Hi David,
There is a difference between organic growers use of Bt and GM bt crops.

In organic agriculture Bt is sprayed on during severe insect infestations. It is a last resort. The toxin is sprayed onto the plants surface. The ability of the toxin to infect insects declines within 12-48 hours. Sunlight breaks down the Bt in about 2 weeks.

However negative reactions to this Bt spray have been reported: allergies and asthma are the most common reactions. The symptoms are related to the amount of exposure.

Bt GM plants were passed as safe as it was argued that Bt sprays have a long history of safe use and the Bt toxin does not affect mammals.

With GM crops the Bt is the first, not the last, resort. Bt is produced in every cell of the plant throughout its life. The toxin cannot be washed off. It is much more concentrated that the sprays. GM corn MON 810 had 1,500 to 3,000 times the level found in sprayed plants.

This continual production of the toxin means that insects adapt to the Bt toxin very quickly. Alternatively other pests, resistant to Bt attack the crop. For example Bt cotton protects against bollworm. In India the crops were partly protected against bollworm but were attacked by mealy bugs too. Many crops failed.

Scientists alter the gene that codes for the Bt toxin when they engineer it into plants. Evidence suggests this makes it more allergenic. There are also questions about whether Bt GM plants may also be making unknown substances due to the unpredictability of the GM process.

I hope this clarifies the differences between a toxin sprayed on only in emergencies to one made constantly in large ammounts by GM plants.

thanks for your post which clearly sums up exactly how I feel about food control institutions: I don't trust them one bit; I add to that our state and federal governments as far as food issues are concerned - because of their attempts to force GM on us without full consultation or information.

Increasingly I buy food at local farmers' markets, where I can speak to the farmer, grower, producer and ask questions before deciding to buy. This is the Future of Food for me - locally grown, fresh, traditional produce. The stuff humans have been eating for centuries and millennia.

As a science trained person I am utterly mortified by the efforts of the pro-GM lobby to smear its critics' characters, suppress information, prevent further research and testing, and to distort facts - for example, that tired old line about GM being no different from traditional breeding methods, and all the far-fetched comments about why they think the world ought to believe it needs GM.

GM-biotechnologists bring disrepute upon all science through their efforts in this respect. Peoples' distrust will extend to all science generally, and it will take a long time to heal that position.

Whenever I read a pro-GM argument now my first reaction is, how much is he or she getting paid? How many funding dollars secured that endorsement? Has such-and-such a politician got their eye on a life-after-politics biotech company retainer?

It doesn't matter whether it's true or not: it's my perception, and many others I speak with or read, think likewise.

I am convinced there is nothing GM-biotechnologists can say now to redeem their own image and reputations; the best they can do for themselves is to accept that most consumers will not embrace GM foods until rigorous, peer-reviewed, published, long term, independent, transgenerational studies have proved it safe to consume beyond reasonable doubt; and to give up trying to force it on people

The tact that tobacco companies were taking ,saying smoking did not affect the health, is much the same as Genetech companies saying GM grains do not affect the health. The only difference is that GM grains are patented and no scientific research can be done without the GM companies consent and conditions.
Currently the WA government are wanting to fund independent testing but approval is not being given for it to proceed in any manner where an independent result could be achieved.

The Ermakova report on rats fed with Roundup Ready GM soybean showed damage to vital organs and the immune system. This report was of course dammed by genetech supporters but approval was never given to repeat the test. Rats can breed every 21 days and so it would only take six months to show the effects of GM canola on eight generations of rats. If Genetech companies were not afraid that results of independent test would show GM food is unsafe they could have allowed hundreds of feeding tests already.

In the US, where GM crops have been grown for more than 10 years, they have not shown an increase in yield of crops but the yield of pesticides Monsanto sells have increased by more than 100% in some cases. So bad is the increase in pesticide use that the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) in 2007 ceased to collect pesticide use information for any GM crops and from 2008 will not collect any pesticide information at all, using budgetary constraints as an excuse.

The public should hear the reports of the IAASTD which is a, four-year, US$10-million project undertaken by several hundred scientists from around the world, to take stock of the current state of farming globally. In its conclusion it says that GM is not the answer to current farming issues and today's chemical-intensive agriculture is more like mining than farming. While it may provide short-term gains in production, it is not sustainable in the long term and compromises the dwindling agricultural area upon which our future food supply depends.

Wow. Where to start. It seems WON does not care what "pro-GM' people say so I will not bother speaking to his/her points except to say it must be nice to "know a perception is more accurate than decades of research."

The Ermakova non-peer reviewed paper was soundly discreditied as was Putzai potato paper and every other so-called paper with "science" reportedly showing harm from consuming GM crops.

If you go to my website you can read from world experts and articles written by myself on this subject(these are for the general public with less jargon). As for the IAASTD please go to my site and read how the green-washing machine destroyed what should have been a very usful endevour.

As for 15,000 time Bt proteins, I call you on that. Since only Bt crops are EVER examined for the levels of Bt proteins there is absolutely no way you could generate this number. Not one person has ever been shown to have generated an immune response to any GM protein. That is called safe food.

Oh and I am not a payed spokesperson just a concerned scientist who hates how much pseudo-science is affecting public policy today.

Cheers

Thank you for your comments Country Gal, I am only trying get across my experience and that some of the more ridiculous claims about GM are just that.

lillian, I suspect you don’t realise how much Bacillus thuringiensis occurs in soils. As for the research you pointed to on Daphnia, this study ground corn kernels to a very fine powder to feed as the only diet source. By my calculations the Daphnia were given 50g of ground corn kernels/L. Quite a bit higher than would be found in natural waters, don’t you think.?

next, perhaps you would like to read this survey of Canadian canola growers: http://www.canola-council.org/facts_gmo.aspx 10% extra yield from GM. The extra yield comes from changes to the canola system (earlier seeding, less pre-emergent herbicide) allowed by the GM canola.

examinator: “I oppose the AMORALITY of the WANNABE GATE KEEPERS.” I didn’t respond to this, because I am not quite sure what you mean. The “GATE KEEPERS” for me are the regulatory agencies that have to approve these products. Are you suggesting they are somehow in the pay of corporations? I think elsewhere I mentioned there are more than 9000 staff at the FDA. Pretty hard to bribe them all without something leaking out, don’t you think?

Watchful Eye “I am utterly mortified by the efforts of the pro-GM lobby to smear its critics' characters”

Watchful Eye “Whenever I read a pro-GM argument now my first reaction is, how much is he or she getting paid?”

Do we have a bit of hypocrisy here?

Won, There was a well conducted multi-generational study on rats conducted in the early 1990s. It showed no significant effects. Ermakova’s study has never been presented for scientific analysis, but the information available points to several problems with the study. Firstly, the feeds were not identical and never tested to find out what differences there were. This more or less invalidates the study from the start, because it would be impossible to know what caused any effect. Secondly, there was high mortality in the control animals, suggesting problems with how the animals were kept.

"accept that most consumers will not embrace GM foods until rigorous, peer-reviewed, published, long term, independent, transgenerational studies have proved it safe to consume beyond reasonable doubt"

Agronomist and Canadian Rob - what precisely, about taking that route, is so tewwifyingly scarey? Isn't that what the scientific method is all about? Why would anyone not be happy about researchers wishing to exercise that choice? Why would anyone, who was proud of their product, not want to support testing that would lay the worries to rest and increase market support?

The point I have tried to make is, it's not what GM-biotech lobby SAYS that is going to do it any good or advance its cause. On the contrary, it goes about shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.

It's what it DOES that will make a difference. "By their fruits shall ye know them".