Slashdot Mirror
Planting GMOs Kills So Many Bugs That It Helps Non-GMO Crops (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: One of the great purported boons of GMOs is that they allow farmers to use fewer pesticides, some of which are known to be harmful to humans or other species. Bt corn, cotton, and soybeans have been engineered to express insect-killing proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, and they have indeed been successful at controlling the crops' respective pests. They even protect the non-Bt versions of the same crop that must be planted in adjacent fields to help limit the evolution of Bt resistance. But new work shows that Bt corn also controls pests in other types of crops planted nearby, specifically vegetables. In doing so, it cuts down on the use of pesticides on these crops, as well.
Entomologists and ecologists compared crop damage and insecticide use in four agricultural mid-Atlantic states: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Their data came from the years before Bt corn was widespread (1976-1996) and continued after it was adopted (1996-2016). They also looked at the levels of the pests themselves: two different species of moths, commonly known as the European corn borer and corn earworm. They were named as scourges of corn, but their larvae eat a number of different crops, including peppers and green beans. After Bt corn was planted in 1996, the number of moths captured for analysis every night in vegetable fields dropped by 75 percent. The drop was a function of the percentage of Bt corn planted in the area and occurred even though moth populations usually go up with temperature. So the Bt corn more than counteracted the effect of the rising temperatures we've experienced over the quarter century covered by the study.
Entomologists and ecologists compared crop damage and insecticide use in four agricultural mid-Atlantic states: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Their data came from the years before Bt corn was widespread (1976-1996) and continued after it was adopted (1996-2016). They also looked at the levels of the pests themselves: two different species of moths, commonly known as the European corn borer and corn earworm. They were named as scourges of corn, but their larvae eat a number of different crops, including peppers and green beans. After Bt corn was planted in 1996, the number of moths captured for analysis every night in vegetable fields dropped by 75 percent. The drop was a function of the percentage of Bt corn planted in the area and occurred even though moth populations usually go up with temperature. So the Bt corn more than counteracted the effect of the rising temperatures we've experienced over the quarter century covered by the study.
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but don't all plants already have natural built in pest control mechanisms in some form? what is so bad about throwing stuff from one plant into another?
We already have roundup-resitant amaranth. I can't wait for BT resistant insects.
Pedestrian Bridge that collapsed. They all claimed to know javascript and web design, and were, after all, engineers.
The "pesticide" is a 100% natural component, harmless to all life except for a few specific bugs that can't digest it, and has absolutely no negative effects.
Luddites like you need to be hung from lampposts.
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Just in case anyone thought that a bug-free world would be a wonderful thing.
It doesn't matter how many studies there are that show the good effects of GMO, people will still oppose them, and mostly for irrational reasons. Furthermore, they will ignore the times when natural foods are harmful or when non-gmo has ended up with poisonous foods. Again, for mostly irrational reasons.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
100% natural? No, it's fucking spliced in, there's nothing 100% natural about it. It's literally a cell program to cause the corn to secret pesticides.
but it doesn't kill all of them :(
[($)]
...when even the insects dont want it.
I demand mandatory labelling of GMO food, so I can opt out.
Thank you in advance.
Nice to hear that has been proven already.
What’s Causing the Sharp Decline in Insects, and Why It Matters
Where have all the insects gone?
The difference between GMO and creating a crop that has defenses that kill insets that also affect human diets. We can GMO a crop naturally to make it work better without hurting our body's ability to process the food.
All other aspects are secondary or non-existent wiped under the table.
It cannot be what may not be is the policy.
The minds of the actors in this game are convoluted and corrupt.
Good luck!
This is lol on so many levles.
Killing bugs isn't a good thing.
That it kill bugs in a large area isn't positive.
Most people don't realize there are dozens of gluten free grains available, but mostly unpopular due to differences in the meal and dough they produce which are considered less palatable or more difficult to work with than traditional glutenized wheat.
Was having a discussion at a plant exchange meeting about this with a guy with a gluten allergy, having started growing my own sorghum in a colder region than it is normally grown. They actually can grow quite well further nore if you are in an area that doesn't frost much anymore. Having only recieved 2 weeks of frost this year I was able to overwinter naked sorghum plants and only lost about 1/4 of the current canes. A number of the dead canes are showing new shoot growth from their rootstock and the canes secondary growth. Given that my test bed of a half dozen plants yielded a few pounds worth of grain without fertilizer or more than the bare minimum of water, it has turned out to be a hardy and modestly yielding crop with few serious pests in my region. Furthermore it can be used as feedstock for animals, food for people, or compost for future plants. The only bad part about it is the fibers can be sharp so make sure you wear gloves and use sturdy shears when cutting it so you don't accidentally injure yourself. Slicing up your hands with a bunch of paper-like grass cuts is never fun and can put your activities on hold for a could of days while you can't hold anything without reopening your injuries :)
Perhaps ironically, in most cases this would be more healthy than either GMO or non-GMO corn.
