Talk:Bacillus thuringiensis/Archive 1

POV!
That last paragraph is awfully POV, and unsubstantiated to boot. Blam! I'm getting rid of it. Rhombus 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Expression
The findings in the paper (Current Science) are not new. Several such studies were published earlier from Australia and South Africa. The expression of Bt toxin declines during boll development which is a natural phenomenon associated with plant senescence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polumetla (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTS)

Split?
Seems like the lead bears no relation to the content of the article. Should there should be a separate page on Bt Crops? Herd of Swine (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see there's already Bt corn and GM food, which cover some of the issues. So probably leave it.  But maybe a bit more focus on Bt/GM crops in the lead. Herd of Swine (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How does Bt kill insects?
How does Bt toxin kill insects? A short laymans sentence that explains this at the top of the article would be very nice.

Primacag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I've done this - maybe not quite in layman's terms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bottom paragraph
What's going on with the text at the bottom? ideas please Smartse (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As this is uncited and was sitting at the bottom of the article I've moved it here:

The European Corn Borer is an economically significant pest of corn in the USA. This pest damages the stalks of corn plants in its second generation. - A variant of Bt toxin, known as Kurstaki HD-1, has insecticidal effects on the Corn Borer. The gene for this variant, CrylA(b), has been transformed into corn plants creating a resistant GM strain of corn. This strain has been crossed with commercial corn strains to create economical, resistant strains. - The levels of Bt toxin in these strains is low, but enough to kill the pest. The toxin causes no harm to other organisms or the crop. -   - Research was conducted to find the effect of this Gm Bt Crop on monarch butterflies which feed on milk-weed which grows at the edge of corn fields. The research included an experiment in which the butterflies were given milkweed dusted with the toxin as a food source. The experiment showed that the toxin had strong effects on the butterflies. This result was published in Nature as well as in many newspapers and there was public outrage at the risk presented to the endangered and endearing insects. -   - The scientific community took a different approach. As soon as the research was published it was immediately criticized. The experiment in which milkweed was dusted with Bt toxin did not reflect the real doses of Bt which would be received by milkweed bordering GM crops. Also, it was shown that Monarch butterflies, when given a choice, would not choose to eat dusted plants. The results of the research were debunked. The popular press took no note of the findings against the first research. This is one reason why public opinion of Bt GM crops and GM crops in general is so low.

Proposed Split
Hi. I added the split template, because it seems to me that a large section of this article is devoted to exclusively discussing the Bt toxin. Even the section titles "Use in pest control", "Genetic engineering for pest control", and "Possible problems" seem to refer to the toxin rather than the bacteria. The implied titles are really closer to "Use of Bt toxin in pest control", "Genetic engineering of plants to insert the Bt toxin gene for pest control", and "Possible problems with using the Bt toxin for pest control" than "Use of B. thuringiensis in pest control", "Genetic engineering of B. thuringiensis in pest control", etc. The topic seems important enough to me, and the conflation of the two subjects seems confusing enough to me, to justify the split. Thanks. mcs (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I decided to just be bold and split the article. It can now be found at Bt toxin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcstrother (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undone this split and replaced the template to allow some discussion. I think it is most sensible to have all this in one article - normally articles are only split if they are over 100kb in size which this is not. It doesn't make a great deal of sense in my opinion to have two separate article when one will do fine and provide greater context to the topic. Smartse (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My reason for the split is the article's content, not its size. The title of the article is "Bacillus thuringiensis," so I obviously expected it to be about a bacterium. The intro is fine. Even "Usage in pest control" stays mostly on topic. But starting at "Genetic engineering for pest control" through the end, the article focuses exclusively on GE crops and Bt toxin, and never mentions the organism Bacillus thuringiensis again. I mentioned the section headings above, but the first/introductory sentence of each section perhaps makes the point even clearer. Every one of them (except, ironically, the first sentence of the section entitled "Limitations of Bt crops") has some variant of the phrase "Bt crops" in it. It all seems like good information, I feel that it drowns out and obscures the information about the bacteria itself (e.g. habitat, discovery, life cycle, genomics, etc.), which ends up crammed into the intro.

I'm probably not going to watch this article or become a long term steward, so it's up to you. Don't feel like you need to convience me. Thanks for your contributions! mcs (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - I agree that it would be good to have some more information about the bacteria in the wild, rather than as a technology. I will try at some point to change the article to give some more information on it's ecology. If any can help then please do. Smartse (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i wouldn't split
this is wonderfully done, very informative and helpful to me and i'm sure many others. Thank you for keeping it as is all the way to the end, esp. the end. All infor. in this article was relevant and needs to be left together. thank you 'WIKIPEDIA for the years of help. Tim thannisch--99.157.175.25 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The split proposal was made more than two months ago and no-one has supported it. I'll therefore remove the template. Smartse (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Safety section should be moved back into the original article. This only makes sense. By the way, I have experience asthma attacks and lightheadedness when the BT spray was applied (via low-flying planes) to our city in order to destroy the cankerworm population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.33.142 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Safety
I think the Safety section should be moved back into the original article. This only makes sense. By the way, I have experience asthma attacks and lightheadedness when the BT spray was applied (via low-flying planes) to our city in order to destroy the cankerworm population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spage7777 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, which original article? SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Validity of Citation 21
Citation 21 reads "appear to be safe for farmers and consumers" yet the citation is for environmental impact, not health and safety. Is there a more appropriate citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.117.100 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Safety
''I removed this from the article. Its place is in the discussion in my opinion, not in the article.''

Gentically Modified (GM) BT Cotton taking animals lives in thousands in India.

Dr Sudhir Kumar Kaura

We have surveyed in villages of Hisar and Fatehabad districs of Haryana State of India in October 2008. We found that buffaloes are dying due to consumption of BT cotton seed based feed and sheep are dying due to grazing in BT cotton fields.

The problem has forced many farmers to sell their valuable animals as they fear the surviving animals may also die. Govt is not even recognizing the problem in the first place. Though Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) has been detected in BT cotton plants in state of Andhra Pradesh in India by a Govt laboratory see the report at http://kbaindia.yolasite.com/president-rule-demanded-in-haryana-state-of-india.php and at www.savefarmermovement.co.cc or www.savefarmer.info

We do not want another disaster in the form of BT brinjal. BT cotton and BT Brinjal should be banned immediately. Farmers in Haryana and other states are suffering losses in terms of billions of rupees due to death of their animals, increased still births and drop in milk yield, fertility and general health. Generally sheep die with in few hours to few days after eating BT cotton leaves which is a practice here. They leave their sheep and goats in cotton fields after the harvesting of cotton is over.

Those who claim that BT cotton is safe to humans and animals have very poor knowledge of field conditions. They should visit the fields in India and they can get to know what we have found.

(Dr Sudhir Kumar Kaura is an agriculural scientist with specialisation in plant biotechnology and plant genetics. He is fighting agains the GM plants for the last over seven years now.)

It seems to say 'detected HCN' rather then 'detected more HCN compared to non-GM crops'. Not real science, in other words J1812 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bacillus thuringiensis vs. Bt
Why does everyone write Bt instead of B. thuringiensis? Is Bt a brand name? In that case it would be appropriate to use Bt when referring the products. For example, it's inappropriate to say "Sprayed with Bt", unless Bt is the name of the product. Otherwise, in reference to the bacteria, or the bacterial genes, it should be B. thuringiensis. If it is a product name, then it should be mentioned in the article.

