[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BT Natural vs. GMO toxin release



I believe that EPA regulates Bt in GM crops as plant  incorporated
protectants (PIPs) or in other words as biopesticides. Bt spray is
registered as a pesticide while Bt crops do not appear to be registered.
In the GM rice grown in California the human lysozyme in the crop is
considered  a  biopharmaceutical but, as well, the  human lysozyme is
patented to protect against fungal and bacterial pests, but EPA does not
seem to consider it a PIP? The ways of EPA and APHIS are very
mysterious. joe cummins

Art Petrzelka wrote:

On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 16:22, chris reid wrote:


Can someone update me -- Is the GM-containing plant registered as a
pesticide, or does the registration of BT as a pesticide somehow become
irrelevant when the "spray can" is in the shape of a green plant?  I don't



Wouldn't it be interesting if we could make a case that planting Bt corn
required a chemical applicator's license?

--
Art Petrzelka
Amana, Iowa, USA

********************************************************

To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html



********************************************************

To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html