BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Cherubini <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:06:29 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
Blane White wrote:

> By using the BT toxin in large acreage of crops we are selecting
> very rapidly for resistance to the toxin in the pest population.
> By doing this we will select for and see pests that are resistant
> to BT which is one of the mainstays of the organic and
> alternative pest control methods and has been for many years.
> The result will be that the organic folks and those who use low
> impact pest controls like IPM will loose one of the best and
> lowest environmental impact controls for caterpillars.

It is my understanding that the biotech industry
and US Environmental Protection Agency have implemented
a number of moth resistance management strategies including:

1. Prevention:  "Plant non-Bt-corn refuge(s) to protect around 30% of
    the European corn borer moth larval populations from exposure
    to Bt Cry proteins.

2. Montoring: Detect & mitigate resistance before moth control
     failures occur.

3. Swift Mitigation: If and when moth resistance is detected, rapidly
     introduce new hybrids that express alternative Cry proteins.

4. Abandon Bt corn long before the point is reached that
    entire groups of Cry proteins are neutralized by moth resistance
    development.

Whether or not significant moth resistance will likely develop is debatable.
Meanwhile, it would appear there are substantial safeguards in place to
avoid a potential crisis situation.

Paul Cherubini

ATOM RSS1 RSS2