Can some expert shed light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.75.226 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bt is not a brand name, it started as a verbal convention by those of us in the industry since it's much easier to say "Bt" than 'Bacillus thuringiensis.' Nizbit (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The acronym Bt is used in GM (genetic modification) literature, including most peer-reviewed articles. The convention is to differentiate crops which have the B. thuringiensis toxin transgene with the prefix Bt, as in Bt-maize and Bt-soya. The toxin is referred to in the literature as Bt-toxin. For this reason it is appropriate to introduce this usage here, although perhaps an explanation would be appropriate. To be clear: Bt is not a brand name but a naming convention and should be retained. Blahah (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Its just an arbitrary label, I really wouldn't get so hung up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we get more information on the Cry Toxin please
The link sends you straight back to this article. The Cry toxin deserves its own article, as it has a specific mode of action and has a general structure of 3 sub-units. I'm trying to find general info on it, and mildly surprised wiki lacks anything about it. Ill check Google scholar instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Toxicity Section Needed NOW
http://organicjar.com/2008/529/

In a nutshell, Monsanto, the largest seed provider in the world, tried to block a study from taking place, then once it did, tried to block the results from being published. The study shows that Bt in an extremely statistically significant manner, causes infertility in mice. The findings of the study show that there are dangers to Bt that are probably affecting humans. ADD IT SOMEONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.247.201 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find the evidence please post itSmartse (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence. I read the study done. The irony is GM crops are under so much scrutiny, they are likely safer than 'organic' foods. But the anti GM lobby will never disappear. Only a well fed population would possibly block the development of a technology that could increase calorific yield shelf life and efficiency of food production. i fins this fact depressing, especially in the context of a world wide situation where 1 in 4under 5s dont eat enough. People need to take a global perspective, and stop being so selfish in how they think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Depressing when scientists themselves lose the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
The "health and safety" section needs to make reference to the allegations of the protesters, and the statements tagged "citation needed" and "who?" need to be referenced or removed. Andrevan@ 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Use as pesticide (intro)
In the intro I corrected "commonly used as a biological alternative to a pesticide" to "commonly used as a biological pesticide". If it's being used to protect crops from insects etc it is being used as a pesticide. Vikingurinn (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Safety (again)
I've removed this edit from the safety section:


 * An independent study commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Health has found significant infertility effects from mice fed genetically modified (GM) corn. Monsanto, which has a near-world monopoly on all agricultural seeds tried to, not only stop the study from the beginning, but then tried to block the results from being published. In one study design where mice were continuously breeding. Mice fed on GM corn had no litters or produced less offspring after the third or fourth litters, than those fed on conventional corn. The differences were statistically significant. The corn, sold by Monsanto, contains a gene that produces the toxic “Bt” pesticide in every cell and in every bite. The results raise the question whether this toxin (or some other unpredictable change in the GM corn) might be contributing to the rise in infertility, allergies or other immune disorders in North America.

The results reported in the PDF are interesting, but the summary as written is both POV and extrapolates broadly from the reported findings. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference to the Austrian study, sans the embellishments. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bacillus thuringiensis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Bacillus thuringiensis Spores and bipyramidal crystals of Bacillus thuringiensis morrisoni strain T08025 Spores and bipyramidal crystals of Bacillus thuringiensis morrisoni strain T08025 Scientific classification Kingdom: 	Eubacteria Phylum: 	Firmicutes Class: 	Bacilli Order: 	Bacillales Family: 	Bacillaceae Genus: 	Bacillus Species: 	thuringiensis Binomial name Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner 1915

Bacillus thuringiensis is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium of the genus Bacillus. Additionally, B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well as on the dark surface of plants.[1]

B. thuringiensis was discovered 1901 in Japan by Ishiwata and 1911 in Germany by Ernst Berliner, who discovered a disease called Schlaffsucht in flour moth caterpillars. B. thuringiensis is closely related to B. cereus, a soil bacterium, and B. anthracis, the cause of anthrax: the three organisms differ mainly in their plasmids. Like other members of the genus, all three are aerobes capable of producing endospores.[1] Zakharyan R.A et al.(1976,1977,1979)first reported the presence of plasmids in B.thuringiensis and suggested involvement of the plasmids in endospore/crystal formation,also described the presence of large plasmid in Cry+ variant of B.thuringiensis(Zakharyan R.A.et al. Possible role of extrachromosomal DNA in the formation of the isecticidal endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Inst.Exp. Bol., Yerevan,USSR. Doklady Akademii Nauk Armyanskoi SSR (1976), 63(1), 42-47. CODEN: DANAAW ISSN: 0321-1339.Journal written in Russian. CAN 86:68301 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS).Zakharyan R.A. et al. Study of plasmids and specific endonucleases of Bacillus thuringiensis. USSR. Genet. Actinomitsetov i Batsill. Sb. Dokl. Sovet.- American Konf., Erevan (1977), 249-252. From: Ref.Zh., Biol.Khim. 1979,Abstr. No. 17Kh102. Journal written in Russian. CAN 91: 207298 AN 1979:607298 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS). Zakharyan R.A. et al.Plasmid DNA from Bacillus thuringiensis. USSR. Microbiologiya (1979), 48(2),226-229). CODEN: MIKBA5 ISSN:0026-3656.Journal written in Russian.CAN 91:16495 AN 1979:416495 CAPLUS (Copyright 2003 ACS)).

Upon sporulation, B. thuringiensis forms crystals of proteinaceous insecticidal δ-endotoxins (Cry toxins) which are encoded by cry genes,ref>Circkmore N. "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin nomenclature". Retrieved on 2008-11-23. . It was determined that the "cry" genes are harbored in the plasmids in most strains of B. thuringiensis(Stahly D.P. et al.Possible origin and function of the parasporal crystals in Bacillus thuringiensis (1978). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 84.581-588.).< Cry toxins have specific activities against species of the orders Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies), Diptera (Flies and Mosquitoes) and Coleoptera (Beetles). Thus, B. thuringiensis serves as an important reservoir of Cry toxins and cry genes for production of biological insecticides and insect-resistant genetically modified crops. When insects ingest toxin crystals the alkaline pH of their digestive tract causes the toxin to become activated. It becomes inserted into the insect's gut cell membranes forming a pore resulting in swelling, cell lysis and eventually killing the insect. [2] Also see:Dean DH, (1984), Biochemical Genetics of the Bacterial Insect-Control Agent Bacillus thuringiensis: Basic Principles and Prospects Engineering. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng., Rev. 2:341-63. Review. Clayton C. Beegle and Takhashi Yamamoto, (1992), INVITATION PAPER ( C. P. ALEXANDER FUND) : HISTORY OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS BERLINER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.Canadian Entomologist , 124:587-616.Review. XU Jian¡¡ LIU Qin¡¡ YIN Xiang-dong¡¡ ZHU Shu-de¡¡ (2006), A review of recent development of Bacillus thuringiensis ICP genetically engineered microbes ENTOMOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF EAST CHINA Vol.15 No.1 P.53-58. == Use in pest control ==

Spores and crystalline insecticidal proteins produced by B. thuringiensis are used as specific insecticides under trade names such as Dipel and Thuricide. Because of their specificity, these pesticides are regarded as environmentally friendly, with little or no effect on humans, wildlife, pollinators, and most other beneficial insects. The Belgian company Plant Genetic Systems was the first company (in 1985) to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing cry genes from B. thuringiensis.[3][4]

