1600 Sheep Die After Grazing in GE Cotton Fields

[nosmokes]

original
edit to correct headline
1600 Sheep Die After Grazing in Genetically Engineered Cotton Fields
GM WATCH daily, May 2, 2006
http://www.gmwatch.org

---
1.1600 sheep die after grazing in Bt cotton field
2.More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops
for full details of the sheep study see: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
---
1.1600 sheep die after grazing in Bt cotton field
30 April 2006
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14194773
Hyderabad: Sixteen hundred sheep died in Warangal district after grazing in fields on which Bt cotton had been harvested.

2.GE Food Alert as More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops Monday, 1 May 2006
Press Release: GE free NZ in Food Environment Inc http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0605/S00006.htm
New data on illnesses caused by GE crops ( see references below) are a warning that applications for GE foods must be rejected by Foods Standards Austraila New Zealand Authority
~snip~
.
.
.

[Deja Q]

1. Wow... those pesticides are doing too good of a job...

Most GE food has "built-in" pesticides to kill critters and to save on petrochemical equivalents...

Somebody got their sums wrong.

[nosmokes]

21. no, most GE crops are designed to have a

resistance to pesticides or to be drought tolerant or to produce a larger yield. to date, the only "success" they've had, and i use the term very loosely, is in pesticide resistance. all of the rest of their claims and goals have fallen flat. organic and bio-intensively grown crops are just as efficient if not more so according to the results of some studies, and instead of wiping out the soil and poisoning the earth it enriches the soil an doesn't pollute the water sources with carcinogens and petrochemical wastes. it also doesn't require huge outlays of capital in expensive equipment that is prone to breakdown, expensive o maintain and repair and expensive to keep fueled. besides you can't have food crops engineered to be toxic to pests because then it would also be toxic to whoever you intended to feed it to.

[mike_c]

26. Bt is not at all toxic to mammals, not even a little bit....

Those sheep were not killed by Bt-- I don't know what killed them, but it wasn't Bt.

on edit-- the key statement in this report is down near the bottom: "as farmer(s) also spray different types of insecticides and pesticides on their crops." Non-GE cotton is one of the most pesticide sprayed crops on earth-- I'll bet that the local farmers are continuing some degree of their normal practice and spraying a variety of other pesticides, possibly for Bt resistant insects, possibly "just because."

[mike_c]

30. self delete-- replied in the wrong place....

eom

[nicknameless]

43. Bt used to be used by some organic farmers

because it dissipated so quickly. That lowered it's toxicity and made it near impossible for pests to develop immunity to it.

Then the Nefarious GMO scientists started putting Bt into the genetics of the crops -- to create a continuous presence of the poison.
This did untold harm to the organic farmers who had been using it.
But also, Bt being continuously present MUST be more toxic than Bt the way it was originally used by well-intentioned organic farmers.

[mike_c]

44. it's not more toxic per se...

...just more present, which has the very undesirable side effect of fostering resistance. People just don't seem to learn that lesson....

[nicknameless]

51. The organic farmers, who used it, knew that was Bt's benefit.

The GMO scum, who genetically inserted Bt into crops, HAD to have done it for nefarious reasons.
They did it to harm the organic farmers who were using Bt.

Hmmm... I would have thought Bt's constant presence would have made it more toxic. It WAS a quickly-dissipating pesticide.
Usually, if one consumes more of something harmful, it does more harm. :shrug:


PLUS, we have no idea how much of it the GMO idiots spiced in their crops. Or if they beefed up its toxicity or combined it with something else.

[mike_c]

57. nah, the reason it "dissipated" so quickly has to do with the way...

...it's applied. Crystalline Bt toxin degrades quickly when exposed to UV radiation, so it begins degrading as soon as it's applied to leaves-- it has only a very short term residual effect, and so must be applied in just the right part of the pest insect's life cycle (so a sufficient amount will be ingested quickly enough, and etc). It can be extended a bit with microencapsulation in polymer, but it's still sensitive and has little residual effect.

Transgenic plants, on the other hand, express Bt toxin genes constantly, so instead of a spike of concentration followed by rapid decay, the toxin is available all the time. It isn't really any more toxic than when isolated from Bacillus thurengensis, it's just ever present.

[nicknameless]

58. That's a more complex way of stating what we agree on.

The way organic farmers used Bt, it dissipated relatively quickly, so no pests could develop immunity.
We don't disagree on that.

What we do disagree on is that being exposed to it constantly, does more harm.

Ingesting a tiny bit of poison can make you sick. Ingesting more of it can kill you.

[kestrel91316]

64. I have a theory about this - something about Bt (a bacterium) and the

very delicate balance of microbes in the rumen of sheep (and other ruminants).

It's not outside the realm of possibility...........

Just a theory, mind you.

[Tsiyu]

81. Kills off beneficial bacteria or releases toxins

after being re-chewed? Interesting possibilities.

Genetically modified crops always did seem like a bad idea when "greater yield" is the sole consideration.

