Talk:Bacillus thuringiensis

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1]

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.</ref>. 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. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (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.

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)

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)

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)