GMO's myths and truths. Heavily noted review of the claims of the GMO giants
- Thread starter Boston
- Start date
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Yeah, it appears not. I've seen numerous studies which looked at this question, and found no effect on honey bees. Here's one example: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
Background
Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are the most important pollinators of many agricultural crops worldwide and are a key test species used in the tiered safety assessment of genetically engineered insect-resistant crops. There is concern that widespread planting of these transgenic crops could harm honey bee populations.
[h=3]Methodology/Principal Findings[/h] We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies that independently assessed potential effects of Bt Cry proteins on honey bee survival (or mortality). Our results show that Bt Cry proteins used in genetically modified crops commercialized for control of lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either honey bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings.
[h=3]Conclusions/Significance[/h] Although the additional stresses that honey bees face in the field could, in principle, modify their susceptibility to Cry proteins or lead to indirect effects, our findings support safety assessments that have not detected any direct negative effects of Bt crops for this vital insect pollinator.
Having heard of the ISS or 'institute FOR science AND society', I thought to myself that doesn't seem right. A quick Google search made me realize why things seemed out of place. Your link is the ISIS the 'institute OF science IN society'. From what I can tell a lot of the site deals in homeopathy and other pseudoscientific ideas. Seems like a play on the name with the University of Nottingham's program to possibly confuse people.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iss/index.aspx
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Such as imidacloprid... which is being increasingly overused IMO.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Do you have a reply??
Boston
Active Member
Found this pretty interesting
http://grist.org/food/the-latest-gmo-study-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/
Soulfly, thats kinda an ad hominem response rather than addressing what looks like a very well written article. Just cause its published in a magazine that might not be as science based as we'd like, doesn't invalidate the information presented by Prof Cummins. I'd suspect thats not the only place that piece is published.
http://grist.org/food/the-latest-gmo-study-raises-more-questions-than-it-answers/
Soulfly, thats kinda an ad hominem response rather than addressing what looks like a very well written article. Just cause its published in a magazine that might not be as science based as we'd like, doesn't invalidate the information presented by Prof Cummins. I'd suspect thats not the only place that piece is published.
I hope you are looking at what is being presented you objectively! That study has been debunked for not following proper scientific method for studying cancer in rats.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/
http://foodfarmfork.authorsxpress.com/2012/10/09/french-gmo-research-on-health-in-rats-debunked/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...os-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
Boston
Active Member
and that article goes into that extensively, which is why I found it so interesting, read the article, it does present some very interesting questions.
Oh and I'd not apply the term debunked to that study, I'd agree it has some flaws, however it also raises some very reasonable concerns, which should be calling for an immediate response from the scientific community to many many more long term studies which seek to produce better and more accurate results. My question would be, where are these studies, and why was this the first of its type. Again I'd point out that nearly all I've read up on thus far are at best 90 days or even less. Many don't even test the whole product but instead work with only certain ingredients or even surrogate ingredients.
Its really a well written article that most assuredly does address the fact that the study has been questioned.
Oh and you might also vet your sources just as its been suggested I mine. Henry Miller is a Monsanto PR man
see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...DSVXnw&usg=AFQjCNFlCHyh-uPutAbFKMfu_e5Jhp-QDA
Dan Flynn is another PR man who's worked with the FDA ( stacked with pro Monsanto people ) and other government agencies concerning food safety. Again no small wonder he'd come out against the research when the party line is extremely pro GMO .
I'll agree that there's apparently some issue with the rats used being prone to tumors anyway. But the differences between the groups of rats and the control groups is astounding to say the least. Fully 50% higher incidence of tumor growth, thats huge and far from statistically irrelevant. Also virtually all the rats fed GM corn ended up with liver damage. That alone should be enough to warrant more study even if just to determine if the initial study was actually flawed or not.
