"David Hare-Scott" > wrote in message
...


> 3) Also this article (that you quoted)
> http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/convtoxins.html
> refers to the same kind of problem in potatos and celery (different
toxins).
> Once again I accept that it happened. What I don't accept is the author's
> rather sweeping statement
>
> "Conventionally-bred crop varieties may actually pose a greater risk from
> increased plant toxins than genetically engineered plants."
>
> I cannot see anywhere that he/she substantiates such a comparison. There
is
> NO attempt to evaluate the risks of either technique so I cannot see how
> anyone can say one is more risky than the other. I take the point however
> that being new GM plants are subject to much higher scrutiny and testing
> than selectively bred varieties and that the presumption of safety of the
> latter is by no means guaranteed.

But in making that statement you have agreed with the author. GM plants are
far more subject to scrutiny than conventional varieties which receive damn
all. Many conventional varieties we have been eating for generations would
never have recieved clearance had modern regulators been able to check and
ban them when they first appeared

--

Jim Webster.
Pat Gardiner, Five years raving about bent vets and still no result