The proteins used in BT plants are DIFFERENT
Date Added to website 9th Jan 2014
This very useful note from Madeleine Love demonstrates -- once again -- that substantial equivalence is a scam. The table shows that in BT crops the "coded GM protein lengths" for the Cry insecticidal proteins are very different from those that occur in nature. For crops using the Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins, the protein lengths are only around 50% of the normal length. In other words, the DNA codes are quite different, and "the genetically engineered protein pesticides are chimeric mixtures of various insecticidal/bacterial source codes and may contain further novel code and other additions." What this means is that it is scientifically fraudulent for Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer to submit materials to the regulators that are based on the use of "surrogate" proteins" that are quite different from those actually inserted into the GM plants. Those surrogates have quite different toxicity characteristics from those actually used in BT field crops. The practice is therefore fraudulent.
Dispelling common fictions used to halo GM "Bt" crops
By Madeleine Love Sun Jan 5, 2014
Note: go to the original for the table showing native protein and coded GM protein lengths.
This table should dispel a number of fictions used to halo the genetically engineered protein pesticides in GM "insect resistant" crops. These GM crops are also known as "Bt" crops because the inspiration sources for the GM DNA code are located in various strains of the bacterium "Baccillus Thuringiensis", or "Bt" for short.
The table lists GM "Bt" crops approved by Australia's food regulator FSANZ. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/applications/Pages/default.aspx
Some points to note:
•There are many different GM "Bt" crops, containing many different genetically engineered protein pesticides. •In no cases has the code been "cut and pasted" from "nature" (i.e. the native bacterial source).
•In no cases is the DNA code nature identical. The bacterial code had to be substantially altered because it did not work well in these crops. It is thus synthetic.
•In many cases there is no 'native protein' equivalent in Bacillus Thuringiensis because the genetically engineered protein pesticides are chimeric mixtures of various insecticidal/bacterial source codes and may contain further novel code and other additions.
This table only points to the source of inspiration for the code and for the difference between the lengths of the GM coded protein pesticides and that of the native insecticidal protein (where it exists). There are further differences between the GM "Bt" protein pesticides and those of the crystal forming Bt insecticides found in nature, not discussed here. These GM pesticides are not the same as those used in organic agriculture.
With the exception of three crops the data in the table has been extracted exclusively from the regulatory documents held on the FSANZ website. The data should not be regarded as definitive. Deep investigations into Monsanto's "MON 810" and Syngenta's "Bt-11" corns show that FSANZ can provide faulty information on crops. FSANZ typically limits itself to the information it receives from the GM companies – the dossiers are not always clear or accurate. FSANZ advice on Monsanto's "MON 15985" cotton appeared contradictory.