RE: [CH] GE Bt vs.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: kennethbaker: "[CH] Patent infringement?"
• Previous message: Mary & Riley: "RE: [CH] Okay, read it yourself"
• In reply to: Byron: "[CH] GE Bt vs."

> The Bt you spray on your plants is
> accepted by CA organic growers,  The GE Bt gene is NOT.
>
> Byron

Byron,

I'm well aware of that and did not state otherwise.  I was just pointing
out the absurdity of saying it's ok to ingest BT sprayed on a plant as
opposed to being produced by the plant.  All thing being equal.  This is
neither a pro or con for GM food.

btw, the gene itself doesn't do a thing--dna is broken down in the
digestive track, I believe.  It's the product of the gene that's at
issue.

I don't really think this thread needs to be continued, but someone
stated that it will not change anyone's mind.  Not true.  My view of
labeling has changed. I would be glad to see pesticide use being on the
label of all food products, for instance.  Enforced equally.  That is,
say, something like "this corn incorporates endogenous (self produced,
has the gene) BT".  Or "this apple has being exogenously treated (spray,
applied externally) with rotenone".  (Rotenone is ok for organic
gardening, btw, but is associated with Parkinson's disease.)

Riley

• Next message: kennethbaker: "[CH] Patent infringement?"
• Previous message: Mary & Riley: "RE: [CH] Okay, read it yourself"
• In reply to: Byron: "[CH] GE Bt vs."