Re: New Novartis Patent, archive 2416
- To: wytze <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: New Novartis Patent, archive 2416
- From: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:51:58 +0930
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <385E86F2.1BD0D86C@zap.a2000.nl>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
>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.
It's not obvious to me (from what little I have seen so far) that what
Novartis has proposed IN THE PATENT will help to manage resistance to Bt
crops, but of course resistance can happen. Farmers using Bt sprays on
cabbage crops have selected Bt resistance in diamondback moth around the
world. From what little I have seen so far, I can't comment either on the
efficiencies, and suspect the application will be challenged.
In spite of popular belief, synergism is very uncommon.
With respect to your "second generation-gmo", spider venoms are generally
(if not always) ineffective if eaten, and for that reason are not good
candidates for use in pest resistant crops. You don't need genetic
engineering to get herbicide resistance via acetolactate synthase because
that resistance occurs naturally. I can't imagine that even GE proponents
would be interested in your plant or its spray regime of an ad hoc mixture