"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"Peter wrote in message following Pete the troll whose message is
snipped...
/ This is an nice argument against allowing multinational companies to
control our food supplies. As such I have little argument with it.
However it is not an argument against GM as a technology, neither does
it present real risks associated with release of this technology into
the environment. Some applications, may be risky, some may be harmful.
This is therefore an argument for the careful evaluation of each product
on a case by case basis. Which is the regime we currently have.

But does what we have now work? I keep seeing Sweetcorn used as a GM trial
crop when it is wind pollinated and in my book should never be allowed to
go
to trial for the very reason that it's pollen is outside the control of
those doing the trial and is able to contaminate crops many miles away. To
think my Sweetcorn may be GM contaminated (with what genes?) is appalling
to
me.

but you will already been eating large amounts of stuff which has been
reared using GM soya (all that cheap brazilian chicken in ready meals
(obviously I am not accusing you of being so lacking in taste as to eat a
ready meal, I use the word 'you' in a very casual sense) and gm derived corn
syrup is in large amounts of product.Indeed the cardboard package may well
include gm corn starch.

And with the CAP reforms cutting the level of EU food output and the rest of
the world growing more GM, the population of the EU will eat more GM
Jim Webster