In article ,
Mike Clark wrote:

However there are other issues behind GM crops that go beyond a simple
consideration of the consequences to health. I consider a major point to
be the way that laws governing intellectual property rights are used to
manipulate commercial interests. Many GM crops are produced by
commercial organisations who are driven by market forces and who wish to
dominate the market place and eliminate their commercial competitors.
The driving force is often a simple consideration of profit for the
company and its shareholders, and doesn't necessarily put a strong
emphasis on what is best for the consumer or the farmer. The fact that
many GM crops contain tolerance to herbicides (and/or pesticides), which
are also protected by patents means that the same company can prevent
the farmer from sourcing products from rival companies by forcing him to
buy the seeds and the herbicide, and the pesticide, on their dictated
commercial terms.

You get no argument from me on those concerns. In fact I am livid with
the likes of Monsanto for jeapardising a potentially very valuable
technology with initial products that generally have no benefit for the
consumer. I mourn the loss of Flavr Savr tomato paste as a crossfire
casualty.

So if you are debating whether GM is good or bad, don't just make it a
discussion centred around the health issues.

Agreed again. This thread yet again exemplifies the problem with the
debate, that it is debating the wrong issues and there is a lot
misrepresentation going on.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.