[mike_c]

92. hmmm, the normal pH in sheep ruminoreticulum is 5.8-7.0...

...and in the abomasum it goes as low as 2.5 to activate pepsin. Remember, Bt toxin crystals are only soluble at pH greater than 9.5, and that endotoxin cleavage can't occur until the crystals are solublized. Insect digestive systems are quite different from mammalian digestive systems in this respect-- the insect midgut is a reducing environment with high pH, while the mammalian system is generally oxidizing and at low pH. Ruminant fermentation stomachs are intermediate, but nowhere near the conditions needed just to solublize the Bt, let alone get at the endotoxin.

I'd be willing to bet the sheep in the OP were killed by OTHER pesticides sprayed on the transgenic cotton. I mean, more crap is sprayed on cotton than on any other crop.

on edit-- just reread your post and thought I'd add that the transgenic cotton expresses just one Bt protoxin, so the bacteria are not actually present, and also that sheep have been eating Bt bacteria forever-- it's common in soil and therefore occurs, at least occasionally, on the surface of plants.

[KT2000]

98. Possible mistaken assumption

Looking at Bt as the cause is missing the many other possibilities. When Arpad Puzstai found cellular changes in rats fed GE potatoes (another pesticide inserted into the genes of the potato) he found the culprit arose from the method of inserting the genes - not the pesticide itself.

The entire process of genetically modifying anything must be considered. Pegging a particular chemical assumes that everything else is known about the process and that is not the case.

[mike_c]

106. oh I agree entirely-- I just wanted to point out that Bt...

...is very unlikely to responsible for killing sheep.

[bettyellen]

86. sometimes they're designed so you can use MORE chemicals and not

hurt the crop. like "roundup ready" food crops you can use lots of weedkiller around.
yum.
this is BT cotton, it makes it's own pesticide, more constantly than would be needed.

[leftchick]

2. thank you

I had these GM food imperialists! :grr:

[KittyWampus]

27. Creating a Master Race of ANYTHING is not recommended.

[CrispyQ]

59. You speak the truth, my friend. --nt

[BlueJazz]

3. In other News, a Spokesman for GE said....

"As God is my Judge, I would have sworn that Mercury and Arsonic were GOOD for sheep"

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Why do I feel like we are three steps from Soylent Green?

:scared:

[Kutjara]

8. What do you think the prison population and...

...all the 'illegal aliens' are being fattened up for? Coming to a Androburger restraurant near you!

[CrispyQ]

61. . . .

Unspeakable heartbreak.


G-d forgive what my species has wreaked on others.

[Coexist]

85. I know - didn't they commission a study to prove that?!

[Generic Other]

5. "There were no takers for the meat of the dead sheep"

<snip>
The major symptoms as reported by the shepherds were:

Sheep became dull/ depressed after 2-3 days post grazing
Cough with nasal discharge
Reddish and erosive lesions in the mouth
Bloat
Blackish diarrhea
Sometimes red coloured urine
death within 5-7 days of grazing on the Bt cotton fields
<snip>

So what's the next step in the chain? Manufacture slightly poison cloth for BVDs?

[shain from kane]

9. Did they save the wool? How would you like to have that coat? Itchy?

Wonder why?

[Generic Other]

15. Don't forget the rash

Makes me want to wear synthetic from now on. Or nothing at all.

What's worse is that one has to wonder if other Frankenfood they feed humans could have such serious effects. YUCK YUCK YUCK.

[knitter4democracy]

55. They probably sold it as dead wool.

I hope they didn't, though, as it should be checked, too. They should do exams of the dead sheep and any who didn't die but were in the same fields.

You know, it just makes me want to buy from small mills who know where their wool comes from. *sigh*

[nicknameless]

60. Ugh. Sounds like internal bleeding.

[kestrel91316]

68. Sounds like a whole lot more than internal bleeding. They had mouth

sores, and bloat, and bloody feces. Massive damage to GI tract, and you have to look FIRST at what was going into the GI tract, and if it was something NEW, then it's your #1 suspect.

[nicknameless]

76. Of course.

And we have no idea the extent of the damage this is causing in humans.
Bt corn is cross-pollinating in how many places around the globe.

How will we ever get this crap out of our food supply?

[kestrel91316]

67. It doesn't sound like any common sheep disease to me, but then

I haven't doctored any sheep or paid any attention to their diseases in, oh, about 23 years.

I say: Prove to ME that GE cotton full of Bt toxin is safe for ruminants to graze on, before you go letting the public graze their precious livestock on it. Where was the testing? Betcha it WASN'T DONE.

[shain from kane]

6. Reminds of a song ...

"And when them cotton balls get rotten, you can't pick very much cotton
In them old cotton fields back home"

[Sal Minella]

46. And it may sound a little bit funny, but we dint make very much money,

in them old cotton fields at home.

Odetta could do that one justice.