Oh and I'd not apply the term debunked to that study, I'd agree it has some flaws, however it also raises some very reasonable concerns, which should be calling for an immediate response from the scientific community to many many more long term studies which seek to produce better and more accurate results. My question would be, where are these studies, and why was this the first of its type. Again I'd point out that nearly all I've read up on thus far are at best 90 days or even less. Many don't even test the whole product but instead work with only certain ingredients or even surrogate ingredients.
Its really a well written article that most assuredly does address the fact that the study has been questioned.
Oh and you might also vet your sources just as its been suggested I mine. Henry Miller is a Monsanto PR man
see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...DSVXnw&usg=AFQjCNFlCHyh-uPutAbFKMfu_e5Jhp-QDA
Dan Flynn is another PR man who's worked with the FDA ( stacked with pro Monsanto people ) and other government agencies concerning food safety. Again no small wonder he'd come out against the research when the party line is extremely pro GMO .
I'll agree that there's apparently some issue with the rats used being prone to tumors anyway. But the differences between the groups of rats and the control groups is astounding to say the least. Fully 50% higher incidence of tumor growth, thats huge and far from statistically irrelevant. Also virtually all the rats fed GM corn ended up with liver damage. That alone should be enough to warrant more study even if just to determine if the initial study was actually flawed or not.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Those may be causing some problems, but native bees, wild hives (escaped commercial bees) and even urban hives are not having as much CCD as commercial hives. It is commercial hives that are being the most effected. It seems that they tend to be very inbred and the fact that they feed on a single type of nectar instead of a variety may have lowered their immunity to various diseases, such as those carried by the varona mite
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...eal-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...eal-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/
They point to real world contradictions that suggest that pathogens, parasites and habitat loss, which has been the driver of CCD for more than a century before the introduction of insecticides, are the likely prime cause this time as well.
Canada, the UK and Australia all provide provocative real world case studies. Canola is grown commercially mostly on the prairies in Canada, the largest single producer of canola in the world with more than 50,000 canola producers and 16 million acres. It’s a nutritionally rich crop for bees. Some 80% of Canada’s honey crop is from canola, amounting to 50 million pounds per year of Grade No 1 white honey. Approximately 300,000 colonies harvest open pollinated canola.
Despite the fact that neonicotinoids are widely used in Canada to protect canola from pests, Canadian bee populations have been largely unaffected and produce around 50 million pounds of canola honey. A large-scale Ontario field study funded by Bayer appears to back up the real life evidence challenging the activist doomsday scenario. It found no difference in colony health between hives exposed to neonics and those that weren’t, in real life conditions. “The doses the bees are exposed to [in lab studies] are far above what a realistic field dose exposure would be,” says Dr. Cynthia Scott-Dupree, head of the Ontario study. Canadian canola farmers say they have had 10 years of large scale use of neonics on canola with no observed ill effect.
Varroa mites: The real culprit?
Australia presents the most striking dilemma for those isolating their attacks on neonics. On a per crop basis, it is one of the world’s heaviest users of the pesticide—and has among the healthiest bee colonies in the world. Government records indicate there has not been even one adverse experience report from either the public or beekeepers concerning the use of neonics. The other thing they don’t see in Australia—but we do see everywhere else in the world where CCD is claimed—is the Varroa mite, the culprit in the 2005/06 bee death march.
While not deadly in themselves, these parasites act as a vector, attaching to honeybees and appearing to be “both a disseminator and activator of a number of bee viruses,” according to a report on honeybee disease in Europe by the Food and Environment Research Agency. In countries experiencing bee decline, varroa is a feared and growing presence among beekeepers—even or especially if neonicotinoids are absent. For example, in upland areas of Switzerland where the pesticide is not used, bee colony populations are under significant pressure from the mites; and in France, declines in the bee population in mountainous areas (where neonics are uncommon) are similar to those in agricultural areas (where neonics are widely used).
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Are you going to address my claims or those of Belfrey?
It only raises concerns if you misinterpret the data like your linked article does. It has been thoroughly rebutted, even by its own countries science academies.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-dismiss-study-finding-gm-corn-harmed-rats/
http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/tr...emies-critique-of-controversial-gm-corn-study
“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors….
Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday.
The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.
Boston
Active Member
This seems to confirm some of the complaints about what studies are available
from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-sc...-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570
from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-sc...-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
But didn't Seralini do his study using monsanto's roundup ready corn?
Yes, he did, so there is certainly research using those, and likely much more.
Boston, did yu search the literature the way you said you always did when questioning aluminum levels in rainwater?
Or did you just read something in globalresearch.ca, a site which you should already know promotes the same bogus aluminum-in-rainwater chemtrail claims you have already found false?
Maybe you are rushing things here, or aren't using your previously held rules for this subject.
Eh?
Using a bogus study to debunk the claim Monsanto doesn't allow studies on the safety of its food. I love it!
David Fraser
Senior Member.
That article makes absolutely no sense. Of course it is possible to verify if the seed does what it says on the tin. Of course it us possible to see what the environmental effects are. Of course it is possible to see what effect the seeds have on animals. Surveys and studies around the crops will allow for those things or are you trying to claim that Monsanto ban them as well.
I went on the Monsanto site here http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx and there is a link to a newspaper article comparing Monsanto crops against another http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
Now I am a little puzzled as the studies cited in the newspaper article sure look like comparison studies to me but you are claiming they are not allowed.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
There are geographical studies that refute the link between CCD and GM crops. Essentially CCD still happens in countries that dint grow GM crops.
That's the reason the EU has placed a ban on them.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Boston
Active Member
Sorry but the rush to defend Monsanto and the other GM firms is a bit premature. The study isn't a bogus study, it just didn't go through the review process where issues like what kinda rat was used could and would have been ironed out. It didn't go through that process because Monsanto didn't approve it for review and the public reviews presented were from GM industry PR representatives who's job it is to defend GM products. Speaking of which, first thing I saw when I woke was this waiting on my E mail
http://www.naturalnews.com/040541_GMO_genetic_pollution_GE_wheat.html
Cats out of the bag now. My bet is they're frantic to test existing stockpiles and looking for ways to satisfy contracts in the countries that ban genetically modified products. Oh if this turns out to be widespread its doom and gloom for the wheat industry. The question has always been " can you put the Jeannie back in the bottle " so lets just see. My take it the FDA will fast track approval and let the market freak just like they did with starlink corn.
On a side note, I'm not sure how the french got ahold of the GM products they fed in there experiments, but if you read the information provided you find that they did submit there findings to Monsanto for approval as per there typical technology stewardship agreement and it was rejected for publication, no explanation. So they deliberately leaked the information to the public without review. Had the study been properly vetted through the peer review process, the errors could have been corrected and the piece likely published, assuming that is the findings were in line with monsanto's business plan. Which they were most assuredly not, which brings us back to square one.
why so few studies on the long term effects of GM foods ?
From what I could see of the supposed 700 studies presented, none, dealt with how GM foods interact with digestive tract micro organisms within the human system, actually I saw none that even dealt with any human trials or direct studies. Now there were a lot of references in the whopping huge link provided, so I could have easily missed something, but after reviewing a dozen that were obviously skirting the issues, I just skimmed the a hundred of so there after.
I did however find this, which is pretty well referenced.
see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...G11vpQ&usg=AFQjCNHQw77-aDUlNGr9m-TdXOkKeSCkLQ
The primary issue presented in the first post was that the claims of the GMO giants do not appear truthful, nor do those same GM giants appear to be all to concerned with the scientific process given there insisting on approving both methodologies and findings before allowing studies to be presented to the community as a whole. Makes it kinda difficult to objectively review data thats so subject to censorship. In the end there's a lot more study needed and finding actually peer reviewed work that didn't get censored by the GM industry is rare if not completely non existent, but simply taking there word for it, just isn't good enough.
