michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle"
[...]
You said people weren't doing it because the economics would be
against it. I showed that they were doing it, and for economic
reasons.

Nope. They do it solely for for religious reasons.

Nope. The purchasers may be Muslims, but the exporters are doing
it
for economic reasons.

...

It's possible restictions by importers that we're soleley
concerned with here.

Well, as a matter of fact, on this particular side-issue it isn't.
That's why it's a side-issue. I'm quite willing to drop it.

The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing
new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose
controls.

The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist.

Oh, come on! You said it didn't take place, I showed that it did. I
did not, and you know I did not, comment on the import control
regimes of Middle-Eastern countries. Neither of these is relevant to
the question of import controls in the United Kingdom.
...


Look, I want to discuss whether or not there should be a ban on
the
importation of growing plants. If you don't want to, it's a pity,
but
it's none of my business. But I'm not in this thread ready to
discuss
nuclear weapons, compulsory identity cards, the motives of New
Zealand lamb exporters, avian flu, the threatened strike of
gas-men,
or any of the other tangential subjects which have popped up in
this
thread. There is no point in filibustering.

Two senior scientists in the field seem to believe we should be
considering controls. You seem to feel that we don't need to.
That's
fine; but so far the only reason you have produced is that any
risk
there may be is trivial compared to climate change. That's fine,
too;
but I think it's reasonable to consider both.

--
Mike.


The following link was kindly provided in another post
by John McMillan



http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm


I quote selectively ( reference in the main is to the US)-

quote

A detailed analysis of the writings of these nativists reveals the
psychopathologies that drive this reactionary movement. Numerous
quotes are compared which demonstrate that the same fears that
underlie xenophobia, r*cism, and f*scism fuel the anti-invader
movement.

[...]

The hidden influence of the herbicide industry is exposed. The
regulatory industry and corporate interests are colluding in an
effort to leverage the fictitious "invasion crisis" into a system
of complete bureaucratic control of nature, and corporate
privatization of the earth's biological diversity.


/quote

I'm ready to believe it when I read the quoted material. But, having
worked in both environmental and anti-racist campaigns, I know that
exaggerated and even false claims are common on both sides of these
arguments. As are red herrings.

It seems unlikely to me that Professors Brasier and Ingram, and
perhaps even the editor of _The Plantsman_, have base motives; but if
you suggest it, you should be prepared to prove it. Your evidence?

--
Mike.