[Demoiselle]

7. Why are sheep grazing in a cotton field?

Cotton isn't a forage crop or a "food" crop. Genetic engineering doesn't spray fields with pesticides Are they grazing on grass that grew AFTER a GE crop of cotton was harvested? What else happened to that field?
I'd like to know more before succumbing to hysteria. (But until I do know more, I'm not gonna eat any cotton t-shirts. )

[incapsulated]

12. lol. Yes, after it was harvested.

But I will pass on the t-shirt pie, as well.

[havocmom]

13. You echo my thoughts. Have never heard of letting sheep into cotton

That one will send me scrambling for info.

[shain from kane]

17. In high cotton, no less. n/t

[kestrel91316]

69. They must have been letting the sheep graze on the old cotton plants

after the bolls had been harvested, presumably by hand. To clean up the fields prior to planting whatever was the next crop.

It's a good agricultural practice, to let livestock clean up your fields. But with an unknown like a GE crop, it's playing with fire.

[havocmom]

73. Cotton could be extremely high in protien - there is an OD chance

if the animals not used to that high a protien feed.

[kestrel91316]

88. Nope. Cotton is not a high-protein crop. and the residue is goung to be

just dried stems/stalks, mostly fiber (carbs).

[havocmom]

95. Cake made with that dried portion is generally very high protien

So say the folks around here who raise sheep. :shrug: Would the cake be made with green cotton plants then?

[kestrel91316]

100. Not dried stems and stalks.........the cakes are COTTONSEED MEAL

CSM is the residue left from processing cotton seeds into oil. The SEED MEAL is high-protein.

It takes an awful lot of cotton plants to produce even a tiny mouthful of cottonseed meal.

[Tsiyu]

82. Is there any type of blister beetle

that might also feed off or nest in cotton?

Horses can die from eating these beetles in alfalfa from cantharidin poisoning.

[kestrel91316]

87. Not that I've heard of. But maybe you are thinking along the right lines.

Maybe the Bt in the cotton helped to kill off the normal bugs found in cotton, and allowed a new bug/beetle/other insect to move in, and THAT killed the sheep.

It caused an ecosystem problem??

[mike_c]

107. I don't know about India...

...but there is at least one blister beetle, the margined blister beetle Epicauta pestifera, that occurs on cotton. It's not an obligate cotton pest-- it occurs on a number of other plants as well-- but it is sometimes considered a cotton pest. Populations are rarely very large, however, and I don't know if it's toxicity has ever been evaluated (the major problem in alfalfa, IIRC, is the black blister beetle E. pennsylvanicus). So who knows? But I suspect that a blister beetle infestation would have been noticable to the sheep herders.

[guinivere]

34. lol! Wool Eats Cotton -- film at 11. nt

[gardenista]

103. Ha!

[IndyOp]

36. Many, many foods contain cotton seed oil -- check your bread

wrapper, crackers, chips -- cotton seed oil is very cheap and so a lot of food makers use cotton seed oil in their products.

:grr:

On edit: Yes, of course, cotton seed oil. Thanks!

[nicknameless]

45. Usually cotton *seed* oil?

[IndyOp]

49. Sorry.... Yes, I am sure the oil must come from the seed.

I just heard this Thursday on Thom Hartmann's radio show - he was talking high fructose corn syrup and callers got off on all kinds of related diet issues. One woman called to talk about the very high levels of pesticides used on cotton and the fact that many, many, many foods include cotton seed oil. I checked my juices and other foods for the high fructose corn syrup (they were clean), but did not check for the cotton seed oil.

One other issue: The report that came out this week about people in the UK living longer, healthier lives than people in the US. Thom immediately began talking about how in Europe, local organic foods are very, very important to the vast majority of the population. So, the difference may be in health care and foods.

:scared:

[nicknameless]

53. GMOs are also terrifying because of cross-pollination.

Even in very remote parts of Mexico, the corn has been contaminated by GMO pollen.

There have been massive butterfly die-offs where GMO pollen has been blown onto milkweed (butterfly habitat).

You bet! :scared:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. That was a very exciting paragraph.

Do you have any actual data, or just hyperbole?

[ThomCat]

19. That's a very knee jerk response.

Having actually clicked on those links, I'm wondering where you see hyperbole. Care to back that up?

The original post is simply referring to a news story and referring to another site. Insulting the poster is probably not an appropriate response.

If defending GM foods is a hobby of yours then you might want to talk to the people who wrote the originals about their actual data.

[jbnow]

11. Try finding that in the news!

I did find 1 more in New search, poorly translated I think,but now it has it up to 1,800+
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=2308&blz=1

At least 1 820 sheep were reported dead after grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton crops; the symptoms and post-mortem findings strongly suggest they died from severe toxicity. This was uncovered in a preliminary investigation conducted by civil society organisations in just four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India. The actual problem is likely to be much greater.

<snip>
The shepherds said that the sheep became �dull/depressed� after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhoea, and sometimes passed red urine. Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected.