As I said, the GM industry seems to have gone out of its way to prevent a true scientific analysis of the issue, which begs the question, why ?
http://www.naturalnews.com/040541_GMO_genetic_pollution_GE_wheat.html
Cats out of the bag now. My bet is they're frantic to test existing stockpiles and looking for ways to satisfy contracts in the countries that ban genetically modified products. Oh if this turns out to be widespread its doom and gloom for the wheat industry. The question has always been " can you put the Jeannie back in the bottle " so lets just see. My take it the FDA will fast track approval and let the market freak just like they did with starlink corn.
On a side note, I'm not sure how the french got ahold of the GM products they fed in there experiments, but if you read the information provided you find that they did submit there findings to Monsanto for approval as per there typical technology stewardship agreement and it was rejected for publication, no explanation. So they deliberately leaked the information to the public without review. Had the study been properly vetted through the peer review process, the errors could have been corrected and the piece likely published, assuming that is the findings were in line with monsanto's business plan. Which they were most assuredly not, which brings us back to square one.
why so few studies on the long term effects of GM foods ?
From what I could see of the supposed 700 studies presented, none, dealt with how GM foods interact with digestive tract micro organisms within the human system, actually I saw none that even dealt with any human trials or direct studies. Now there were a lot of references in the whopping huge link provided, so I could have easily missed something, but after reviewing a dozen that were obviously skirting the issues, I just skimmed the a hundred of so there after.
I did however find this, which is pretty well referenced.
see
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...G11vpQ&usg=AFQjCNHQw77-aDUlNGr9m-TdXOkKeSCkLQ
The primary issue presented in the first post was that the claims of the GMO giants do not appear truthful, nor do those same GM giants appear to be all to concerned with the scientific process given there insisting on approving both methodologies and findings before allowing studies to be presented to the community as a whole. Makes it kinda difficult to objectively review data thats so subject to censorship. In the end there's a lot more study needed and finding actually peer reviewed work that didn't get censored by the GM industry is rare if not completely non existent, but simply taking there word for it, just isn't good enough.
As I said, the GM industry seems to have gone out of its way to prevent a true scientific analysis of the issue, which begs the question, why ?
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Why won't Seralini release the data? Is it just the GM companies that have been critical. The EU Food Standards Agency has been highly critical.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
There are no commercial wheat strains available in the world. After their last trial Monsanto scrapped wheat research back in 2004 so the Natural News ( laughs) article is old news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15998-2004May10.html
They have restarted research since 2010 but are years away from anything that could be commercially viable. There is a great deal of interest in wheat, especially for developing nations. I follow it with interest especially this. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
There are no commercial wheat strains available in the world. After their last trial Monsanto scrapped wheat research back in 2004 so the Natural News ( laughs) article is old news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15998-2004May10.html
They have restarted research since 2010 but are years away from anything that could be commercially viable. There is a great deal of interest in wheat, especially for developing nations. I follow it with interest especially this. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
Boston
Active Member
Here's a rat study that pretty much mirrors the French study yet was reviewed and published without even a whimper from the GMO pundits
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Roundup-Glyphosate-Teratogenic30apr03.htm
Pretty darn frightening if you ask me. Particularly since this is almost exactly what was found by Seralini
I'm feeling pretty confident about wanting this stuff labeled so I can better ovoid it
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Roundup-Glyphosate-Teratogenic30apr03.htm
Pretty darn frightening if you ask me. Particularly since this is almost exactly what was found by Seralini
I'm feeling pretty confident about wanting this stuff labeled so I can better ovoid it
David Fraser
Senior Member.
In what way does it mirror Seralini? They are totally different experiments. Have you ever considered that there has been no fuss as most scientists would expect there to be fetal mutation or death if you feed the mother a shitload of chemicals. The actions are well known and studied since Agent Orange and before. I think even Monsanto put a label to not drink it. ;-)
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Glyphosate is extremely well labeled. You should definitely not drink large amounts of glyphosate.
I'm frankly baffled as to what relevance you think this study has to the GMO discussion.
blargo
Member
Well looks like some of their trial got out into the wild... http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/05/ge_wheat_detection.shtml
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Sometimes the sharpest sword is when your own turns against you. It cuts both ways, so beware.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Neonicotinoids are, AFAIK, being made by Bayer, not Monsanto.