Equate to large tumors in mice
NEWSFLASH: Rats bred specifically to develop tumours tend to develop tumours. This groundbreaking revaluation brought to you by "Dr" Seralini.
And Vaccines! A lot of them are made with genetically modified organisms as well. /s
How could we possibly NOT foresee all the effects of planting crops that blanket kills whole families of species?
Perhaps ironically, in most cases this would be more healthy than either GMO or non-GMO corn.
How's that line working?
So the GMO crops succeed at helping neighboring non-GMO crops because... the GMO crops keep spreading into the non-GMO crops, thus making an originally-non-GMO crop gradually become a GMO-contaminated crop... and the benefits of GMO have now been measured in originally-non-GMO.
This is not news, per se. This is the well-known behavior of GMO crops (spreading beyond their original boundaries) so I give this PR spin 9/10 points.
The number of any insect dropped by 75% which is a big problem for plant fertilization and ecology. It's not specific to corn pests. "Buzzing meadows" are a thing of the past.
In other words, we expect you to pay up even if you don't use them.
At the bottom of the
But how about the insects that are beneficial for us humans one way or another? They may as well be impacted by this and that's concerning.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Why does everything need to have a negative trade off?
Sure it is great for stories but in real life things are not fair or balanced.
They are usually trade off of some sort, they are not usually a measurable 50/50 split. Often they are 80 good and 20 bad. In many was it is less of a trade off but an opportunity cost.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Please point out research on this and include the research on the peer review. Please show any objections to this as well and show their research as well.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Says the tumor filled troll...
Its cute how you two fuktards didn't try to dispute my FACTs... just started trolling. VERY Telling about the condition of Slashdot these days. Thank you for showing off just how PATHETIC you are. The fact that people think you two fuktards are "Funny" is just disgusting....
What facts? The Séralini study have been severely debunked and have since been retracted.
Not only that but Seralini also doesn't understand statistics: "A 2015 reanalysis of multiple animal studies found that Seralini chose to forgo statistical tests in the main conclusions of the study. Using Seralini's published numerical data, the review found no significant effects on animal health after analysis with statistical tests."
Well when you considering that "Flying Insects Have Been Disappearing Over the Past Few Decades, Study Shows" and that "Even Common Species Are Becoming Rare", this may not such good news after all.
So cells and DNA are not natural now?
We poisoned the food instead. But don't worry, they say this poison is friendly. Friendly to us, our bodies, our guys, our microbiome, our unborn children, to plants and insects we need to survive, to our ecology.
Like Casper, the friendly ghost.
(for varying values of Monsanto)
They already do it when the seeds drift.
If they can show the benefit of the GE crop has drifted they will assign a value to that benefit and send a lawyer and an invoice.
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
No that is not what TFS or TFA claimed and nor what is happening. The GMO crops kept the population of pests in control which helped the non GMO crops (since the number of pests is lower). There have not been a single instance of a GMO crop spreading it's modified genes to other crops, so how you can say that it's a "well-known behaviour" is quite strange, one could almost say that it's a lie.
We should farm bugs tbh
nixtamalization
Thank you for your insightful and well thought out post. I particularly enjoy the part where you back up your assertion with anything at all.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Some of the bugs are a necessary part of the ecosystem. Additionally, you can no longer grow normal crops in soil into which many GMOs have been planted. When enough cross-pollination occurs, the organic crops will likely not survive, and they are far superiot to GMOs nutritionally. This post is millennial science, and I honestly thought we were moving beyond that with the Theranos depantsing. I guess not. Once more with feeling: with GMOs, it isn't *just about the produce*.
None of you writing these types of posts are old enough yet or have been exposed to enough to have witnessed any consequences in your lives. Sorry, but you are just too green, and your arrogance prevents you from heeding the warnings or wisdom of others. It's why you repeatedly fail in life.
Addendum: for the GMO corporations, it's about *profit* not sustainability. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
The European corn borer damage data for this study were derived from control plots of pesticide efficacy trials that were part of other unrelated studies funded by various organizations and companies including DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, and Syngenta. The pesticide efficacy trials were unrelated to this study, and these companies did not provide funding to support this work, but may be affected financially by publication of this paper and have funded other work by G.P.D., T.P.K., K.H., J.W., and W.D.H.
Only a moron and utter scumbag would just write off all GMOs.
