Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is used in the production of genetically modified crops. It is also used as a food additive and preservative. Every year people die from accidents involving DHMO, including DHMO poisoning. Some have died from as little as one drop. Additionally, the burning of hydrocarbons (e.g., wood and fossil fuels) releases DHMO into the atmosphere where it is a powerful greenhouse gas, more powerful than carbon dioxide.
The government and food companies will tell you that DHMO has been used for years, is perfectly safe (Chemicals are part of life; they are the building blocks in fact), and does not need regulation. Yet, given these facts, shouldn’t companies be required to place DHMO on their food labels?
Actually, no, although every fact presented to you is true, it is designed to mislead you. In fact, DHMO is relatively safe. Dihydrogen monoxide, (two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom) is normally written as H2O: water.
Think about spin such as DHMO when you hear that genetically engineered crops have not been proven safe. As an example, you will hear about a Cornell University research study that was reported as a note in Nature in June 1999. You will read things similar to “The Nature study was published after several Bt-corn varieties had been approved by the EPA and over 20 million acres of Bt corn were planted in the United States.” (source: Union of Concerned Scientists website) The preliminary research found that monarch butterflies died from eating pollen from corn that has been modified to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt toxin). Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed that grows in the Midwest where the corn grows. That is true. The European corn borer and monarch butterfly are members of the Lepidoptera, and though Bt is harmless to humans (indeed it is used by organic farmers as a pesticide because it is a naturally occurring soil bacterium) it is toxic to lepidopteran insects. Pollen from the Bt corn could fall on the milkweed which could sicken or kill monarch caterpillars. Again, true.
What is missing is perspective and balance. No crop is grown without the farmer (organic or conventional) using a pesticide. The better targeted the pesticide, the less harm that occurs to non-targets plants and animals. While it is true that Bt pollen poses a small risk to monarchs, organic farmers use Bt sprays, would monarch caterpillars be any less at risk from organically grown corn? No, the monarch would still be sickened or killed by organic growing methods. Additionally, other insects would be at risk too.
Less pesticide use is a result of growing Bt corn. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pesticide use has decreased about 33% since Bt corn was introduced.
For more about Bt corn and the monarch study go to: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/index.html#bt3
Nullius in Verba 
There´s always something to improve and more research needed. After reading how things developed one wonders what would have happened if a less charismatic species would have been CHOSEN. Monarch appears in the UCS´logo (a coincidence?), people tattooes it on their skins and after watching the next video just don´t know what to think: Live Monarch Foundation – How to fix a broken butterfly wing
While Monarchs are beautiful, they are not endangered. My modest point to the post though was that the proverbial glass was half-empty and there were no positives to using Bt corn (to the anti-GM crowd). The Cornell researchers coated milkweed leaves (the preferred food for monarch caterpillars) with pollen from Bt corn. Exactly how would have spraying Bt (as organic farmer do) on the milkweed leaves have produced healthier monarch caterpillars? How would have spraying insecticide on on the milkweed leaves have produced healthier monarch caterpillars? It wouldn’t have changed the deaths of the caterpillars. Feed them poison, they die.
No doubt I’m missing something…
Bt, either as a transgene or as a sprayed spore preparation produces a protoxin that needs an alcaline medium to be activated, something that happens only in most of the insect´s intestines and not in the ones of other animal groups. The activated toxin has to couple with a specific receptor to be effective (that´s why different strains of Bt are marketed for different species of insects). The protoxin has to be eaten, it has no effect by contact: the organic farmer will have to thoroughly spray (expensive) while Bt crops have a perfect distribution of the protoxin in all parts of the plants (better protection).
Bt crops have also the advantage of a higher selectivity as only the insects that feed on the plants will be killed. This advantage vanishes if you consider that pollen also produces protoxin. And this is the point where the mess begins: pollen & spray drift distances, milkweeds inside/outside the field, UV radiation destroying protoxin in pollen and spores but not in tissues, anther fragments over milkweeds, larvae too small to eat anther fragments…
The Cornell study is a very flawed one, being the main concern that the milkweed leaves were coated with a very coarse cover of pollen that doesn´t correspond with reality.
Nonsense!
If pollen of Bt crops is such a hazard, also it is the spraying of Bt spores. Both should be banned then.
I don´t think the organic lobby will be happy with this Solomonic conclusion (and I´m sure that Monarchs are one of the last things in their minds; just an excuse). The endless false claims and accusations are making me to reconsider the burden of proof.