GENTECH archive


Re: New Novartis Patent

I'll withdraw the part of the statement you quote that refers to resistance to
Bt has developed. Indeed this can not be deduced from the patent. Nr. I of my
series on this patent needs to be edited. However, the patent at the least
shows in which way Novartis
is anticipating to combat upcoming resistancies, and does not exclude they
haven't or can't happen.
The efficiencymatter is different and unless someone shows me where I
completely miss on this, I see some highly confusing figures here.
The reduction of application rates is, like the other "advantages" one out of a
serie, that cannot be generalised. The applications and compositions of the
sprays etc. will greatly depend on local circumstances in the field.
What the patent does give is an insight in what we may expect in the coming
Therefore, I have thought of a possible "second generation-gmo" example to
evaluate the synergistic effects on foodsafety:

1) A cabbage, made insect resistant(IR) and herbicide resistant (HR).
IR was induced by insertion of a genetic construct comprising of a
spidervernon, CaMV, and hygromycin resistancy as a selective marker. HR was
induced by Acetolactate synthethase. During the growing season, the cabbage was
sprayed with Ethamethsulfuron, Tribenuron and Dimethoxypyrimidines. To combat
some other pests a New! Novartis Spray was applied several times being a spray
comprising of 15% thiamethoxam, 20% organphosphorous compounds, 15% carbamates,
20% abamectin and 30%stabilizers, preservatives and antifoams.
Reported advantages of the cabbage is reduced attractiveness to birds and
prolonged shelf life.


Rick Roush wrote:

> Wytze:
> I don't know the whole background to the Novartis patent, but most of what
> you wrote about it seems to relate to insecticides like imidacloprid (a
> neonicodinoid or nitroguanidino-compound product of Bayer), which by itself
> has very poor activity against caterpillars (Lepidoptera), including cotton
> leaf worms and bollworms (Spodoptera  and Heliothis species).  The second
> patent relates to other inseciticides, including pymetrozine (a Novartis
> product).
> It appears from what you emailed that Novartis has discovered that these
> insecticides are synergistic with Bt, which is surprising. As Novartis
> claims (from your VI message, archive 2407), reduced application rates of
> the pesticides would be possible. Presumably Novartis is applying for a
> "use patent" in support of their discovery. They have also covered
> themselves by listing every possible transgenic plant, including several
> for which there is no evidence of efficacy and others that would be
> unlikely to ever get through the regulatory process.
> Imidacloprid and pymetrozine are very effective against sucking pests like
> whiteflies. Bt in contrast, is not effective against whiteflies and many
> more of the pests listed.  There is nothing in the materials you sent that
> implies that the patent "seems to be a cover up to hide the inefficiency of
> Bt plants and the fact that resistant strains have developed", contrary to
> the assertion of your first two messages (archives 2397 and 2398).  Indeed,
> there is no "fact that resistant strains have developed".
> I have not reviewed the patent, but I would be surprised if the pesticides
> and transgenic plants are truly syneristic (which implies greater than
> additive effects).
> By the way, the data on imidacloprid (a product of Bayer) and (a product of
> Novartis) indicates that both are much safer to humans and the environment
> than many of the carbamate and organophosphate insectides they replace.
> Rick