GENTECH archive


reply to Rick Roush on Bt resistance

Hi Rick and others,

1) one argument more that has been said to me :

There happen to be numerous Bt toxins and Bt genes because there are numerous
Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

When some people say that there has been no resistance to Bt up to now,
they forget that a wide spectrum of these toxins are used while for GMO,
if generlaized, only one toxin would be used. So one cannot compare the
appearance of resistance in the case of multi toxins (i've been said 140)
qith the case of only one.

Once again it's the philosophical problem of diversity.
As I already stated : If you have one solution (whatever might be its goodness),
if you use only this one, in the long run, you will loose. Even if you win
in the short run.

2) Second argument :
you say :
>I argued that EVEN IF Bt cotton lasted for only 4 years, it would help many

You seem not to count the fact that those who use Bt as their ONLY pesticide
would loose everything. Is it politically right not to take the freedom
of some personns into account ?

3) Last, an old arguemnt : even if we can find other peesticide (remains to
be proved), wouldn't they be more toxic ? Then you will "help many people"
in a short term, but injury them after ...

4) you said :
>there is no DNA or protein in cotton seed oil once
>it has been processed for food
You mean there are only traces. This said, I trust that there are much
less risks in the alimentary than in the environment.

5) you said :
>resistance in the pests
Please, what is the gene of resistance to pests ? I only know genes of 
production of insecticides.

6)  you said :
>pesticide sprays, which can also persist in the soil and are
>much less selective
Sorry, I cannot understand the difference. I thought selectiveness was
the ability to kill a selective weed or pest. Why the spray should be less 
selective ? Moreover, I thought that the most dangerous pesticides were
more selective. WHat's my mistake ?