
> >feel that the complete story on Bt  is in yet.
> >
> >Rudy Benavides
> >
>
> <snip article on BT toxin getting into the soil from GM maize>
>
> A useful article, although loike so much other work on the subject it
> doesn't really address the important questions here:
>
> 1) Does this have any effect on the soil fauna? Remember that BTK is
> pretty much specific to lepidoptera
>
> 2) Does it have a greater effect on the soil fauna than conventional
> pesticides? I'd be surprised if the answer to this is yes.
>
> 3) Why is it that when sprayed around the environment from a
> helicopter BT is an environmentally friendly organic natural control
> agent, but when the exact same molecule is produced by genetic
> engineering it suddenly transforms into an evil monster that will not
> only kill all the pretty butterflies but will also make your 14 year
> old daughter pregnant, will wipe your hard drive and is responsible
> for Saddam Hussein still being in power in Iraq :-)

I can't address the first two, but this one, I think I have *an* answer to (it
may not be *the right one*, but it does make sense to me: I think it may well
be that the opposition to the use of Bt has finally caught up with the effects
it has on the environment.  The problem is that it takes a while for anything
to develop, including research; when research got started, maybe one camp got
its act together faster than the other.  Remember the manufacturer(s) could
well be the hare in this story, and now the environmentalists have found,
throiugh experience, that it has certain effects and are telling that story.
That is what happened with DDT; after all, for quite some time, it was touted
as harmless enough to spray willy-nilly even on people (to get rid of lice and
other parasites).  Why can't a parallel scenario happen in this case?