B. thurigiensis-based insecticides are often applied as liquid sprays on crop plants, where the insecticide must be ingested to be effective. It is thought that the solubilized toxins form pores in the midgut epithelium of susceptible larvae. Recent research has suggested that the midgut bacteria of susceptible larvae are required for B. thuringiensis insecticidal activity.[5]

Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis, a strain of B. thuringiensis is widely used as a larvicide against mosquito larvae, where it is also considered an environmentally friendly method of mosquito control. Contents [hide]

* 1 Genetic engineering for pest control o 1.1 Usage o 1.2 Advantages o 1.3 Safety o 1.4 Limitations to Bt crops o 1.5 Possible problems * 2 References * 3 See also * 4 External links

[edit] Genetic engineering for pest control Bt-toxins present in peanut leaves (bottom image) protect it from extensive damage caused by European corn borer larvae (top image).[6]

[edit] Usage

Bt crops (in corn and cotton) were planted on 281,500 km² in 2006 (165,600 km² of Bt corn and 115900 km² of Bt cotton). This was equivalent to 11.1% and 33.6% respectively of global plantings of corn and cotton in 2006.[7] Claims of major benefits to farmers, including poor farmers in developing countries, have been made by advocates of the technology, and have been challenged by opponents. The task of isolating impacts of the technology is complicated by the prevalence of biased observers, and by the rarity of controlled comparisons (such as identical seeds, differing only in the presence or absence of the Bt trait, being grown in identical situations). The main Bt crop being grown by small farmers in developing countries is cotton, and a recent exhaustive review of findings on Bt cotton by respected and unbiased agricultural economists concluded that "the overall balance sheet, though promising, is mixed. Economic returns are highly variable over years, farm type, and geographical location" .[8]

Environmental impacts appear to be positive during the first ten years of Bt crop use (1996-2005). One study concluded that insecticide use on cotton and corn during this period fell by 35.6 million kg of insecticide active ingredient which is roughly equal to the amount of pesticide applied to arable crops in the EU in one year. Using the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) measure of the impact of pesticide use on the environment,[9] the adoption of Bt technology over this ten year period resulted in 24.3% and 4.6% reduction respectively in the environmental impact associated with insecticide use on the cotton and corn area using the technology.[7]

[edit] Advantages

There are several advantages in expressing Bt toxins in transgenic Bt crops:

* The level of toxin expression can be very high thus delivering sufficient dosage to the pest. * The toxin expression is contained within the plant system and hence only those insects that feed on the crop perish. * The toxin expression can be modulated by using tissue-specific promoters, and replaces the use of synthetic pesticides in the environment. The latter observation has been well documented world-wide.[7]

[edit] Safety

Overall, Bt-modified crops appear to be safe for farmers and consumers. Additionally, the proteins produced by Bt have also been used in sprays in farming techniques for many years with seemingly no ill effects on environment or human health.[10] Thus, Bt toxins are considered environmentally friendly by many farmers and may be a potential alternative to broad spectrum insecticides. The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods. The reason is that Bt works by binding to the appropriate receptor on the surface of midgut epithelial cells. Any organism that lacks the appropriate receptors in its gut cannot be affected by Bt.[11][12]

BUT In the view of many, there is clear evidence from laboratory settings that Bt toxins can affect non-target organisms. Usually, but not always, affected organisms are closely related to intended targets (reviewed in Lovei and Arpaia 2005 and Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006). Typically, exposure is through the consumption of plant parts such as pollen or plant debris or through Bt ingested by their predatory food choices. Nevertheless, due to significant data gaps, the real-world consequences of Bt transgenics remains unclear.

Not all scientific reports on Bt safety have been positive. A 2007 study funded by the European arm of Greenpeace, suggested the possibility of a slight but statistically meaningful risk of liver damage in rats.[13] While small statistically significant changes may have been observed, statistical differences are both probable and predictable in animal studies of this kind, and are known as Type I errors- that is, the probability of finding a false-positive due to chance alone. In this case, the number of positive results was within the statistically predicted range for Type I errors. The observed changes have been found to be of no biological significance by the European Food Safety Authority.[14] A 2008 Austrian study investigating the usefulness of a long-term reproduction mouse model for GM crop safety reported that Bt-treated corn consumption in mice appeared to be correlated with reduced fertility via an unknown biochemical mechanism.[15]

[edit] Limitations to Bt crops Kenyans examining insect-resistant transgenic Bt corn.

Constant exposure to a toxin creates evolutionary pressure for pests resistant to that toxin. Already, a Diamondback moth population is known to have acquired resistance to Bt in spray form (i.e., not engineered) when used in organic agriculture.[16] The same researcher has now reported the first documented case of pest resistance to biotech cotton.[17] [18]

One method of reducing resistance is the creation of non-Bt crop refuges to allow some non-resistant insects to survive and maintain a susceptible population. To reduce the chance that an insect would become resistant to a Bt crop, the commercialization of transgenic cotton and maize in 1996 was accompanied with a management strategy to prevent insects from becoming resistant to Bt crops, and insect resistance management plans are mandatory for Bt crops planted in the USA and other countries. The aim is to encourage a large population of pests so that any genes for resistance are greatly diluted. This technique is based on the assumption that resistance genes will be recessive. This means that with sufficiently high levels of transgene expression, nearly all of the heterozygotes (S/s), the largest segment of the pest population carrying a resistance allele, will be killed before they reach maturity, thus preventing transmission of the resistance gene to their progenies.[19] The planting of refuges (i. e., fields of non-transgenic plants) adjacent to fields of transgenic plants increases the likelihood that homozygous resistant (s/s) individuals and any surviving heterozygotes will mate with susceptible (S/S) individuals from the refuge, instead of with other individuals carrying the resistance allele. As a result, the resistance gene frequency in the population would remain low.

Nevertheless, there are limitations that can affect the success of the high-dose/refuge strategy. For example, expression of the Bt gene can vary. For instance, if the temperature is not ideal this stress can lower the toxin production and make the plant more susceptible. More importantly, reduced late-season expression of toxin has been documented, possibly resulting from DNA methylation of the promoter.[20] So, while the high-dose/refuge strategy has been successful at prolonging the durability of Bt crops, this success has also had much to do with key factors independent of management strategy, including low initial resistance allele frequencies, fitness costs associated with resistance, and the abundance of non-Bt host plants that have supplemented the refuges planted as part of the resistance management strategy.[21]

[edit] Possible problems

The most celebrated problem ever associated with Bt crops was the claim that pollen from Bt maize could kill the monarch butterfly.[22] This report was puzzling because the pollen from most maize hybrids contains much lower levels of Bt than the rest of the plant[23] and led to multiple follow-up studies. In the end, it appears that the initial study was flawed; based on the way the pollen was collected, they collected and fed non-toxic pollen that was mixed with anther walls that did contain Bt toxin.[24] The weight of the evidence is that Bt crops do not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly.[25]

There was also a report in Nature, that Bt maize was contaminating maize in its center of origin.[26] Nature later "concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper."[27] A subsequent large-scale study failed to find any evidence of contamination in Oaxaca.[28]

There is also a hypothetical risk that for example, transgenic maize will crossbreed with wild grass variants, and that the Bt-gene will end up in a natural environment, retaining its toxicity. An event like this would have ecological implications, as well as increasing the risk of Bt resistance arising in the general herbivore population. However, there is no evidence of crossbreeding between maize and wild grasses.