And neonicotinoids are not essential to growing GM crops, they are useful for any crop seed threatened during germination by pests, if the pest is not a threat, the seed treatment would be a waste of money.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
What is this fascination with naturalnews? They are an extremely poor source of information. Right up there with Alex Jones.
They had a article last summer that declared that there was no virus called West Nile virus and that the deaths in Dallas from it were caused by ' the 8 oil refineries in Dallas, MTBE in gasoline, fracking, the very hot summer'. The genome for West Nile had been published several years before, there are NO oil refineries in Dallas (I have lived her for over 60 years, when I pointed that there were none, they offered a listing from the online Yellow Pages, that listed a company that OWNS oil refineries--they were too committed to their agenda --the closest oil refinery is about 200 miles EAST of Dallas), MTBE hasn't been in gasoline for over 5 years, While there is fracking in neighboring counties, Dallas where the West Nile virus epidemic was, doesn't have any, and the summer of 2012 was cooler than the summer before.
In other words, EVERYTHING in their article was WRONG.
They had a article last summer that declared that there was no virus called West Nile virus and that the deaths in Dallas from it were caused by ' the 8 oil refineries in Dallas, MTBE in gasoline, fracking, the very hot summer'. The genome for West Nile had been published several years before, there are NO oil refineries in Dallas (I have lived her for over 60 years, when I pointed that there were none, they offered a listing from the online Yellow Pages, that listed a company that OWNS oil refineries--they were too committed to their agenda --the closest oil refinery is about 200 miles EAST of Dallas), MTBE hasn't been in gasoline for over 5 years, While there is fracking in neighboring counties, Dallas where the West Nile virus epidemic was, doesn't have any, and the summer of 2012 was cooler than the summer before.
In other words, EVERYTHING in their article was WRONG.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Why not? Please find the answer to these sorts of questions before you make claims.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Please note "indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-resistant wheat plants'. POSSIBLE not confirmed.APHIS launched a formal investigation after being notified by an Oregon State University scientist that initial tests of wheat samples from an Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-resistant wheat plants. There are no GE wheat varieties approved for sale or in commercial production in the United States or elsewhere at this time.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Why would you want it labeled for use in eggs?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Conflation.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
The potato study mentioned was one that was on a potato that was NEVER intended for consumption by any animal or person. It was studying something else, not it's use as a food.
Could the soy problems have to do with more infants fed soy formula? or more consumption of soy? To link GM soy to a rise in allergies is at the most interesting, it is not evidence of anything.
Could the soy problems have to do with more infants fed soy formula? or more consumption of soy? To link GM soy to a rise in allergies is at the most interesting, it is not evidence of anything.
HappyMonday
Moderator
As is the suggestion there's a 'rush to defend Monsanto' taking place.
electrojet
New Member
Hi Cairenn,
Just scanning through here. The bt toxin is not in the corn ? The idea is great, just saturate the leaves and stems ONLY ! This is too good to be true. Now if somehow this idea that the bt toxin is not in the corn can gain a foothold, are there still other problems with bt gene insertion ?
Answer is yes. Leaves and stems have a role in the cycle. So do the little tiny things that decompose the leaves and stems. Current bio technology is not incorporating the bigger picture. Any time this occurs there are huge issues of waste and pollution.
At this time we can argue, but in the future it will be shown that the current round of gene insertion technology is not good for life forms.
The term 'not good' does not indicate fanatical, fantastical, emotional, maniacal, panicky, zany, and spasmaticaliastic intent.
This DNA tinkering and other DNA tinkering is all a part of the process. It is meant to happen exactly as it is happening. The right response to the things that are upon the face of the earth is the upward calling that is too often skipped or ignored.
PEACE,
Bryan
Just scanning through here. The bt toxin is not in the corn ? The idea is great, just saturate the leaves and stems ONLY ! This is too good to be true. Now if somehow this idea that the bt toxin is not in the corn can gain a foothold, are there still other problems with bt gene insertion ?
