Subject: Re: BT yet again
From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 21:26:55 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

In Article <1994Jul5.225709.4788@tower>, [email-masked] wrote:
>FYI -
>
>I have seen several threads lately here on the net which seem to
>hold BT to be some kind of holy grail - the perfect 'natural'
>insecticide. Ain't so. The problem is that resistance develops
>to BT rather quickly, especially if it is the sole insecticide
>being used. Survey the literature.

Quite true, resistance has been well-documented, as it has for many other
(chemical) insecticides. However, not nearly as fast as you would have us
believe, and infrequently in the field. Survey the literature again.

>The most STUPID idea is to splice BT genes into food crops.
>Talk about selection pressure !!! Almost as bad is the idea
>of dribbling the live bacilli all over creation. 

Actually, it's about the same. This would render BT obsolete very quickly.

>BT does not live up to its hype.
I'm not sure what's implied here. BT DOES kill the target pests economically
in most cases.
 
>BT is no more or less'natural' than any OP insecticides ...
This ain't true. BT was isolated from the environment, and (probably)
existed before humans. OPs were first synthesized (accidentally, BTW) by
humans, and did not exist in the environment beforehand. One is natural, the
other man-made.   

>just because a bacteria makes it does not imply that it is more/less harmful to

>humans or the environment - anyone who imagines that 'natural' = 'safe'
>is free to sample a few micrograms of botulin toxin, or see
>what cute cuddly bunnies have done to Australia. 

This is an excellent point. Nature has made many compounds which are far
more toxic than anything man can synthesize in the lab. The misconception
that natural=safe and synthetic/chemical=unsafe is an absurd notion that is
common belief. This is also one reason pesticides get such a bad rap, and
why many extremely toxic natural insecticides are over-used. However, BT is
extremely safe for higher organisms, such as humans. The other ingredients
in the insecticide formulations (ie: inert ingredients) are another matter.

>You wanna kill pesky bugs - use OPs. Chemistry has hardly even
>begun to explore all the possible variations on that theme. 
>Narrower selectivity and controlled persistence have been
>the subjects of intensive research, and good results are
>already on the market with many more to come. Come ON now,

Excellent point here. The problem is with public perception, and the
misconceptions mentioned above. Chemical insecticides (eg: OPs) are
considered to be dangerous and evil by most people. This will probably never
change. Thus, chemical pesticides will probably soon become a thing of the past.

>drop the 'natural' mumbo-jumbo - after all, if it can exist
>then it must be natural.

This is a philosophical statement, but is one which kills the discussion.
For the purpose of this type of discussion, natural does not apply to
compounds which did not exist until they were synthesized by humans. It's a
matter of definition, but there is a BIG difference.

>Use what works best, not what fits
>some bizzare flower-child mushroom-induced fuzzy-round-the-edges
>delusion about 'naturality' (which was mostly just a political
>device to create an artificial contrast relative to the 
>60s industrial power structure and its 'un-natural' products).
>
>No, I don't sell insecticides ...

Neither do I, and you make some really good points here.
                                                            Tracy