As of 2007, a new phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is affecting bee hives all over North America. Initial speculation on possible causes ranged from cell phone and pesticide use[29] to the use of Bt resistant transgenic crops.[30] The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report on 2007-03-27 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees. CCD has since been attributed to a new virus, unrelated to Bt crops.[31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.192.214 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] First time ever editing on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I appear noobish. I spotted a glaring mistake in the section 3.3 'Health and safety', where it said:

"The proteins produced by Bt have been used in sprays for agricultural weed control in France since 1938 and the USA since 1958 with seemingly no ill effects on the environment."

However Bt toxins as far as I'm aware have never been used to control weeds as they are primarily insecticides, and the reference given to justify this (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html) also backs this up and nowhere does it mention the control of weeds, especially where both of the years are given. So I've simply deleted the word 'weed' and otherwise left it as it is - it makes sense still and is now correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.254.156 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are 100% right. It is used to control insects. Thanks for pointing out the mistake and fixing it within the article. AIR corn (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dark Surfaces
The following from the Lead needs clarification:

"B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well as on the dark surfaces of plants."

I assume that by "dark surfaces" it means shaded from sunlight and not in the sense of reflectively dark. Zedshort (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bacillus thuringiensis Versus Bt transgenics
The entire page seems unorganised and completely unbalanced. Bt transgenics is NOT Bacillus thuringiensis. It you want to discuss Bt transgenics make a small paragraph mentioning it and link it to the transgenics wiki page. Furthermore, the organic use of actual Bacillus thuringiensis is incredibly effective, while very quickly Bt transgenics and or distilled individual toxins or toxin groups are far less effective. This is because insects quickly develop insect immunity to 1 or 2 toxins but don't easily develop immunity to the whole groups of many toxins simultaneously found in the actual Bacillus thuringiensis. Not to mention a live bacteria will grow and spread in the environment, whereas a distilled toxin cant. some of this mentioned in the text but it is not clarified that this insect immunity is to Bt transgenics and distilled individual toxins and not Bacillus thuringiensis. Furthermore there is a reference to midgut bacteria, but no discussion at all what that research means. ie That organic use of real Bacillus thuringiensis is effective while conventional use of the exact same Bacillus thuringiensis is less effective due to potential loss of the natural flora of pests due to use of other conventional agents killing off the natural midgut flora of those pests. Less effective still if just a few distilled toxins are used instead of the live bacteria.

Again to sum it all up. This is the Bacillus thuringiensis page, while it is fair to mention that small parts of Bacillus thuringiensis are used for various purposes, it should be made very clear that these other products are not actually Bacillus thuringiensis. And when it discusses the use of actual Bacillus thuringiensis in organic pest control, it should be made clear that these other products are neither Bacillus thuringiensis nor as effective nor even necessarily considered organic, but simply products manufactured from it.

Furthermore as discussed here on this talk page earlier. The whole page is very light on information of actual Bacillus thuringiensis in the wild. Way too much talk about technology and products that are not even Bacillus thuringiensis, and barely anything about the bacteria itself and what it does, how it interacts etc....

The references to everything I stated are already listed both in talk and on the main page, but the text on the wiki page is very obscure and misleading. Probably purposely so.68.12.189.233 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, "probably purposely so"?Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bt transgenics are a heated controversial subject, with both proponents and opponents often trying to sway public opinion to their side using heavily biased language. Even when some try using fair language, it can end up being biased. Just the fact that this wiki page for Bacillus thuringiensis has more written about Bt transgenics than Bacillus thuringiensis should give you an idea something is wrong. My point is that Bt products and their controversy is better discussed on the transgenics page. 68.12.189.233 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a clear answer.  Too bad, it seemed like you had some point you wanted to make.  To address your complaint that you feel that something is "wrong" because so much space is taken up with ag uses of Bt and its proteins:  not every fact in the world goes into Wikipedia; a topic has an article in Wikipedia only if the topic meets the criteria of notability.  I think it is reasonable to say, that the most notable thing about this bacteria, is its use in agriculture.  And so it makes sense that most of the article is taken up with that most notable thing.  You don't need any conspiracy theory to explain it.    If you want to introduce material, in proper wiki style, on other facets of this organism, you are of course welcome to do so. I do not recommend that you try to delete content that is there and is well sourced.   If you care to be specific about what you see as "very obscure and misleading" I would be happy to try to make it more clear and helpful.Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No I am not going to mess with deleting things. LOL And no I don't abide by conspiracy theories LOL Balance and bias are not the same as conspiracy. And yes I am a horticulturist myself and even use Bt, so I would expect a section there. I am a bit busy planning this years crops, so I will get to this as soon as I have some time. My main issue is with the way the overall balance of the page reads. I sent someone here to learn about Bacillus thuringiensis and they came back more confused than when I sent them. So when I came to see why that happened I found it somewhat misleading in the article to devote more paragraphs to the Bt transgenic than to Bacillus thuringiensis. But as I am far from a good writer, I will post some things here in the coming weeks that hopefully you can rewrite and include. 68.12.189.233 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK..... your rather dark intimations about things being wrong and being wrong for some reason, led me down the conspiracy path. Great, that this is not where you are coming from.  If you would like to write more specifically the kind of information you would like to see in the article, I would be happy to help expand the section on use in organic farming.Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review.
A substantial chunk of the Discovery and mechanism of insecticidal action section is a copy, with some minor editing. from this site

It does not appear, if this is any indication to be freely licensed.

The material was in the article when first created. Several items in the section have been referenced to other sources.

Ideally, I would rewrite the material so it no longer infringes on the copyright, but I don't really have the technical expertise to do so. Another possibility is to get a release from the copyright holder.

Can someone look into fixing this?