Not judging the GMO debate here. This could be linked to the problem with giant monoculture. Of course with only one species grown on large areas, the respective pest will strive. Here we have multiple species, engineered to be nearly the same except for bug resistance, so the bug population is kept under control. Before we had smaller areas, with completely different species, some of those who also did not share the same bugs and the result was the same: more bug diversity, which also means less of the bad one. I think it has been known for some time now that growing multiple, different species will reduce pests proliferation.
What sig ?
Rather stupid association. Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit. Vaccines are peer-reviewed, GMO is not. Vaccines are not made with the sort of GMO that is of concern. Only a moron links unassociated issues. Don't be a moron.
Oh, and get off my lawn.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You hypothesize, you experiment, and then comes the bit that a lot of people struggle with - you LEARN. And then, the even harder bit, you don't repeat the mistakes.
GMO, as practiced in the early days, was a disastrous mistake.
GMO, as practiced now, is not peer-reviewed, is patented to prevent testing of claims, and is wrapped in trade secrets. That puts it closer to witchcraft than science.
GMO, as it could be done, would be properly and independently tested, peer-reviewed and would not involve non-specific toxins. Ideally, it wouldn't involve toxins at all. You can always increase yield and plant height. The former reduces the fraction of the crop lost and the latter reduces crop lost by weeds and ground pests. Most early varieties of wheat and corn grew much taller, so it's gene replacement therapy not GMO.
Oh, and those buggers can get off my lawn!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Sterile GMO bug killing plants YOU DO NOT EAT which exist solely to kill pests! ,etc.)
No contamination, corps get their money replanting without banning sane farming (seed collection, replanting, not infecting the genepool
Time for the rodent eating venus fly trap mixed with snake DNA!
How about a spider plant-- made with real spider DNA?
Scarecrow plants... ah, no... we didn't put in human DNA... (hey, did that plant just move towards us?)
Instead of wasting efforts to hide harm done to our foods by biohacking analog systems we don't hardly understand at any level, we can just make some seriously fatal plants that get the job done! NO NEED to seriously regulate them-- because nobody eats them except pests!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit."
Except the removal of various pests from destroying our crops? Avoiding famine is a fairly significant benefit.
"Vaccines are peer-reviewed, GMO is not."
Yes, and no. If you are speaking in a strictly academic sense, then yes, I concede that vaccines may be more closely reviewed than GMO crops. However, GMO crops are still closely watched, by the producer of that seed, the farmers who grow it, and the government.
"Vaccines are not made with the sort of GMO that is of concern."
Oh, I think it is of some concern. Fear of GMO leads to fear of Vaccines -> I imagine there is a wonderful diagram that shows a beautiful convergence between people who fear GMO, and Anti-Vaxxers.
"Only a moron links unassociated issues. Don't be a moron."
Ad hominem.
"Oh, and get off my lawn."
You seem to be associating my high uid with age; this is not the first account I've made on /. (lost the password to the original).
"it cuts down on the use of pesticides on these crops, as well."
Someone doesn't know how farmers use preventative chemicals.
Planting BT GMOs kills most Moths and Butterflies in the area around the field, as well as in it.
Moths and butterflies are pollinators, so killing most of them means killing most of their pollinated plants.
Many pollinated plants have very specific pollinators, so killing the moths and butterflies kills the pollinated plants.
Many times, if the species is not wiped out, the bugs will develop resistance in the survivors.
So eventually some of the bugs could come back slowly, in areas not inclement to the bugs.
Another words, the bugs may not die out in the optimum environments, and then spread back out.
This process can be very slow.
They die out elsewhere because they are already weakened by the pesticide.
In the meantime, foods are eliminated from our diet.
People could wind u starving in some areas because of the GMOs.
Other GMOs are resistant to pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides used on them.
This means that stronger spraying can be done on these crops.
The stronger spraying is also killing many pollinators like bees, (honey bees, solitary species, bumblebees); pollen wasps (Masarinae); ants; flies including bee flies, hoverflies and mosquitoes; lepidopterans, both butterflies and moths; and flower beetles. Vertebrates, mainly bats and birds, but also some non-bat mammals (monkeys, lemurs, possums, rodents) and some lizards pollinate certain plants. Among the pollinating birds are hummingbirds, honeyeaters and sunbirds with long beaks; they pollinate a number of deep-throated flowers.
Die-offs of bees and hummingbirds are already occurring.
Many food crops require pollinators, or GMO seeds.
Not good for the world.
wake up and hold your nose
There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse.
GMO is not closely watched, that is prohibited under the licensing agreements. As for the government, no, they obviously don't watch either, which is why destroyed stock ends up in the market place. They also don't have any competency, and the EPA has been practically shut down by Trump.
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
And, yes, I consider you a youngster if you don't remember the other methods used for pest control.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Non-GMO Crops."
Right up to the point that those GMO plants get into next-door Farmer Brown's crops and he uses the seeds next year as he normally would. Then the Monsanto lawyers descend upon his farm like a swarm of locusts. And so ends Farmer Brown.
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Bt toxin is toxic (duh), either by spraying or by genetically modifying the corn. The advantage of genetically modified is that you don't have to spray it. Human lung tissue is very susceptible to the action of the protein crystal of Bt. And use of Bt represents an occupation hazard to farm workers.
Now this might surprise you, but spraying Bt is considered organic farming. Pretty much every "organic" cabbage has Bt on it, and every organic tomato has the related Btk (Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki) on it.
We don't think the impact on human health is very big for ingestion of Bt, at least we're having trouble measuring the impact. Small amounts of exposure seem to do nothing. We don't fully know what long term persistent exposure to Bt does on the human gut. On certain caterpillars the affect of Bt on their gut is immediately obvious, and the caterpillars die. On other insects like honeybees we don't see the same results from exposure to Bt, and it appears to be safe. (although that's complex to answer fully)
Anyone that is going after GMO foods like Bt corn but at the same time in support of current organic farming practices are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Farmers don't watch their crops? Licensing agreements for GMO organisms forbid farmers from watching those organisms as they grow? You took your stupid pills this morning, didn't you.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit.
Total utter bullshit. GMO has proven to be incredibly effective at its goals, primarily among them is increasing crop yields. The number one reason behind destruction of forests and other habitats is to make way for more farmland. GMO has already gone a long ways in reducing the landmass AND water required for farming. The reason you don't know this is because you're willfully ignorant about it and you're only willing to look for something bad to say about it.
Why do you think farmers have adopted it en masse, in spite of patent royalties often attached? Because it still reduces their cost. (Once Monsanto's glyphosate resistance patent expired, many university and other sources began giving the seeds away for free because they recognize its environmental benefits.)
I don't know your motivations, but presumably they include one or all of:
- Generally thinking natural is either usually or always better (false)
- GMO is a corporate conspiracy (false)
- GMO causes cancer (this is a whopper: the scientist who tried to prove GMO causes cancer committed scientific fraud, just like the one who tried to prove vaccination causes autism)
- GMO is deleterious to human health (false)
- GMO is bad for the environment (another whopper, people who talk about bad agricultural practices and tie them to GMO conveniently ignore that all of those apply to traditional crops as well.)
- GMO contaminates wild plants (In the past this was feasible, but not anymore.)
- We don't know what all genetic modification does, therefore it's better to ban it (false and false; unlike other methods of getting plants to have desired traits, we know EXACTLY what the modification did because it is very precise and targeted, whereas other methods we have no idea what all changed.)
- OH MY GOD FRANKENFOOD! They put a salmon gene in the tomatoes they sell! Scary! (This was actually an experiment to better understand how certain genes work. They've done similar things like put eye genes from a rabbit into a fruit fly, replacing its own eye genes. This was an experiment to prove that genes are modular between species. I somehow doubt they intend to put fruit flies on store shelves.)
- GMO is bad because Monsanto (This is easily the most senseless argument. Yes, Monsanto has a history of unethical behavior, and yes, they hold a number of gene patents. But this is as senseless as saying that we should stop using computers because of Microsoft and Google.)
Tese arguments are all very similar (if not the same) as the arguments anti-vaxxers use. They also, like you, believe that their hated subject provides no benefit. This is why those of us who take a more objective approach to this can't tell the difference between you and anti-vaxxers: You're the same thing, only with the sole exception that you're against GMO instead. Much like vaccination, nearly every scientist that has gone against GMO has credibility problems.
I'm not surprised that there are more anti GMO people than anti-vaxxers though, namely because of the billions of dollars spent to lobby against it, as well as paying lots of money to commission studies to try to find anything that they possibly can to use against it. The organic industry (which has huge profits and deep pockets, and many big name brands you see at every grocery store, gives them lobbying money) is trying its hardest to gain regulatory capture by having its biggest competitor banned.
Greenpeace is also lobbying against this, and in a really bad way: Organic food, which they promote, is BAD BAD BAD for the environment. Really, it is, and the fact is that it doesn't actually provide any proven benefit at all. Organic is incredibly wasteful on both landmass and water usage. Essentially, organic is what you get when you revert agricultural technology to what we had in the 1950s. If the whole world suddenly went on an organic diet, you would see mass famines overnight -- including
Perhaps ironically, in most cases this would be more healthy than either GMO or non-GMO corn.
