"Oz" wrote in message
...
Bob Hobden writes

....

They have not had
the gene of something else added to their genes, something that could
never
get there by natural means.

Well even that's not true. I don't know if the resistance to roundup in
the australian ryegrass is the same gene as monsanto's, but it's clearly
very similar, probably just a few bases different. In any case of course
the gene could get there by natural means, the single gene attackpoint
of roundup (and dimfops) makes this quite likely.

...
And what's particularly fascinating to me about the fear of GM is that
although all sorts of technical/biological arguments are advanced it seems
to have more in common with the relatively recent fear of machine looms,
etc. than of the real danger that has always faced mankind, the dragons and
other mythical (though clearly man-made by implication) beasties. Yet will
those not employed in agriculture really feel any impact on their
lifestyles? Perhaps yes if we ban all imports from countries that do
choose to grow GM, but surely no otherwise.

Just how many people are killed by technology each year compared with the
natural nasties such as bacteria and viruses that are clearly out to get
every single last one of us if we give 'em a chance? I'm sticking with
technology, even deliberately destructive technology is relatively benign
compared with diseases and starvation. It's said that rat borne diseases
alone have killed more people than all wars - who'd have thought those
lovely cuddly rats have it in for us on such a big scale?

Michael Saunby