The Bt "toxin" is just a protein, and it's harmful only to lepidopterans and beetle larva, and only in the basic pH of their foregut.
Bt is used to also control mosquito populations. Farmers have to be careful to use the particular Bt toxin protein specific to the insect they are trying to control, otherwise they could harm beneficial species. So, no I don't agree with your assetion that it is only harmful to lepidopterans and beetle larvae.
Should we worry about the possible unintended poisoning of targetted species outside of the farm? Is there such a possible effect?
Cry1Bb isn't a bioaccumulating compound, it's just a protein. Proteins out in the natural world hydrolyze rapidly, or are scavenged by microflora. The safety and low ecological impact of Bt toxin is why it's one of the pesticides that organic farmers can spray.
Would you consider 6 months as low persistance?
While I applaud the attempt at creating pesticides that are low impact, with low-toxicity to non-targetted species and have a small to negligable impact beyond their application, I champion the continued oversight of any product or design which has the potential for negative consequences.
That's right - organic farmers spray Bt "toxin" all over their crops. But you think the major source of Bt in runoff and streams is GMO corn. Once again, the conventional farmer is slammed for consequences that organic farming exacerbates. Hoocoodanode indeed?
According to this
Study the streams tested had stream channels that were 500m from maize fields and that roughly 91% of Indiana's miles of streams were within 500m of where maize fields had been planted.
I'm not out to demonize the use of Bt in pesticides or our crops, but I definitely care about the possible negative consequences of their use. I think a high priority item for study should be the impact of the Bt protein in streams and the possiblility of the introduction of GM genes into native species.
I continue to believe that the food-scare hysteria surrounding fructose and HFCS is founded on no sound science, and it's for this reason - if there were some sound science counterindicating HFCS, food-scare proponents would be able to agree on what was bad about it.
Continuing my research into HFCS leads me to agree with you that any demonization of HFCS should not be based on its supposed difference with sucrose. (Is 5% more fructose enough to make HFCS so much more dangerous than sucrose? It doesn't appear to be so.)
The increase in the percentage of foods that have sugar in their ingredients should be the focus of poeples ire and not the little difference between sucrose and HFCS.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : whats up with copying a text and having it copy the whole field?