On 29 Jul 2003 08:52:24 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

The Organic folk would not accept it if it were
properly labelled as GM.

I suspect they are so desperate for permitted pesticides, that they
don't want to know

Label it and find out.

It's not up to me. Talk to the regulator. I believe that there is so
much lies and ignorance about re GM, that labelling one way or the
other is a moot point. Perhaps the Organic crew accept this GMO, as it
is not food. They are very pragmatic when it suits. Afterall, at base,
it is just a commercial venture.

They would use the non-GM sort.

Then they may be restricted from the various BTs that target different
insects. Not sure which are GM, but there are BT chemicals for
mosquitoes and so on.

An dsupposed usefulness is at the cost of extra risk.

What extra risk?

All you have to
be amazed about is the labelling issue.

No, the hypocrisy of Organic growers trying to bend their rather silly
rules to accept what they need. Ferinstance, there are many safe
fungicides, but organic folk only permit the toxic and very persistant
heavy metal, mined, copper salts. Go figure.

Copper is an essential trace element.

So is manganese which is killing many pine plantations. The toxicity
(or nutrient value) is in the dose.

It is part of the respiratory enzyme
ceruloplasmin.
Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it
only has a limited useful life.

Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are
right.

Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the
home gardener.

No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though
gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures.

But it is present whenever the caterpillars are present in the garden
or crop. When there is no plant predatiojn, there is no resistance
occurring.

As we discussed with DDT, anything used for too long breeds resistant
creatures.

So? The point is that the use of BT in the plant and on the plant is
hardly different. When the insects are not present, they can't be
developing resistance.

When the pesticide is interrupted then resistance to it is no
longer an advantage.

And the pest destroys your crop, and you go bankrupt.

So the non-resistant ones grow again and oust the
resistant ones.

Why do they? The resistant ones could just as easily oust the
non-resistant ones, if there are any left.

Then DDT will work again, or Bt. But if it is there all
the time resistance to it remains an advantage for pests.

Sorry, "there all the time" means nothing if the pests are not there.
It might as well be withdrawn if the pests are absent.
No contact, no advantage for the resistant mutations.

When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as
needed, then disappears.

And why does it matter if it's there or not, if the pests aren't
predating the crop?

There are always a few about, from the mandatory refuges, or other crops
near by.

But how does this matter? The chances of a resistance mutation are so
much lower.

New specific pesticides will be
developed.

Which we do not know the problems with.

Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing?
Happens all the time.

So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the
research for something new organic.

They are, all the time. They developed BT, so why shouldn't they use
it, and develop further selective pesticides. BTW, who says they are
ruining anything?

They didn't invent the original stuff. They `developed' it.

Same thing.

In other words
they are in a marketing mode.

How else could it be done?

As Gordon says all that is wanted is money.

Without it, nothing will be achieved. No crop growth even.

In that respect the farmers are at the mercy of the `developers'.

Just as the consumers are at the mercy of the farmers. That's
commerce.

When
resistance develops then there are recommended packages of pesticides to
go with the product.

Which product? When resistance develops to one insecticide, another
must be used.

With spider mites, three classes of miticide were used in rotation as
each one developed reistance, and the one furthest away used has
regained its effectiveness.

Or when the plants are expending so much energy
producing Bt all throughout them that they have less for fighting the
other pests.

Get real. The plants produce hundreds if not more proteins for no
other purpose than to deter pests. One little BT protein is neither
here nor there. Didn't seem to worry the bacillus that made it in the
first place.

And the produce will probably not
sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally.

Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that
Organic is somehow better.

It is.

No evidence that it is.

More per acre,

Less per acre, because nutrients can't be replaced.

better antioxidants for nutrition,

Exactly the same for identical strains, grown in identical conditions,
and harvested at the same stage of ripeness, according to all properly
done comparisons.

less chemical cost,

That's why the yield is less, and nutrition gets poorer and poorer.
The soil nutrients can't be replaced.

the
only extra cost is a little more manpower and we needs jobs anyway.

Sorry, that does not provide for the nutrients needed to replace the
ones removed in the harvested crop.

Why buy corn with Bt protein in it?

To get a pest free crop, without having to spray, thus saving much
fossil fuel needed in applying the sprays a number of times.

I am talking about poeple who are looking for someting to eat.

Get to it before the insects do!

Why do they
want to eat Bt protein right throughout the plant,

It's as good as any other mixture of amino acids.

whereas the organic
producers sprayed it on the surface of the plant only if needed and it
dispersed again before eating?

And how is it harmful to humans? What is the witholding time on food
crops?

Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee
about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion?

Huh? Tomato past is hardly a staple. It's a flavouring or a spice IME.
Does it matter if a bit of any nutrient in it disappears?

It has important nutrients for people eating `hamburgers' &c whatever you
call those meat filled bread buns for a meal. The few vegetable things in
them may the only source of vitamin C.

Tomatoes on hamburgers here. Nutritionists have labelled hamburgers as
quite nutritious, actually.