On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:31:21 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Due to testing in GM food stuffs we are much less likely to get unintended
hazards in food stuffs than we are in in normally bred food stuffs. I can
list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional
methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods.

It is not clear which testing you are referring to -- somewhat linked
to it being unclear what you mean by 'food stuffs'. Maybe you meant to
write 'varieties'?

But then your argument would seem to assume that GM methods are not
used in combination with conventional breeding methods. Which they
are, and which I know that you know that they are.

Or, it assumes that unintended food hazards from the conventional
breeding methods involved are being tested for in GM varieties, but
not in non-GM varieties of the same crop species -- and that you can
name several such comparable non-GM varieties that cause harm because
they were not similarly tested from the outset.

And, that, I - erm - might well not think that you can. TO make things
worse, were you to be inable to name them, that would put you in an
awkward position with your argument, since in any given crop species
that have GM varieties used for food currently, you would have had
vastly more non-GM varieties to pick your alleged harm-causers from,
than your opponent would have had GM-varieties.

So, perhaps better; can I ask you to rephrase your argument, please.