The only other alternative is to remove the material which would not be good for the article.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the date of that article, you will see that if there is infringement it most likely the other way. If there is material on wikipedia posted after Sept 30, 2012 (~5 months ago) that appears to duplicate the content of that article, please point it out.  I spot checked, and duplicate-ish content was posted in this article well before that date. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just spent a while looking at this and noticed most of it was added here but as you might notice, that was 7.5 years ago... whereas the journal article was published last year. There is definitely a copyright problem, but for once it is not us doing the copying! SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work, I should have checked the dates myself.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Are the warnings from organic production manuals "severe"?
The manuals for these products warn against human death, contamination of standing water and waterways, and the destruction of endangered species (not to be applied near the habitats of any endangered species). Can the many warnings contained in the instruction manuals for Bt use in organic production be construed as "severe" or are they normal, every-day, run-of-the-mill, non-severe warnings? I think the warnings are severe. User:Jytdog does not. Jizzbug (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jizzbug, new section generally go at the bottom. I didn't even see this.  I won't move your comment without your permission but if you want to move all this, please feel free.  To the point...  The sources you provide do not say that Bt has "severe" or many environmental and human health warnings.  You have used a primary source and your use of that source violates wikipedia policy WP:PSTS - you need a secondary source to characterize it that way.   I can tell you that Bt is relatively VERY nontoxic compared to other pesticides like organochlorines, organophosphates, and carbamates;  I doubt very much that you will find any reliable secondary source that characterizes it as severely toxic to humans or the environment.  I will not violate WP:3RR but please immediately delete ANY characterization of the warnings on the labels unless you have a reliable secondary source for it.  Thank you Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately our gut organisms to which it is severely toxic are not considered "human." Luckily our gut organisms are uptaking genes from the spores we eat in order to develop resistance! Outside of ag there is little awareness of the ease with which plasmid transfer occurs, such as with antibiotic resistance spreading among natural species in feedlot lagoons. Jizzbug (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is one thing to say that gene transfer could happen, and quite another to say that it does happen and yet another thing to say that therefore, Bt is severely toxic. And what is your source for the claim that Bt kills our gut organisms? You seem to be a science guy - how can you run so far ahead of the evidence, with such strong claims? Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Organic farming does not create controversy, and so it is assumed innocent and is not as intensely studied as those techniques that do create controversy. It has been shown that Roundup-Ready genes are absorbed into our gut organisms to provide resistance to Roundup residues, and it is an easy to confirm fact that our gut organisms have the pathway affected by d-endotoxins. Roundup-Ready genes and d-endotoxin genes are easily transferred virulent plasmids. It would be one thing if we were only eating protein crystals, but we're also eating spores, and when our body heat activates those spores, and they die, it is no stretch to suppose that our "competent" gut organisms absorb the genetics from corpses to develop resistance to residues that were exempted from tolerance requirements in 1960. Jizzbug (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Valent patent
Today User:Jizzbug added the following in the section called "Use of spores and proteins in pest control": "According to US Patent #6270760, owned by Valent BioSciences, maker of DiPel and Foray, titled "Production of Bacillus thuringiensis integrants," genetic modification, genetic manipulation, genetic engineering, cloning, and interspecies transgenic gene amplification are used in the creation of these biopesticides.(ref)http://www.google.com/patents/US6270760(/ref)" It may well be that Valent uses genetic engineering to make DiPel or Foray, but simply owning  a patent does not mean that Valent actually uses it to make those products - or that they use it all. We need a source directly stating that they use genetic engineering to make those products. I note that at least one of their DiPel products is certified organic http://www.valent.com/Data/Labels/2012%20DiPel%20DF%20WSDA%20Certificate.pdf and http://www.valent.com/Data/Labels/DiPel%20DF%202014-03-01-cert.pdf Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went looking for a reliable source that says that Valent's Bt is GM. The only thing I found is this http://www.nosprayzone.org/pesticides/btk101.html which is a) not a reliable source, and b) only speculates that Foray might be GM, which is a much less definitive statement than Jizzbug made.   Until a reliable source is found, the above statement should not come in. Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note, User:Jizzbug left a note on my Talk page here, which I responded to there. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is "certified for use in organic production," it is not "certified organic." Taking a closer look at 7 CFR Part 205 will demonstrated that it allows natural and synthetic biologics so long as those biologics are not the foods themselves. I'll take my time to prove this case before re-adding such a controversial but true statement to Wikipedia. The patent does describe the prevailing prior-art methods of Bt/Btk strain improvement before disclosing their own invention on Bt/Btk strain improvement. Valent's patent on their own "two-plasmid" method of producing improved strains is actually hinted at in their brand name "DiPel," but if a primary source patent is not a valid reference, then neither is a corporate marketing euphemism. ;) In any case, Valent is not the only Bt spray manufacturer using GE/GM methods to produce a GMO product certified for use in organic production. I want to make the case in general, I don't want to make a case specific to Valent, I cited the patent in an attempt to incorporate its references to prior art besides just their own methods. Thanks! Jizzbug (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here, Jizzdog. If there is a reliable source that says that genetic engineering techniques are indeed being used to make Bt spores and proteins used in organic farming this would be very relevant and interesting information to post!  We just need reliable sources that it is actually happening. (I don't know how you are claiming it is true already, without such a source in hand. hmmm)  But I will keep looking too - this is an interesting topic! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While secondary sources are indeed hearsay, word of mouth is even more hearsay! ;) Jizzbug (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The genetic modification going on here is homologous not heterologous (or heterologous between subspecies or sub-specie strains only), so modification is not easy to detect, and the resultant organisms are not substantially different from their natural counterparts. The natural characteristics of the organism are being amplified or mutated and transferred to/from strains and/or stacked in a single host strain. The scientific breeding of a bacterium is much different and much more flexible than that of other organisms. Any transgenics that occurs is merely used to amplify genes that are native to the organism in order to bring them back to into the organism, it's not quit the same thing as Bt corn, but it is still genetic engineering at its best. Jizzbug (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jizzbug - your addition today was great. Only problem was that you wanted to use the patent to support the statement "there is desire to broaden the host range of Bt and obtain more effective formulations" - if you read the patent, you see that it does not discuss resistance to old strains and the problem of coming up with new strains to which bugs are not resistant.  It is addressing the problem that production systems are, and become, inefficient, and the solution is describes is more efficient production (the "host range" mentioned in the last paragraph of the background section are host cells used in production).  So a different source is needed for that statement.  I appreciate the care you took to not state that there actually are GM strains being used... you went right up to the line on that!  Nicely done. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Jytdog &mdash; I was not attempting to say the patent talks about resistance. I was attempting to provide two separate reasons for Bt strain improvements, one being insect resistance, the other being improvements in production and effectiveness. I also want to add a cite for strain improvements that increase the species of target insect, but I'm still compiling that info. If you agree that pointing out two separate reasons from strain improvement is valid, then I will let you restore the patent citation. I do think it is a valid reference to reasons behind strain improvements, even if it is not related to the insect resistance reasons. Perhaps language could be clarified for those who would make a similar mistake of interpretation (maybe simply changing the "and" to an "or" would help clarify). PS: I'm about to add some recent Italian research that calls for somewhat drastic changes in the regulatory regimes surrounding Bt sprays. Jizzbug (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

plasmid transfer
Today I deleted the paragraph: "In showing that B. thuringiensis is the same species as B. cereus and B. anthracis, researcher Anne-Brit Kolstø in reference to the virulent plasmids contained in these subspecies warned, "We do not know whether it would be dangerous to use B. thuringiensis as a whole bacterium for pesticidal reasons due to possible genetic transfer."(ref)Helgason E, et al Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis--one species on the basis of genetic evidence Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Jun;66(6):2627-30.(/ref)(ref)Bouchie, Aaron J. "Bacillus Identity Crisis," Nature Biotechnology, 2000 Aug;18(8).(/ref)"

Long explanation as to why:

The first article is a primary study by Kolstø where she sequenced the chromosomes of the three members and found them to be mostly identical. The conclusion of her paper (cited above) is "The results presented in this study clearly reveal that B. anthracis appears to be genetically indistinguishable from members of the B. cereus-B. thuringiensis group. ...Furthermore, our results are in agreement with the view of B. cereus as the more ancestral species, with many of the strains belonging to the variants B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis encoding their most characteristic phenotypic properties from extrachromosomal DNA. Other characteristics that have been used to differentiate B. anthracis from B. cereus and that may be chromosomally encoded, such as sensitivity to β-lactam antibiotics and lack of motility and hemolytic activity, may be caused by differences in a single gene(s). For instance, 3 to 5% of B. anthracis strains are penicillin resistant, which dismisses this as a characteristic feature of the bacterium. Interestingly, PlcR, a transcriptional regulator of putative extracellular virulence factors in B. cereus and B. thuringiensis, is mutated and nonfunctional in B. anthracis strains. These mutations may thus be at least partly responsible for some of the features often associated with B. anthracis, like the lack of lecithinase and hemolytic activity. We have demonstrated that B. anthracis is genetically very closely related to some B. cereus and B. thuringiensis strains usually regarded as rather harmless and even beneficial. Horizontal transfer of plasmids may dramatically alter their phenotypes. It is, however, possible that for receiving and retaining the virulence plasmids of B. anthracis, additional genetic features of the chromosome are needed. Such factors remain to be elucidated."   What she makes clear there is 1) the only difference between  B. cereus and B. thuringiensis is the Bt plasmids  and that 2) the plasmids are the main distinguishing factor of B anthracis from B cereus. She then wonders (does not say for certain, but wonders - if the anthrax plasmids may easily cross into the other species, and vice versa.   That was a reasonable speculation, and it made a splash - hence the Nature Biotechnology report.

That paper published 13 years ago. Flash forward - she herself has published a chapter in a book two years ago discussing these species; it is now cited in our article and is (ref name=Økstad)Ole Andreas Økstad and Anne-Brit Kolstø Chapter 2: Genomics of Bacillus Species in M. Wiedmann, W. Zhang (eds.), Genomics of Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens, 29 Food Microbiology and Food Safety. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7686-4_2(/ref). In the chapter, she reviews disputes that have arisen from her 2000 claim that they are one species and from her speculation about plasmid transfer. She holds fast to her first conclusion and states it even more strongly and writes "Thus, a B. thuringiensis strain that has lost the cry- or cyt-containing plasmids will be indistinguishable from B. cereus and will be identified as such. Therefore, although the current nomenclature is kept, largely based on the well-established dif- ferences observed in pathogenicity profiles of the two species towards insects, the two bacterial species are indistinguishable when a chromosomal phylogeny is recon- structed based on a sufficient number of isolates (http://mlstoslo.uio.no). B. cereus and B. thuringiensis have therefore been suggested to constitute one species in genetic terms."(p 35) and this is supported by other refs too, like this one that is cited in our article here (Federici et al 2010) http://www.benthamscience.com/open/totnj/articles/V003/SI0082TOTNJ/83TOTNJ.pdf - see pp 85-86. And she restates the second finding that all the pathogenic genes for anthrax are on plasmid. But she no where claims that anthrax should be considered one species with the other two, and she does not discuss the possibility and more importantly - any evidence for - plasmid transfer from anthrax to the other two. Federici et al 2010 discusses this directly -- they write "Whereas there is ample evidence that B. cereus and B. thuringiensis are members of the same species, the idea that B. anthracis is a member of this same species is not supported by the evidence. Among other features, although it has been shown that Bt plasmids can be transmitted to and replicate in B. cereus, the two plasmids that encode the toxins of B. anthracis do not occur naturally in Bt or B. cereus, nor have parasporal bodies containing Bt Cry proteins been found naturally in B. anthracis. This implies that there are probably natural barriers, currently not understood, to plasmid mobilization and transmission that exist among these species, and probably “cross-talk” between their different toxin-encoding plasmids and chromosomal genes of their normal host species, that control toxin production. At present, this supports maintaining B. anthracis as a species different from B. cereus and B. thuringiensis. " (p 86)

Based on all that, the content from the 2000 paper by Kolstø does not reflect the consensus (which includes her!) and should not be included in Wikipiedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jytdog is creating a boogey man that does not exist. The deleted text was not about irrational fears that antrax plasmids will infect Bt!! If this is your reason for deleting the text, as you state, then the text should be restored. Lateral plasmid transfer between strains and vertical transfer to progeny always remains a possibility, especially with spores in soils, and is a legitimate concern 13 years later. Your quotes of Kolsto do not contradict her original statement. The deleted text was not anti-consensus Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt as User:Jytdog is accusing. 72.214.170.231 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the discussion! I believe that the scientific consensus on the possibility of plasmid jumping between Bt/cereus on the one hand and anthracis on the other is that it is remote to the point of being nonexistent, for reasons that we do not fully understand yet.  (science is messy).  If you have a current reliable secondary source that says otherwise, I am all ears.   Without that, including this is WP:UNDUE for a speculation (by the author's own admission) in a paper from 13 years ago that she herself does not make anymore. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly you are wrong in your understanding of the science. The author says that Bt without protein crystal plasmids becomes Bc, likewise Bc with anthrax plasmids becomes Ba. Anyway, Ba->Bt plasmid transfer is not the concern, and that concern was not meant to be implied in the paragraph that you removed. The paragraph you removed was A) summarizing the research the warning came from, that Bt, Bc, and Ba are one species, and B) airing that warning. If you want to make a valuable contribution, separate the implications between A and B rather than drawing the implications closer in your mind and deleting the text. The original reference says that more will be learned about virulent plasmids, plasmid absorption and plasmid transfer because full sequencing of Ba was underway, which is nearly the same as saying that full sequencing of Bt or Bc is underway, and it was that comment from the author that was misconstrued by many including yourself. You are reading too much into things and connecting too many dots with too many implications, much like a conspiracy theorist. What you reference in removing the content merely states that people still confuse the issues that they're one species because the legacy terminology is retained due to well-defined differences in the subspecies. That said, I will be able to restore the content with the original reference once I finish reviewing and culling several hundred pages of Italian research from 2010. The paragraph you deleted is the paragraph I was planning to expand with these additional references that call out legitimate concerns of food and plasmid contamination. You can quote Wikipedia policies all you want in your attempt to censor content from Wikipedia, but that does not make you correct or in the right. In any case, the warning is legitimate, and the content will be restored soon. Jizzbug (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted, your Federici et al 2010 cite does raise questions about the original reference's claim that Bt, Bc, and Ba are a single species. But still, as already stated, no implication to anthrax fears was intended, and imposing that implication is a misinterpretation. The original reference was meant to bolster support for concern about plasmid transfer in general, given that Bc and Bt can be vectors for food poisoning, not plasmid transfer regarding anthrax specifically. The Italian research backs this up. Perhaps you can add the Italian content before I can: . Jizzbug (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The content that I deleted said, "In showing that B. thuringiensis is the same species as B. cereus and B. anthracis, researcher Anne-Brit Kolstø in reference to the virulent plasmids contained in these subspecies warned, "We do not know whether it would be dangerous to use B. thuringiensis as a whole bacterium for pesticidal reasons due to possible genetic transfer."   Nobody today says that Bc, Bt, and Ba are the same species.  Not Kosto and not others.  Nobody takes the possibility of plasmid transfer between Ba and Bt/Bc as a serious risk.  What is the content you would propose adding, based on Federici and Kosto2011 and not relying on an outdated, primary study?  Would you please post it here so we can discuss?  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I did just post it, see [2] above. Sure, okay, Ba has been taken out of the Bc group, but that doesn't affect the warning in the primary study that I attempting to quote. Possible genetic transfer can occur between Bt strains and Bc strains. You are construing the warning to be about anthrax only and it was never about anthrax primarily, it was about plasmid transfer in general among the species that have become known as the "Bc group," who cares if Ba was taken out of that group! ;) Jizzbug (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my question. You seem to want some content about food safety/plasmid transfer to be put back into article. I am asking you, what specific content do you want to put into the article? Can you please provide a draft of the content - the actual words, and their sources -- here, so we can discuss it? It is not clear to me yet what you actually want to say in the article. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just think the warning stands even though Ba was taken out of the Bc group in 2010, especially considering that additional 2010 research backs up the warning about plasmid contamination within the Bc group. I can wait until I've digested the Italian research in full to restore the content. Either way, you seem stuck on the misinterpretation that the warning had anything to do with anthrax, which it didn't, it had to do with plasmid transfer and contamination within the new species group as a whole, regardless of anthrax. The mention of anthrax in that research was due to its being sequenced, which sequencing would give tells as to how transfer occurs and how likely it is for strains within the species group, it was not due to fears of contamination by anthrax solely. Imagine the Bc group subspecies as a 3D toroidal network, were any strain can contaminate any other strain, contamination is still possible even if a set of strains are removed from the group. Ba was removed from the group because contamination did not appear possible, which itself evidences the fact that contamination is still possible within the Bc group. Think Bt->Bt contamination if you like, for example, GMO Bt contaminating natural Bt which existed in the soil prior to spraying. Who cares what the article says as long as you follow this, and you're not a PR organic/agchem lobby shill who is censoring Wikipedia. ;) Jizzbug (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than guessing at my intentions (which is irrelevant and is against wiki policy to "discuss content not contributors" and for what it is worth makes me feel bad), I remain interested in seeing what text you propose to include in the article. If there are secondary sources discussing any actual toxicity or other unexpected effects from plasmid crossing within Bt in the field, that also would be interesting to include. As far as I can see none of the sources that we have looked at provide any evidence on that front, and statements that a) it happens and b) that anything bad happens as a result, ~appear~, at this stage, to be speculation (not sure where it originates from). Happy to be shown wrong, however!Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disproven link to colony collapse disorder
Completely one sided section ignoring the multiplicity links, and ignoring other studies that show it plays a part. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BT+and+colony+collapse+disorder&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=mND9UcnmH4fs9ATx_4CYCg&ved=0CDYQgQMwAA And it seems any addition of other information, studies have been continually revised back to the biased one sided version. Which is the real vandalism. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Study on how Bt gene in Bt rice survives ingestion and
This study needs to be addressed. The link is below. 2012 Chinese Bt rice study indicates that Bt gene can "code microRNA" (cause mutations) in a link to cancer, Alzheimer’s, & diabetes. http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1/full/cr2011158a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:173.16.124.20 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2013‎ 03:16 UTC