Answer is yes. Leaves and stems have a role in the cycle. So do the little tiny things that decompose the leaves and stems. Current bio technology is not incorporating the bigger picture. Any time this occurs there are huge issues of waste and pollution.
At this time we can argue, but in the future it will be shown that the current round of gene insertion technology is not good for life forms.
The term 'not good' does not indicate fanatical, fantastical, emotional, maniacal, panicky, zany, and spasmaticaliastic intent.
This DNA tinkering and other DNA tinkering is all a part of the process. It is meant to happen exactly as it is happening. The right response to the things that are upon the face of the earth is the upward calling that is too often skipped or ignored.
PEACE,
Bryan
Boston
Active Member
Oh and that two edged sword thing, Monsanto "didn't" allow that study because its findings went against there product. Swords getting duller isn't it ? ;-) If you've been reading along you would have seen all the legal issues discussed earlier that outlined Monsanto's requirements and agreements for buying its products.
What few studies do exist outside the censorship of the GM producers seem to all point to these herbicides and pesticides having serious health effects.
Both rat studies found similar results. Its pretty simple. Round up gets on and into round up ready corn, end up in the food you eat. Label that crap so I and others who don't feel like eating it can better avoid it.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Why do you keep referring to a study that is not the same? Getting tiny amounts of a substance through a food is NOT comparable to being fed it directly.
Take salt for an example, some salt is needed, but drink salt water and you will die. Lousy study, not even high school science fair level.
There are plenty of GOOD peer review studies out there that are being ignored because they don't suit the anti GM agenda.
Show us were it has CAUSED illness in humans, when used as directed. I can show you multiple cases of folks getting sick and even dying from normal foods.
Take salt for an example, some salt is needed, but drink salt water and you will die. Lousy study, not even high school science fair level.
There are plenty of GOOD peer review studies out there that are being ignored because they don't suit the anti GM agenda.
Show us were it has CAUSED illness in humans, when used as directed. I can show you multiple cases of folks getting sick and even dying from normal foods.
solrey
Senior Member.
The proteins produced by Bt bacteria only affect the guts of certain insects. It's actually about the safest insecticide there is because it's non-toxic to everything but the small number of insects affected by the Bt delta-endotoxin. Bt is certified as an organic pesticide and I've been using it prolifically throughout our organic garden and on fruit trees this year due to a minor infestation of tent caterpillars. The plants that were once stunted from a couple of days of getting munched on before I noticed there was a problem, have since recovered with vigorous new growth. I've heard there's also a problem in our area with a beetle, forget which one right now, but if I see evidence of them in our garden I'll be applying a different Bt strain that's effective against beetles.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.htmlUnlike typical nerve-poison insecticides, Bt acts by producing proteins (delta-endotoxin, the "toxic crystal") that reacts with the cells of the gut lining of susceptible insects. These Bt proteins paralyze the digestive system, and the infected insect stops feeding within hours. Bt-affected insects generally die from starvation, which can take several days.
Occasionally, the bacteria enter the insect's blood and reproduce within the insect. However, in most insects it is the reaction of the protein crystal that is lethal to the insect. Even dead bacteria containing the proteins are effective insecticides.
The most commonly used strain of Bt (kurstaki strain) will kill only leaf- and needle-feeding caterpillars. In the past decade, Bt strains have been developed that control certain types of fly larvae (israelensis strain, or Bti). These are widely used against larvae of mosquitoes, black flies and fungus gnats.
Bt does not affect microbes, even those essential to compost.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
The MRL for soya is 20 mg/kg. Now a rat showed birth defects been given a dose of 500 mg/kg bw/day. A rat would have to eat a great deal of soya to get that dose. Now imagine how much a human would have to eat to get a dose if glyphosphate to have the same effect. 100 times the dose? Glyphosphate is readily excreted and metabolised as well. Is is classed as non carcinogenic on the basis of animal experiments and epidemiology. Don't forget farmers have been using this stuff for decades.
Similar threads