How's that line working?
At the gay bar, pretty well. I get to express my appreciation for cock-sucking AND dislike for GMO corn in one sentence, checks two boxes in the plus column at once.
BT corn planted adjacent to non-corn crops caused moth numbers to decline in the area of non-corn crops. it sounds great to suggest that BT corn was infecting non-GMO corn, which there's evidence of, but that is hardly what the article was writing about unless you're seriously suggesting that BT corn is capable of cross-breeding with peppers and green beans in the wild.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
OK, your argument is filled with these pesky things like "facts" and "reasoned logical argument". But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) . And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
This makes me want to get rid of my computer.
--
I like to run on a treadmill because I love to hate myself sometimes -- Laura
The use of DDT to control Malaria also save millions of lives.
As to GMOs being natural and there for safe, that is also nonsense. Long ago a bug resistant celery was produced using traditional plant breeding techniques. Worked great, except if slightly bruised it produced a lot of toxin that ended up killing a few people.
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross). In GMOs you do not. Also, the longer periods involved in crossing would tend to make problems more apparent.
See https://gmoanswers.com/ask/ple... for how the GM industry views this.
Thanks ... your's is an insightful post
There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse. ...
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
Those two paragraphs do not mesh. If you had anything like the background you claim to there is no way you would be making the kind of idiotic claim which constitutes your entire first paragraph.
But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) .
There is lots of stuff in your food which kills bugs, and the vast majority of it is completely "natural". The most obvious example is caffeine; plants evolved it as a defense against insects. There are hundreds of similar examples contained in many of the vegetables you consume every day. How much time do you spend worrying about them?
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
I dunno ... morals? A commitment to truth? Or is that all too passé?
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross).
False dichotomy; those are not the only two ways in which new species are developed. Popular alternatives include immersing plants in chemical baths, or bombarding them with radiation, and then seeing if anything interesting arises. Both of those methods are apparently perfectly acceptable in "organic farming".
The narrative for GMO's today sort of resembles the narrative for cigarretes 50 years ago: "They're beneficial with no proven harmful effects." According to a forbes article I just dug up (https://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/06/01/why-gmos-dont-cause-cancer/#68ade01f6bc8) "Pesticides are proteins, and no proteins have ever caused cancer." Which is the sort of BS marketing lie that is very very easy to disprove.
So just in that one article the monsanto representative was lying through their teeth to forbes. Why would they do that? Well, because GMO's actually DO cause cancer (http://responsibletechnology.org/gmos-and-cancer/) (https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/10/monsanto-s-gmo-herbicide-doubles-cancer-risk#.Wq0zRujwaUk).
I expect in a few to ten years when Monsanto agents start retiring and dying off, we'll hear some stories about "How Monsanto paid me to kill a bunch of people, by lying for 20 years."
By corn is only impacting the small subset of insects that eat corn. Your honeybees will be fine since they donâ(TM)t eat corn, and thousands of other beneficial insect species besides them as well.
How many beneficial insect species do you know of that eat corn while itâ(TM)s still growing on the plant? Iâ(TM)m not aware of any, myself.
How much time do you spend worrying about them?
Zero. That's the point. I'm paying to not worry; it's the farmers job to think about these things.
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
I dunno ... morals? A commitment to truth? Or is that all too passé?
So any time you purchase anything you make sure that every element from every part of the supply chain is 100% sustainably, and ethically sourced? That you own nothing that every other person in the world can not access? That every single thing you do or consume could be scaled out to every single person on the planet?
A nobel endeavour if so; but somewhat arbitrary if you're just picking and choosing when it's convenient.
Pray tell who is the stupid SOB who wrote this, or decided to run it.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF CROSS POLLINATION?
Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
LIBERTY UNION founder
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775
dmorso1@netzero.net
802 645 9727 9727
You presented no facts. You simply made a claim. I'll show you:
You fuck donkeys. I know you do. You were fucking a donkey while you were typing that stupid statement. Before we can take you seriously, stop being a donkey fucker, ya fucking donkey fucker.
The down side is that it also kills the good insects, like Honeybees.
BT and neo-nicotinoid-laced crops hurt the very pollinators we rely on.
Pollinators like Honeybees are heavily relied on for nearly half of what we eat in the USA.
It is indeed a dilemma: How does one help the crops w/o hurting the good bugs?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
If it kills bugs and doesn't need pesticides, just what do you think that will do to humans? Sterilize them, cause deformities, kill them? Oh, probably all three. NO thank you!