 * Wikipedia isn't a science news publication. I think it would be better to wait until this body of research has developed more and there are secondary sources. Also, I also see nothing about Bt in the paper you reference. It would require synthesis to connect that study to this topic. Joja  lozzo  03:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The paper doesn't mention Bt or bacillus thuringiensis or genetically modified anything. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Colony Collapse Disorder
Is "Disproven link to colony collapse disorder" too strongly headed? Considering what evidence and citations are available and what we actually know about CCD is stating that any link of Bt to colony collapse is "disproven" an honest assertion or should we be more conservative with our wording?21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Having made the recent revision to the CCD section: No, one study doesn't overturn the scientific consensus (though for this supposed consensus sources posted do not make any rebuttal to this study) but it does bear mentioning - the source which claims that BT toxins have no effect on bees and is not a candidate cause for Colony Collapse Disorder was written before the article I referenced was published, and therefore the piece of evidence that alleges a consensus is not a valid means to shoot this down. I didn't delete the previous section, providing both sets of information is the most honest solution. Saying that a piece of information that contradicts a precedent of belief on the basis that the precedent of belief is correct is tremendously circular reasoning. On top of that, the study cited that suggests that BT toxins have nothing to do with CCD only examined bee activity related to pollen foraging activity, not learning. It does not rebut the effects of BT toxins on bee learning behavior article, nor does it evince a consensus. Shatnertrek (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for wanting to improve the article! First, please do not edit war.  As per WP:BRD if you are bold and make an edit, and are reverted, you bring it to Talk and discuss until consensus is reached - you don't add it back too.  To the point at hand --  there are very solid secondary sources stating the consensus for the "disprovem link" - you have changed the section header saying that it is no longer disproven, and you have done this based on content you added that is supported only by a primary source.   As per wikipedia policy, WP:PSTS, we do not overturn secondary sources based on primary sources.  I am re-reverting your edits.  Please do not add it back again until we are finished discussing.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is no link having been established the same as "disproven"? Disproven overstates the case for the evidence, especially since CCD itself is still being investigated for the nature of its cause. The evidence thus far has been that of synergism between a variety of causes, which may or may not include Bt GMOs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Consequently, I redacted the title to "no proven link" to reflect the uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In an imaginary world where there are infinite resources, one could do an infinite amount of experiments to find a causal connection, and each experiment could fail to find a causal connection. Seems to me that you would still stay, "not proven."  This makes no sense.  In the real world, a huge amount of resources went into trying to see if there was any validity to the original PNAS paper, which suggested that there might be a causal linlk, and no causal link was found.  Yes we call that "disproven." Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are straw-manning the previous point. Nobody is insisting on an extreme definition of proof here so don't equivocate the positions. If you want to talk about issues of verification in the topic of philosophy of science then please feel free to but in concerns to this topic it is fairly obvious that there is no disproof considering the limited evidence on the topic. Some limited scope study is not even close. The secondary sources do no provide a consensus for disproving any link. In fact, when you read them they suggest a link when mites and Bt imbued corn are introduced in tandem. See:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/collapsing-colonies-are-gm-crops-killing-bees-a-473166.html 'The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.' As the other user has said "disproven" is overstatement by a long shot. The consensus seems to be reached among independent users compelled here independently by the same thing that "disproven" is overstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.78.167 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" isn't exactly even what is being argued here. Particularly such a meager amount of study is certainly not exhaustive and indicative of a lack of relationship. If we had more extensive evidence perhaps it would be fine to loosely suggest that speculation about an effect from Bt on CCD is effectively dissuaded but in this case we can't simply look at a single short term study with limited scope and extrapolate from that any effect of transgenic Bt organisms on colony collapse is effectively disproven that word being so strong as it is and where more conservative words would remain unjustified. I think this issue is pretty clear cut Jytdog.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where you are coming from. When the initial report of possible harm to bees was made, anti-GMO groups went ballistic with very strong claims that BT KILLS BEES.  GMOS KILL BEES!!!  The federal government spent a boatload of money and several independent groups spent tons of time, and carefully studied the issue, and found no credible causation, and said so.  The sources make this very clear.  The consensus is that there is no causal link.  What is the point you are trying to make, exactly? Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm sorry if this is confusing. I believe the point is made pretty clear above but let me try to cover what you have just said as well to put it in context. I'm not concerned with what anti-gmoers believed or even believe here. You mention that the government has spent money investigating the problem extensively and finds no link. As far as I can tell there are no sources on the page or mentioned here in your writing that demonstrate that and so I would ask you to supply them for my and others benefit. What we do have is a single primary source on the page to one study in the journal Apidologie. I have an additional problem with this because it is seemingly referenced as a source for the statement "The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report in March 2007 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees" to which it is totally irrelevant as far as I can find. Furthermore, in reference to the subject heading of disproof, it is in no way demonstrative. In fact, even if you were able to supply the research funded by the government it would in all likely-hood fail to be demonstrative of disproof. It might be strong evidence but we rarely exhaust our research potential and for this very reason we find new links in old subjects all of the time. I merely suggest we abandon misleading or sophistic activities and phrasing in our page.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the phrasing of "disproven link" is misleading. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * are you the same as one of the IP address that has been talking here (which may also be the person)?  In any case the RfC is malformed.  You have gone back and edited things I already responded to, which makes this discussion nonsense.  Frustrating.  Please 1) undo your changes to the discussion above, and 2) remove the RfC tag at the start of the messed up discussion.  I suggest we keep talking, as you do not understand what I am saying yet.  We are not even close to an impasse yet.  But if you want an RfC please start it fresh in a new section.  Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am actually OK with the section header as edited it.  That is plenty neutral.  Well done, bobo. I didn't add the content about neonicotinoids - that was done by an IP editor in this dif.  I don't object to that being deleted. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and deleted the maformed RfC.  Please see Talk page guidelines - especially the section on editing your own comments.  It says explicitly, "If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead."   And there are explicit instructions there for how to make your edits visible.  this edit] is very bad form.  Especially since you did not announce clearly that you are the same (if you are) as the IP editor.  It is just a mess.  And then adding an RfC on top of that makes it intractable.Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The RfC guidelines do not require a new section and so are not malformed. Please go back and read the topic on making requests. As for the editing, it was simultaneous as I received a note as I posted but it shows my edit entry earlier than your posting on the history page anyway. If you responded during, I am sorry but editing of previous post was fairly minor and cannot affect the conversation in such a way as to make it "nonsense". Putting up the pretense that the your addressing points have been significantly altered seems insincere. Feel free to point out some discrepancy where your response where directed had affected designation but you didn't have a response written when I edited it and the only one that could have been affected is your entry saying you were confused about my motivations and spoke about anti-gmoers etc non of which actually addressed anything I wrote anyway. The new posts are clearly marked as additional entry. All of this aside, I'd like to submit that since then we've had another independent editor edit the topic with cited reasoning along the lines of the complaints in this topic. At this point, Jytdog, I feel that if we were going to reach a consensus it's been reached. I'm happy to talk with you but I feel this is so evident and effectively stated there isn't much to say.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone should take a look at those guidelines it's you as you'll read that it is not required to start a new subtopic. If I am guilty of editing a thing already responded to then you just did that with your other entry. We're having temporal overlap in entry. Do not be condescending and arrogantly lecture me with these irrelevancies. Just look at the history and stick to the topic. Obviously, I won't need to fix your editing of my submission for comments (formed just fine by the by) since you have conceded to the alteration finally.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, Nvm I was wrong about the order of entry. Your entry is there but it didn't appear when I was editing the page. Either way your response addresses nothing in that entry. I don't get what you're pretending at.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The conversation about content is finished, I believe. The rest we can discuss on user Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m confused. Jytdog did you delete Scraggle Grackle's RfC? As an involved editor, you wouldn’t be eligible to close it, but you went beyond that you outright deleted it?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he did, and went and changed the rules page that we were in disagreement about to lend credit to his criticism. Quite the obnoxious sophist.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to remark that although the point about the phrasing is tidied up fine, my points that I made about this line: "The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report in March 2007 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees," and the two sources following is still pertinent. The complaint is in my previous posts above, one of which actually talks about more explicitly what one of the sources actually said. The sources seemingly have nothing to do with the content they're planted in. Jytdog insisted that there is a trove of evidence at great expense to be made out there so somebody simply supply it or I'll strike the fluffy stuff. Particularly we need a link supporting the quoted statement. The report is not among the sources, only the Apidologie report and another seemingly random link. I believe that there was a report by Mid-Atlantic Apiculture but it only makes a reference to the Rose and Dively Apidologie report before that was even published which we have cited on page but I cannot find the Mid-Atlantic Report being alluded to. In any case, this is making the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research report out as something more than it was and said. Thanks. Scraggle Grackle (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible Problems
Before removing this entry:

