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.
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.
“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.
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.
Correct. (See my post #44.)