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

Yes but it seems quite reasonable to me that it is so.

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


This is very hard to get a handle on as I cannot see any attempt to quantify
the problems with 'conventional' crops. Yes some cases of toxins being
created/augmented are reported but how significant is that in the overall
scheme of things? If it is only a rare siuation why would you want to
impose regulation on it.

David