From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 08:30:41 MDT
CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 8/28/02 12:57:48, talon57@well.com writes:
>
>
>
>>It seems likely that insects huge gene pool, quick evolution, and
>>very short reproductive cycles will "out develop" biotech
>>designers, at least as far as toxins are concerned.
>>
>>
>
>Rapid resistance to even the most potent new toxins is indeed
>the rule in insect pests. Some cute "reserve" strategies will
>slow it (if they're actually followed, which is questioned) but
>certainly won't avert it.
>
>In the bio field there's some frustration with the methods biotech
>*isn't* using to avert resistance. Bacillus thurigensis has been
>around for a while, but resistance to it is rare. Why? It has
>multiple toxins (9, I think). Resistance to one is of little value. Similar
>multitoxin strategies underly current AIDS treatment strategies.
>
>You could stuff 3 or more BT toxins into corn, but it would be pricier
>in the short term. Long term, maybe not, since the pesticide would
>work longer. There's an excellent argument here for current biotech
>violating a commons, the general lack of resistance to BT toxins
>in insects. Monsanto's release of BT corn will in the long term
>impair other's abilities to use BT against insect pests and I don't
>think Monsanto's earned the property rights to that.
>
>
>
>
The problem is... butterflies were picked as the species to worry about
because they were photogenic, not because they were the one most
endangered. There may or may not be good reasons to discourage the
transgenic BT plants. We don't know. The news media sell what sells,
they don't even seriously try to inform. The pop-ecologists use a
popularized (read emotional) version of ecology. They push what it's
politically effective to push. Ditto for the corps. Actual ecology
pretty much gets neglected. And there may, indeed, be real dangers
lurking here. We can't tell, and the information that we would need to
use to make an informed decision is systematically obscured by both
sides. They're both more interested in pushing what they want, than in
what the facts actually say.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:30 MST