"The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report on 2007-03-27 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees."

I have read the report published by the Consortium - they are NOT even investigating the effects of GMO on the bees - so the statement is a lie.

Here is the link to the report...

http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/FAQ/FAQCCD.pdf

Anyone opposed to this?--208.68.193.3 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The link you provide above is not a link to the report, just to an FAQ. The correct link is given in the article, and the research question specifically considered the effect of Bt crop pollen on bees. Blahah (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The link in the article isn't correct. It's a link to a particular study in Apidologie. I, as well, don't see any association with the AREC. Clarification on this issue is still needed I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.78.167 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * what are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This sentence and it's proceeding sources seemingly have nothing to do with each other: "The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report in March 2007 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees." The report is not among the sources, only the Apidologie report and another seemingly random link. I believe that there was a report by Mid-Atlantic Apiculture but it only makes a reference to the Rose, Dively Apidologie report before that was even published which we have cited on page but I cannot find the Mid-Atlantic Report being alluded to. In any case, this is making the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research report out as something more than it was and said.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

GMO Controversies
I removed a generic section regarding GMO controversies, because I don't think it was relevant to an article about a bacteria strain. If you disagree please discuss here first.

Andyops (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While the summary is not as vital as in other articles (I'm split on whether it's really need or not here right now) what makes you think it's not really relevant here? Bt used in transgenic crop is the primary usage of it, so the connection is most definitely there. Some people go nuts over Bt specifically too, so it is involved in the controversy. Is your question to what degree we should be discussing that here? If so, approximately where are you thinking the cutoff should be? Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review the history of this Talk page, and then come back to us on that point. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bacillus thuringiensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505145917/http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=RBMT15-101%2C+SEMT15-02%2C+SEMT15-15 to http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=RBMT15-101%2C+SEMT15-02%2C+SEMT15-15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Bacillus thuringiensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908063221/http://www.cdms.net:80/LDat/ld4KK005.pdf to http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld4KK005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313091246/http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld4KK007.pdf to http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld4KK007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716052010/http://www.gmo-safety.eu:80/database/1004.breakdown-toxin-effects-micro-organisms-soil.html to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/database/1004.breakdown-toxin-effects-micro-organisms-soil.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217033726/http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca:80/subsite/glfc-bacillus-thuringiensis/bacillus-thuringiensis to http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-bacillus-thuringiensis/bacillus-thuringiensis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bacillus thuringiensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808061528/http://www.omri.org/simple-opl-search/results/BACILLUS%20THURINGIENSIS to http://www.omri.org/simple-opl-search/results/BACILLUS%20THURINGIENSIS
 * Added tag to http://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH%3A3%3A0%3A%3ANO%3A1%2C3%2C31%2C7%2C12%2C25%3AP3_XCHEMICAL_ID%3A4063
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gmo-safety.eu/database/1004.breakdown-toxin-effects-micro-organisms-soil.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-bacillus-thuringiensis/bacillus-thuringiensis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bacillus thuringiensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002090217/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/304.tobacco.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/304.tobacco.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905233938/http://www.gmo-compass.org/pdf/regulation/soybean/MON87701xMON89788_soybean_application_food_feed.pdf to http://www.gmo-compass.org/pdf/regulation/soybean/MON87701xMON89788_soybean_application_food_feed.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109152621/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/147.docu.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/147.docu.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727170358/http://patricbrc.org/portal/portal/patric/Taxon?cType=taxon&cId=1428 to http://patricbrc.org/portal/portal/patric/Taxon?cType=taxon&cId=1428

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Repetition
Hi Wouldn't it be better to not use the exact same phrasing for an entire paragraph in two different places? I think it's probably appropriate in both places but would be better if it the text was varied, especially if it varied to make it fit the section it's in. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liselight.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Subspecies abbreviations
Hello I think Bti and Bta should be italicised because they are taxonomic in this context. You are correct that when used as a product name Bt maize or Bt protein it is not italicised. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So Bti, Bta, Btk etc. should be italicised everywhere? Also Bt in the intro? Just like B. t.? --Ernsts (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those which are taxonomic should be. I'm uncertain about  in the intro. It may be interpreted as a taxonomic abbreviation or an adjective. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 September 2022 (UTC)