On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:

: 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?

Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in places
that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be negligable.
I don't mean pollution or global warming. Nearly all the land in the UK is
or has been intensively managed at one time or other. Places we call
"natural" are nearly all man-made. Probably the most "natural" part of the
country is the stagnant rock pool just below high tide.
Tim.