Re: Bt pesticides, archive 2357
- To: "Rick Roush" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bt pesticides, archive 2357
- From: "Dorothy Bowes" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 10:02:46 +1100
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007D_01BF422C.8B0AD380"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
We know foods are full of naturally occurring chemicals/toxins
e.g. potato, tomato. Some foods are just within the bounds of being safe
to eat. Most of us have consulted allergy dietitians and been through a process
of elimination and challenges. This protocol was developed by the Allergy
Clinic at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney.
There are very few studies on the combination of naturally
occurring substances in foods and added substances and herein lies a major
problem with additives, agrochemical residues etc. It is highly likely
that the naturally occurring phenolic compounds in food will enhance the
activity of bacteria added by man. In fact, I have one such study here
somewhere and will find it for you when I get a break in the traffic.
Currently, I am involved in some individual advocacy for a member of ASEHA who
is being treated badly by the health care system. If she doesn't get some real
help soon she will take her own life - and that, along with the Queensland
Review of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Control Act is taking up all
of my time.
I object to anything being used on/in food that wasn't put
there by nature. Adding Bt toxins, antibiotic marker genes, enzymes to
confer chemical resistance etc to food is absolute madness in my
Any testing done is only as good as the research questions
asked. If the right questions don't get asked we don't get the right
answers. Further, any research is limited by what is known at the time the
research is done and within the limitations of the science involved. It
would be more honest for you to say - according to the assessments done we think
the risks of Bt sprays are very low... Toxicology and medicine are
incomplete sciences. Stuff ups are expensive in terms of health and
quality of life (DES, thalidomide...)
Like fire, I believe science is a good servant but a bad
master. Unfortunately, overriding this is the holy dollar that seems to
take precedence over all and is driving science too fast. Lets have a
moratorium on GE crops and gene technology in the food supply until we are sure
that there is no harm to humans and sustainability is assured. I don't
think that is too much to ask.
No Rick, this is not just a GE thing. I am very
concerned about the use of food additives, agrochemical residues, food
processing aids, food irradiation, food packaging, the quality of the air I
breathe and the water I drink.
I don't want ANY nasty little surprises....
I look forward to
your coming back to the debate with some specifics about the risks of Bt Cry
proteins in food, but let me ask you something. If you and yours are so keen
aboyut mandatory testing and the precautionary principle, can I ask where
you stand on long term feeding studies for kiwi fruit, parsnips, adn other
sorts of non-traditional or novel foods and herbal remedies? Kiwi fruit
cause allergies, parsnips are full of carcinogens, St John's wort is toxic
even to sheep and goats. Where was the mandatory testing? More specifically,
where was there any sort of scientific assessment that comes close to what
has already been done for Bt crops?
Or is this just an anti-GM
The risks of Bt sprays are still very low. What else would you
have organic farmers use to control insect pests? I can think of at least
one option; many Bt spray products are now recombinants; the Bt gene was
placed in another bacterium, Pseudomonas, which is killed before
application. No other Bt hazards. Is this better?
SAVE THE FARMERS - STUFF THE PUBLIC!!!!!
Putting Bt in food does not necessarily compensate by
sparing farmers the Bt spray. If Bt is expressed in the food it may be
simply taking the problem from the farmers and putting it on the
consuming public. Yeah, great thinking Rick. I don't think this is good
science. I shall continue to look for more studies before I make an
informed comment and you can look forward to further comment
Only long term human feeding studies are acceptable as risk
assessment. In the meantime I support a moratorium on Bt crops as a
safeguard for both the environment and human health - what happened to
the precautionary principle......
For the record, I don't support
the use of Bt in organic