The shepherds took their sheep to the government veterinary hospital in Warangal for post-mortem, some shepherds also performed their own post-mortem, as is often the practice of shepherds across Andhra Pradesh. They found black patches in the intestine and enlarged bile duct and black patches on the liver.

Consumers here get to hear nothing about the modified crops or the strange thing they do to milk...
Free country?

[SharonAnn]

29. Hmmm, "red urine" = kidney failure?

[shain from kane]

56. You can lead sheep to cranberry juice, but you can't make them drink. n/t

[kestrel91316]

70. Well, not exactly kidney "failure". More like MASSIVE kidney DAMAGE.

Yes, I'm a vet.

Oh, I just gave myself an idea. Maybe the Bt toxin CRYSTALS got ingested, and the stuff wound up precipitating back out into the kidneys a la antifreeze, and damaged the kidneys like oxalates do............and the part that didn't get systemically absorbed caused local irritation to the oral and GI mucosa a la oxalate ingestion (Dieffenbachia toxicity).

Just a wild-assed theory about how this could happen.

[Usrename]

78. Dumb cane.

I just said that cause I know what Dieffenbachia is. :)

[Missy M]

14. I always wash my new clothes before I wear them......

because I smell what seems to be chemicals on them and it makes me uneasy. I wear mostly cotton so after reading this I am glad I do it

[Demoiselle]

16. Cotton fabrics have been customarily treated with chemicals for years...

My mother used to call it "sizing." You'll find "pure" untreated cottons labeled as such, I believe, and the production and marketing
of such fabrics has become increasingly popular as we get wiser to our environment. In any case, it makes
sense to wash clothes before wearing them, especially if you have sensitive skin.

[xchrom]

18. i don't know if you could wash it out.

Village has 100 households belonging to the shepherd community. Forty shepherds and ten farmers attended the group meeting when the team visited. According to them the deaths began after their sheep grazed on Bt-cotton leaves/bolls. The sheep grazed on the fields which belonged to the shepherds and other farmers. This is the first time some of the shepherds/farmers cultivated Bt- cotton hybrid.  Many sheep were not grazed on the Bt cotton fields last year, as they went on migration .This year most of the shepherds cultivated Bt-Cotton with the intention that they can get more yield and profit. According to them they grazed their fields between end January and March.  The mortality started to occur within a week of continuously grazing on Bt cotton crops-residue. The sheep grazed on the leaves (tender leaves) and pods of the Bt cotton plant residue in the fields.   Mr J. Parmesh (20) suffered diarrhea after consuming the affected sheep’s meat.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494

that's from the first link.

[Missy M]

22. This is very discouraging because I love cotton.

[xchrom]

28. it certainly makes you think about what you're wearing.

i wear mostly natural fibers.

if i wear synthetics -- it's athletic wear or really s'pensive designery type stuff.


but all in all it's very, very little.

like you -- it's mostly cotton.

so, what am i wearing?

[Missy M]

54. The scary part of all this clothing now is.....

not knowing what you're getting. I recently bought a top by a well known maker and when I got home I noticed it said 95% cotton - 5% unknown fibers. I was surprised to say the least. I bought it because I liked how it looked versus reading what the label said while I was in the store. I'm with you as far as "what am I wearing"? I guess I'll have to start trying some of the synthetics.

[ShortnFiery]

66. Yes

Everybody is getting fleeced - in more ways than one. :yoiks:

[nosmokes]

32. cotton is NOT a very earth friendly crop

in fact, traditionally raised cotton is an environmental nightmare. ituse probably more pesticidesthan any other row crop and tons and tons of water. it's smoewhat better when it's organic, but it's still a very thirsty species that wants lots of sunshine and heat which usually means it's grown in areas where water can be scarce and there are better uses for it than putting it on cotton, especially when there are so many other choices for fiber that aare superior to cotton, hemp and bamboo being two that are versatile and could move right in and replace cotton while hardly missing a beat.

[druidity33]

41. true, but...

any monoculture is a nightmare. Including hemp. Companion plants, forest gardening, permaculture, water retention methods (swales, drip irrigation, etc), heirloom species... all could contribute to cotton being a viable part of living farm structures. Also, we don't have the infrastructure to deal with hemp and bamboo (special machines)... we probably don't even have 10% of the amount of cotton mills that we did in 1900.

I try and live bioregionally and do as many things "manually" as i can... if i can't make it or grow it myself, i try and find some other LOCAL PERSON who can... if not, i buy used or recycled goods.

homegrown!

[nosmokes]

52. i'm with you on that druidity!

buy local, organic, fair trade

luckily here in oregon it's easier than most places because there is a big buy/eat local movement. the number of family farmers and ranchers producing organic is growing here. there are even some restaraunts that specialise in offering locally grown seasonally available food. and there's just a good feeling about having a steak once in a while and knowing it was raised in the field on grass and fed hormones and stuck in a masive barn or feedlotted and that you're helping a neighbor raise her family in a tradition that's far too endangered.

