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

why? If something is a danger it is a danger, why should the reason for its'
creation mean it gets more or less scrutiney? Whatever happened to the
precautionary principle?

>
> 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.

much regulation is imposed to cope with rare situations
--

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