In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 13:51:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:

=======================================
Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network
20 February 2001, 9:24 am
Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

As they want others to be exact so they must be taken at their word.

But they leave plenty of room for misunderstanding:

Read the rest of it.

I did.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented
inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information

That could either mean that all the info is classifed that way, or
rather that there has been some innacuracy, some lack of care. and
futhermore the interesting admission by Life Sciences Network -
exaggeration by Ingham's submission. So they are admitting some
truth to it just exaggerated.

Grasping at straws?
There is a tiny bit of truth in everything, that's life.

to the Royal
Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information
and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not
scientifically supportable.

And the tone of that is that it is unlikely to kill off all the
plant life on the planet, therefore go ahead with it.

Nope. If some of it's wrong, then it must all be looked at
sceptically. And that's what happens.

Which is how to look at GM. But more than scepticism, rather fear.