On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:56:56 GMT, wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
for an incident.
Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or some geezer in a
lab clutching a degree?

I's also like to add that it's never reassuring to see proponents of
gene technology write off their opponent's point of view by describing
it as coming from 'fear and distrust' - rather you're up against deep
scepticism and a firm belief that money, rather than philanthropy, is
the driving force behind the argument.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk