On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:14 +0200, Tim
wrote:

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

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.#

Yes it is.
OK, not natural in the sense that if you left nature to itself you'd
be unlikely to come across acres of wheat - but the fact that big
fields of single crops DO exist makes them part of the natural
environment.
Likewise the car - not natural, but nonetheless something that has a
dramatic effect on the environment by mere virtue of being in it.

You cannot bung a few dozen acres of GM crops down and not expect it
to interact with the environment in which it exists.

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.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

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.

Depends what's been chucked into the sea a mile or so up the coast

Regards,



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