[kestrel91316]

71. I want to grow my own hemp so I can spin and weave it and have

my OWN fabric, homemade. Hemp lasts FOREVER. Like linen.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Lately all bedsheets come with a strong plastic odor - FORMALDEHYDE

Which is a carcinogenic substance.

Not to mention outgassing of formaldehyde, furans, etc. over time from treated carpet, PVC plastic trim and plastic wiring in el cheapo "million-dollar McMansions" and common toys such as Barbie, etc. that kids grow up with, then become allergic to outside air.

[Demoiselle]

20. Is it possible that good old natural cotton plants are toxic?

Without any new fangled GE? Let's cast our minds back to the cliches of the old south for a moment.
Anybody remember any songs/legends/etc about grazin' sheep/cows/goats in the fields after the cotton
got picked? I'm just asking here. I worry that in focusing on what might not be such a threat (maybe the
shepherd who let those poor sheep wander into a cotton field was an idiot?!!) will distract us from all the
environmental threats that are very real.

Just asking....

[nosmokes]

24. i know goats are routinely allowed to forage in

cotton fields after harvest. and i imagine that allowing the sheep to graze in the cotton has been going for a while w/o problems before theGE cotton.

[fed-up]

23. Cotton is a FOOD AND fiber plant- COTTONSEED OIL

http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp

NATIONAL COTTONSEED PRODUCTS ACCOCIATION- NCPA

TWENTY FACTS ABOUT COTTONSEED OIL


1. Cottonseed oil is extracted from cottonseed. Cotton has long been known as nature's unique food and fiber plant. It produces both food for man and feed for animals in addition to a highly versatile fiber for clothing, home furnishings, and industrial uses.
2. Cottonseed oil has been a part of the American diet for well over a century. Until the 1940's, it was the major vegetable oil produced in the United States. Now, with annual production averaging more than 1 billion pounds, Cottonseed oil ranks third in volume behind soybean and corn oil representing about 5-6% of the total domestic fat and oil supply.

3. Cottonseed oil has many food applications. As a salad oil, it is used in mayonnaise, salad dressings, sauces, and marinades. As a cooking oil, it is used for frying in both commercial and home cooking. As a shortening or margarine, it is ideal for baked goods and cake icings.

4. Cottonseed oil is primarily used in the U.S. as a salad or cooking oil. About 56% is consumed in that category while about 36% goes into baking and frying fats, and a small amount into margarine and other uses.

...

and found this, don't know if it is still current method of genetically engineering cotton, but don't have time to search for more current info, feel free to google - cottonseed oil genetically engineered

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1999/Jan-Feb/msg00091.html

COTTON SEED OIL: Genetically engineered and DNA-altered
with Arabidopsis bacterium, and viruses to be able to
withstand large applications of the chemical pesticide bromoxynil.
Bromoxynil causes birth defects in human beings

[Demoiselle]

37. Are they feeding sheep cottonseed oil? I thought...

these sheep died after nibbling on the plants
themselves.. My understanding of genetic engineering like that cited
in your last paragraph is that whatever "GE" they do makes the plant resistant to a pesticide. How does that
translate into making the plant itself the pesticide/poison that causes birth defects or poisons sheep? I can
understand that bromixynil itself is a poison. Is the real damaging act here not the GE of the cotton plants
but the possible saturation of the field with broxmixynil==done to excess because the cash crop involved wouldn't be
harmed, but weeds would be? If that's what's causing the damage here, then the problem is not the genetic engineering, but the
overdose of pesticide, made possible by the engineered immunity of the "cash" crop. As you might guess from my posts, I'm trying hard
to accept what remarkable scientific breakthroughs may be out there in G.E.--while being sympathetic to fears of out of control manipulation. I'm also trying hard not to be a Luddite. I react this way partly because my father worked for years in the dreaded agricultural chemicals industry as a liason between his company, the manufacturer, the university experiment stations that kept tabs on the actual effects of various weed killers and pesticides. One of my father's major tasks was to convince growers that if one pound per acre of chemical did an 50 percent job of killing weeds/ fungus/ pests---using twice as much was not necessarily a good idea, since the overdose had bad side effects far beyond any real benefit.. Can we try to get some solid scientific evidence here? Remember, humanity is still struggling with the challenge of feeding itself. Can
we find ways to understand what the real risks are? I still have a faith in science, I hope we don't abandon it out of fear.

[fed-up]

25. Somebody please give this a 5th recommendation-it needs to be on greatest

[mike_c]

31. Bt has virtually no mammalian toxicity....

Those sheep were not killed by Bt-- I don't know what killed them, but it wasn't Bt.

The key statement in this report is down near the bottom: "as farmer(s) also spray different types of insecticides and pesticides on their crops." Cotton is one of the most pesticide sprayed crops on earth-- I'll bet that the local farmers are continuing some degree of their normal practice and spraying a variety of pesticides, possibly for Bt resistant insects, possibly "just because."

[jbnow]

39. There is serious debate on that

Here is just one report, there are many.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho has reviewed recent findings on the mammalian toxicity of Bt toxins. Her reports include observations on the death of cows fed GM fodder, survival of transgenic DNA during digestion and binding of Bt toxin to the intestine of mice <10-12>. Some of the studies in those
reports are mentioned below.
snip

These few studies have made important breakthroughs on the impact of Bt
toxins but are seldom followed up vigorously, a serious mistake
considering the widespread consumption of unlabeled foods containing Bt
toxins. Furthermore, the adverse findings seem to be seldom mentioned in
regulatory reviews.

The behaviour of transgenes and toxins in the mammalian digestive system
is crucial to evaluating their impact on the animal. Cattle were fed
maize silage containing Cry1Ab toxin. After four weeks, the contents of
their digestive system and faeces were analysed. The low-copy Bt genes
could not be quantified in the digestive system, but the Bt toxin
protein was detected in the digestive system and faeces of the cattle <18>.

snip

The second report of the UK’s GM Science Review Panel (2004) commented,
“Many of the genes introduced into GM plants are based on bacterial gene
sequences, but are synthesized de novo in the laboratory to include more
appropriate codon usages for more efficient expression in plants” <36>.
However, the report failed to mention that the evaluations of mammalian
safety and environmental impacts (particularly the impact on non- target
organisms) have been done using a bacterial surrogate for the proteins
produced in GM crops. Consequently, GM crops produced in the United
States, Canada and other countries are untested and unknown for
toxicities, and the failure to label the GM foods produced from the GM
crops has obscured any impact on humans and animals.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Ho's a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

[jbnow]

47. I can't gauge

the validity of the findings on that page. Many questions have been raised over the years and when I googled that was the first page I found, but there have been many.

I am slow to trust pretty pictures offered and I think suspicion is warranted.

I'll offer one page and maybe that won't mean much either. I'm no specialist. I had a friend who does specialize in this area...well in Europe and they have their own findings. It was some time ago but it made an impression on me, added to my general bias against many things approved here.

If this is true it is reason enough for concern.

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstrye822.html?recid=477
The EPA has largely ignored the recommendations of its scientific advisors (SAP Bt Plant-Pesticides, SAP Mammalian Toxicity), contrary to the Agency’s claim that it has considered them (Sections 1 & 10)

To those who are sure these are safe I hope you are correct. I just hate us being part of the experiment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Any person who "self publishes" and claims to be a scientist

Should be disregarded immediately.

No matter where they stand on any issue.

[mike_c]

42. not among entomologists who study Bt, there isn't....

(I'm an entomologist and insect ecologist, so I have some familiarity with the field.) Bt really is benign to non-insects, and even to many non target insect groups. The fact that transgenic DNA survived digestion and that Bt toxin bound to mouse intestinal epithelium does not mean that either are toxic. I know of ZERO evidence to support that conclusion. Some proportion of transgenic DNA is just as likely to survive digestion as non-transgenic DNA-- it happens all the time, digestion is not 100 percent efficient, and Bt toxin does not cause lysis or membrane leakage in mammalian intestinal cells. Mammals have ingested Bt for a long time-- Bacillus thurengensis is common in soil and frequently present on fruits, vegetables, and other plant tissues.

My worst objection to Bt engineered plants is that it will foster Bt resistance. It already has. Its the same old overuse story, IMO.

[jbnow]

48. Thanks for your input (EOM)

[frustrated_lefty]

83. Mike, you're the perfect person to ask

One thing bugs me about these reports. Everything I'm coming up with on PubMed indicates the B. thuringiensis Cry toxins are being studied in corn and maize. Why the heck are they being used in cotton?

More importantly, do you know of any transgenic mice or rats which constitutively express the Cry toxin? I haven't found any data on that yet, but it would do one heckuva lot towards confirming or denying the toxicity of the proteins in mammals.

[mike_c]

93. they're being used in cotton for the same reasons....

Cotton has a plethora of insect pests that significantly reduce or eliminate yield, and most are now resistant to a host of other insecticides. Cotton is one of the most "sprayed-upon" crops on earth. Seriously. The transgenic route is to overcome some of the inherent limitations of using Bt applications, i.e. sensitivity to UV, the need to time applications to critical life cycle stages, etc.

Your second question is pretty interesting. No, I don't know of any effort to express Bt in mammals, but see my response a couple of posts below this (to kestrel) about the mode of action of Bt-- expressing it in mammals would not really test its toxicity at all, because crystalline Bt toxin-- the full peptide form-- is not active anyway, AND it would never enter mammalian bodies in that form because there is no mechanism for it to cross the intestinal epithelium.

[nosmokes]

94. but other scientists tell a different tale...

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Bt Toxins in Genetically Modified Crops: Regulation by Deceit
***********************************************



Prof. Joe Cummins reviews the impacts of Bt toxins and Bt crops and points to a fundamental flaw in their regulatory assessments - toxicity testing based, not on the toxins in Bt crops themselves, but on surrogate toxins. There is, furthermore, evidence that some Bt toxins are toxic to mammals.



