Posted on 05/25/2011 7:15:49 AM PDT by Scythian
A landmark new study out of Canada exposes yet another lie propagated by the biotechnology industry, this time blowing a hole in the false claim that a certain genetic pesticide used in the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops does not end up in the human body upon consumption. Researchers from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Sherbrooke Hospital Centre in Quebec, Can., have proven that Bt toxin, which is used in GM corn and other crops, definitively makes its way into the blood supply, contrary to what Big Bio claims -- and this toxin was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women tested.
Published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the study explains that Bt toxin enters the body not only through direct consumption of GMOs, but also from consumption of meat, milk and eggs from animals whose feed contains GMOs. Among all women tested, 80 percent of the pregnant group tested positive for Bt toxin in their babies' umbilical cords, and 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for Bt toxin.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalnews.com ...
What? Are you anti-business? :)
Interesting that this page touting Bt saftey (from the google cache from May 6th, 2001):
Just went offline ...
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_safety.html
Going back to basic questions: What is the proven effect of this substance on humans?
Calling it a toxin does not necessarily mean it is toxic to humans. There are hundreds of detectable trace chemicals in the human body that weren’t there in prehistoric time. The problem with these stories is the announcement of “detection” of this or that also ads the veiled implication that some kind of damage is being caused by the chemical’s presence. In most cases the chemical simply passes through unnoticed. That we can sample blood and detect it doesn’t change anything.
But who needs logic when a good emotional scare will drum up a new cause.
It is not a chemical, nor a substance, it is bacteria, let’s start with real facts and go from there.
Questions:
1. Where does one procure Bt?
2. Is it naturally occurring?
3. Do any plants produce Bt?
4. If one were to grow their own food, would that eliminate all Bt in that food?
5. What are the names of the “researchers,” and are they unbiased in their research?
Are these detected levels trace amounts - or significant exposure?
Are these detected levels of Bt toxin better or worse than the likely replacement of chemical pesticides - and at what exposure levels?
Now it is troubling that it seems the GM industry downplayed this - but if their studies showed that only 0.01% of the toxin is bio-available and thus high exposure levels are not a threat as 99.99% of it does pass through the digestive system unabsorbed and the levels they are detecting are consistent with this low absorption rate - then the science itself wasn't in error or misleading - it is running around screaming about this low level exposure that is in error and misleading.
But I wouldn't expect a rational treatment of any actual Science from the source in question.
Some people are fanatically religious about their diet - all purities and impurities- anecdote becomes superior to peer reviewed studies - and well established scientific principles take a back seat to pseduscientific babble.
SO, is there a problem? How many thousands of chemicals make their way into the blood every day? It isn’t a problem unless it is at a toxic level. We breath carbon monoxide, consume arsenic, and cyanide compounds on a daily basis. Please understand, we live in a toxic world, “the dose makes the toxin.” Paracelsus
Don’t buy the anti-biotech rubbish—lawyers seeking money is what it is mostly about.
The gene to produce this toxin is taken from the bacteria and introduced into Corn Cotton and other crops.
The toxin is also used DIRECTLY as a pesticide.
Thus the study that points exclusively to GM crops as the likely source of this Bt toxin doesn't seem to want to deal with the fact that this stuff is also sprayed directly onto non GM crops.
Smells like an agenda to me.
Precisely. Folks, Bt is Bacillus Thuringiensis. This is one of the oldest and original natural pesticide bacterias. Those Freeper gardeners/farmers know this well. The bacillus is deadly to cabbage worms/other sucking worms on fleshy leaf vegetables and many fruiting vegetables. The “toxin” is toxic to the worms.
There is considerable evidence and information on what the “toxin” produced by the bacteria, actually is chemically. It is not a heavy metal, and it is not biologically active.
What has happened is that genetically modified corn has been modified to permit this bacteria to be taken up, such that nasty disgusting (crapping) corn worms and others are killed when they try to eat the corn.
If any one has info that the “toxin” has some biologic effect... let us know. This is not even as bad as Sevin.
Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium.
As allmendream has pointed out, the endotoxin protein is also sold as a direct application spray for other crops.
But this stuff has been around, at least the bacillus itself, which you mix with a sticking agent (like cheap dish soap) and spray on your plants- worms eat it- then they die. Growing collards- we know all about it.
The funny thing is, this was and is one of the NON pesticides, natural killers, touted for 20 years or more by the “organic” health food people. The article is to target Monsanto,(read:tort lawyers) for the audacity to put the genes into corn for the corn to make its own “endotoxin” instead of having to spray it on. Now in the area of “sterile” seeds from Monsanto— that's a different subject and worthy of concern, if you can't save back seed stock for the next year and have to buy it each year from Monsanto.
We have lots of things in our environment in quantities that could be characterized as toxic— like, toxic water- drink too much and you'll die of edema if you can't pee enough.I do adhere to concern about the effect of free radicals on human bodies and aging, heart disease etc, though. That is proven rather well. So, all in context.
Here's the link to an exhaustive write up from EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_006484.htm
“Bt can be found almost everywhere in the world. Surveys have indicated that Bt is distributed in the soil sparsely but frequently worldwide. Bt has been found in all types of terrain, including beaches, desert, and tundra habitats.”
So how many unborn babies were contaminated with bt 20 years ago, oops, we don’t know because no one tested.
These kind of studies which may even be true are just to cause hysteria by people with an agenda.
In reality, organic farmers are the ones who use in on non-GMO crops.
Countdown,,,3,2,1...
“More fear-mongering lies from the anti-business, hippy, commie-pinko, running dogs! And anyway, toxins are healthy and good for you!”
That's true, but... Naturally occurring toxins have no "requirement" to be non-injurious. In fact, they were selected because they work to the degree that the pest does not become tolerant of them. This is why, for example, many butterflies home in on only one particular plant, because they "co-adapted" with the plant such that their larvae are tolerant to the toxins it produces.
As a class of chemicals, they're called "defensins." We already know that many naturally-occurring defensins are NASTY carcinogens. People consume as much as 5,000 to 10,000 times, by weight, of naturally occurring toxins as opposed to synthetic pesticides. Hence, IMO we should be more concerned in some respects about naturally occurring toxins than those synthetic toxins that were developed and tested to be as benign to humans as possible. Yet one notes that NOT ONE food agency even tests food for its relative naturally occurring toxicity. The reason is simple: it's bad for global industrial agriculture.
Most plants produce those toxins in response to pest attack. The closer the source of food to the consumer and the sooner it is consumed, the less defensin there will be in the food. That's bad news for industries that want to transport food between continents.
I know we are exposed to toxins every day, including toxins manufactured in our own bodies. So I don't have enough information to have even a preliminary opinion on Bt--- as compared to, say, DHMO.
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)is found in the brain tissue of over 87% of the people who have died of aggressive carcinomas in the past 10 years.
It's not criminal, it's a precaution. If you don't want the gene to be transmissible to the wild, then you must design the genome to be non-reproducing. Every one of those farmers has the option of growing something else. Yet apparently they consider the benefits of GM varieties to be worth the expense of purchasing seed.
The problem is of course what to do if the supplier fails, which constitutes a risk that ends up being socialized. Were this a properly functioning system, there would be farmers paid to grow heirloom seed merely as a precaution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.