If you wish to see the complete document with references, please consider becoming a member or friend of ISIS.(the press release at the link above is quite informative, even w/o the refs)

www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php

[mike_c]

97. please, mae wan ho has been thoroughly debunked-- ISIS is...

...Ho's group and it has ZERO crebility among scientists outside of its own membership. ISIS reminds me of creation science organizations with their pet chemists and such. See the comments up thread about Ho or check the Wikipedia page.

[nosmokes]

99. i'm not hanging my hat on ho. but ISIS is

certainly more credible than wikipedia. you sayBt is completely harmless to mammals. it may be, and somethin else entirely may be responsible for the death of those sheep. however, like almost everything else in the GMO world, there has been a remarkable dearth of long term testing before the cows were let of the barn into a field full of bulls, and then the product is put on the shelves and while the industry tells us it's perfectly healthy and harmless, they obviously aren't proud of their product because they spend millions and do everything in their power to keep those products from being identified! that goes against business model 101 of establishing a recognisable label and establishing a raport with your customer base. when organic methods can produce plenty of food to feed the planet, and it's healthier and tastier and more wholesome for us and the planet, why , other than greed, are we even spending the millions on this GM food research? so that companies like monsanto can hold a patent to our food supply? that'll be a giant leap forward for the human race.

[mike_c]

101. oh I agree with most of your comments about GMOs....

I'm no fan of letting the genie out of the bottle just to increase agribusiness profits, but I am a fan of eating and the future is looking bleak. Did you know that insects are our single greatest competitor for food and other ag products? Worldwide, something on the order of 30 percent of annual agricultural production is lost to insects. That's enough to feed a lot of hungry people.

I just don't like knee jerk hysteria, particularly with respect to things like Bt, which really could have been a life saver if it weren't overused-- and I consider widespread expression in crops to be overuse. But making Bt the boogie-man serves no good purpose-- there really aren't any more benign insecticides unless you count non-toxics like diatomaceous earth. Likewise, objecting to transgenic Bt engineered crops just because they contain Bt misses the mark, IMO, and the implication of the OP is preposterous. That's not the way to make credible arguments against GMOs.

The OP is a non-story UNLESS you completely ignore the Bt angle, because Bt certainly did not kill those sheep. My money's on a secondarily applied pesticide, either an insecticide or a herbicide. Cotton production is one of the worst pestcide sinks on earth. Ironically, Bt engineered cotton is designed to alleviate that problem. Note too that the article linked in the OP doesn't state that they all died in one event, or necessarily of a single cause-- it was 1600 total distributed among several flocks across several villages and districts. It looks like the overall mortality rate was about 25 percent, near as I can figure from the article. The OP makes it sound like a single event, and several responses in this thread reacted to that. Again, that sort of scaremongering isn't a credible way to argue against GMOs, IMO.

[nosmokes]

102. sorry it took so long to reply

but i haven't found anything that definitively states Bt is harmless to mammals and a few google and ask searches have turned up some articles like the one referenced that raise that raise questions. and even if Bt *only* harms insects it has no distinction between crop devouring insects and beneficial insects, and the Bt is going to end up in the soil through the roots, or i at least likely to, isn't it?

point taken re: possible scaremongering techniques of the headline writers. although there are few stories that have as much impact on every family that are being so blatantly undereported as the wide-spread use of GMOs in the food chain.

[mike_c]

105. Bacillus thurengensis is a naturally occuring soil bacteria...

...so Bt is arguably already "in the soil," although not in exactly the same form. Recall though that the protoxin and endotoxin forms degrade quite fast when exposed to the environment, so that's not much of a concern, IMO. As for harming other insects, Bt has far fewer nontarget effects than other insecticides, BUT cultivating huge monocultures of crops like cotton-- or corn and soybeans for that matter-- will NEVER be an environmentally friendly enterprise. More chemicals are sprayed on cotton than on any other crop, and they collectively have far greater impact than Bt. Transgenic cotton is actually one of the better arguments in favor of GMOs in the sense that it has potential for limiting environmental pollution. It's an argument that only makes sense in the context of big agribusiness (and ultimately weakens when you consider the potential for fostering resistance), but that's the only way to supply the human demand for food and fiber at this point, so I think we have to make some accomodations if we want to have our cake and eat it too.

[kestrel91316]

72. Mike, I have a theory about this. Sort of along the lines of oxalate

toxicity (Dieffenbachia, antifreeze, etc). When oxalate CRYSTALS are directly ingested, they cause terrible local inflammation due to microtrauma of the oral and GI mucosa. When antifreeze is ingested and is metabolized into oxalate, the crystals precipitate and accumulate in the kidneys, where they cause massive damage (not sure if hematuria results). So maybe if the cotton plants had large amounts of the Bt toxin CRYSTALS it could behave the same way as oxalates?

Just a late-night tired vet's theory..........

[mike_c]

90. I dunno kestrel-- at the gross level Bt crystals are VERY small...

...and they're proteins, not carboxylic acids. Oxalic acid is a normal metabolic intermediary so it triggers numerous metabolic responses (usually as oxalate IIRC), but more to the point, it's one of the strongest organic acids and is quite reactive-- e.g. especially with calcium, so it not only screws up calcium metabolism but precipitates in the kidneys as calcium oxalate. It is absorbed by the intestines so it crosses into the body easily. It is a neurotoxin in moderate concentrations (I think) and is easily soluble at physiologic pH.

None of those things are true of Bt. Like I said, Bt toxin is a crystalline protein that forms sub-organelle sized crystals, at least in bacteria. It is soluble only under reducing conditions at quite high pH-- i.e. above 9.5-- conditions common in the midguts of insects but NOT in the digestive systems of mammals. The actual toxic bit is an endotoxin that must be cleaved from the solublized protein by a protease-- an insect protease-- that then binds to specific receptors on the midgut epitheium. The ligand bound receptors mediate loss of membrane permeability control and ultimately lead to lysis of the epithelial cells. Under natural conditions (with actual Bt bacteria present), this creates conditions conducive to germination of the bacterial spores and allows the bacteria to invade the insect, which ultimately dies by septocemia. Under insecticidal conditions insects die by physiologic crash after their midgut wall fries.

The point is that Bt endotoxin is not absorbed into the body at all, either in insects or in mammals. Its mode of action is restricted to the exterior of the midgut epithelium, and only after solublizing under quite specific conditions. There is certainly NO route for absorption of Bt crystals across the mammalian intestinal epithelium-- they're large enough that they'd have to be endocytosed. Any that is digested-- and I suspect that most is-- is simply absorbed as its constituent amino acids like any other protein.

[kestrel91316]

91. Makes sense. Now I know why YOU are the entomologist and

I am the cat vet, lol.

[gardenista]

104. Just want to say it's been very interesting following this discussion. nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. Damn, that is a huge flock of sheep

and I never knew they would eat dried up cotton pods, which are nasty and prickly.

[IndyOp]

35. Bobby Kennedy will be ALL over this on Ring of Fire this weekend!

Kennedy has had someone on in past talking about studies of mice that ate genetically modified food -- femalea fed GMO food had more 'stillbirths' and the pups that did survive were almost always dramatically smaller than on non-GMO food. Apparently the GMO seed companies are spending $$$$$$ keeping a lid on this research.

:grr:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Survey?

A survey found 1600? Double plus hmmm.

"Centre for Sustainable Agriculture" hmmm^3

[CrispyQ]

62. Whether you believe in G-d or not,

humans were not meant to play Creator-of-the-Universe.

My apologies to all the species who share this space/time with homo sapiens.



:cry:

[Odin2005]

65. Then go back and live in a cave, then.

We've been changing our world since we were hunter gatherers. "Playing God" is part of being human.

[nosmokes]

74. that's sposed to be an endorsement?

"We've been changing our world since we were hunter gatherers."

yeah, and look at how much good we've done this old rock we call home. with any luck it may still be inhabitable for another couple hundred years.

[Greyhound]

79. I don't think you understand the potential risk attendant in genetic

manipulation. We don't know nearly enough to even think of beginning to believe we understand the far reaching consequences of introducing new genetic strains into the wild. The law of unintended consequences is.

[Zynx]

89. We do have to respect our very sizable limitations.

We are truly feeble compared to the power of nature.

[Odin2005]

63. Bt is nontoxic to mammals. The knee-jerk anti-GMO crap is annoying

Something else killed the sheep. Ironically, the topic of Bt Corn was in the chapter of my genetics textbook I was reading for for Monday's lecture!

[xchrom]

84. annoying to you -- but not to others.

i don't want to wear or eat gm stuff.

there is very reputable concern over introducing this method into our farming practices.

if i buy cotton -- i'm not thinking i'm buying a gm product -- and it bothers me that i might have that stuff on.

[Rosemary2205]

77. Cannabals.

[Evoman]

80. Before we get hysterical......

1)Do you have any links and how trustworthy is gmwatch.org? Honestly, I don't know anything about it, so I'm curious.

2)Could these sheep have died because of some disease? Tests need to be done before we blame GM crops

3)Some farmers (in Canada here as well) are notorious for not understanding potential dangers of adding certain pesticides and antibiotics. Could farmers have added pesticides that have NOTHING to do with GM food?

4)I agree that scientists need to be careful with GM crops, especially when introducing them to the wild. However, I find hysterical rants about nefarious scientists unwarranted.

[IronLionZion]

96. What are sheep doing in a cotton field?

are sheep supposed to be eating cotton? Are they trying to stomp out the competition and promote their own wool? :shrug:

And forgive me for not jumping on board to believe something from a site called "gmwatch.org".