"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
I am about to import a plant from the USA and have sorted shipping etc.
It
will have the relevant plant US permissions, however, the exporter says:-
"You'll need an import permit from DEFRA .You have to live near the major
international airport, where you can get plant(s) inspected or hire a
broker, who can do everything for you."

Unless it's very simple I need a broker.
Any help much appreciated

Any help much appreciated

People to ask may be Hosta and Hemerocallis collections in the National
collection scheme as they would probably do it regularly try looking for
contact info on www.nccpg.org


Thanks Charlie. I have got a list from DEFRA website of all the approved
plant importers in the UK. As I now know a bit more info about the procedure
I can not think that anyone in their right senses would really want to get
involved. I am about to fill in the form for a licence but as a private
individual it chucks up a few problems for DEFRA/ HM customs.
Incidentally www.nccpg.org at the time of writing this have forgotten to
renew their domain name

Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor,
increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced
against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


If we banned the international movement of all living creatures
and
the trade in fruit and veg etc etc then you might make a more
sanitary
environment (boringly sterile)

I was actually raising a serious question, in the hope of serious
discussion. The RHS shares my concern, and a paper on the subject
was
presented at a conference at Reading University last week.

--
Mike.


My answer was quite serious.

You mean "serious", as in "banning...the trade in fruit and veg"?

The plant in question is coming from the USA and can't be moved
without a phytosanitation certificate issued over there. Once the
thing arrives it will not be shifted until DEFRA have physically
inspected and certified it. Finally it's up to me to report
anything
I notice amiss. you want How much more safety do you think we
require?

The worry is that those measures seem to have proved insufficient in
the past. There are several reasons: the cleansing and inspection
regimes don't seem to be perfectly effective; and even if you are
skilled enough to notice something amiss and responsible enough to
report it, some of the things we may be at risk from are microscopic,
or may evolve once here (this isn't me speculating).

Do you have a link to the RHS paper you mentioned?

Good question. No. I'll look for it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you're
staying up later than I am, key words are Professor Brasier,
mycologist, RHS, Forest Research, Imperial College, Science Exchange,
Reading University, DEFRA -- perm any or all! I don't know the date,
but 23 or 24 November '05 seem likely. Please post a link if you get
there first.

--
Mike.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor,
increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced
against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


If we banned the international movement of all living creatures
and
the trade in fruit and veg etc etc then you might make a more
sanitary
environment (boringly sterile)

I was actually raising a serious question, in the hope of serious
discussion. The RHS shares my concern, and a paper on the subject
was
presented at a conference at Reading University last week.

--
Mike.


My answer was quite serious.

You mean "serious", as in "banning...the trade in fruit and veg"?

The plant in question is coming from the USA and can't be moved
without a phytosanitation certificate issued over there. Once the
thing arrives it will not be shifted until DEFRA have physically
inspected and certified it. Finally it's up to me to report
anything
I notice amiss. you want How much more safety do you think we
require?

The worry is that those measures seem to have proved insufficient in
the past. There are several reasons: the cleansing and inspection
regimes don't seem to be perfectly effective; and even if you are
skilled enough to notice something amiss and responsible enough to
report it, some of the things we may be at risk from are microscopic,
or may evolve once here (this isn't me speculating).

Do you have a link to the RHS paper you mentioned?

Good question. No. I'll look for it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you're
staying up later than I am, key words are Professor Brasier,
mycologist, RHS, Forest Research, Imperial College, Science Exchange,
Reading University, DEFRA -- perm any or all! I don't know the date,
but 23 or 24 November '05 seem likely. Please post a link if you get
there first.

--
Mike.

Thanks for the info Mike I will search for the item .

Fruit and Veg and seeds pose just as much risk as any other plant material.
I think the rules are adequate . As and when something happens then again I
think the current DEFRA systems can cope.
I

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death, mitten crabs, invasive freshwater crayfish, grey
squirrels, NZ flatworms, Dutch elm disease, scorpions on the Isle of
Sheppey, and all of those: but I've been thinking about it for
years --

as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of demand.
Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe. So -

b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large numbers
for disease reasons?


It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer's livelihood depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters should
the need ever arise.

....


Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong; but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.

....

And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an antidote to
triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617


Maybe Professor Brewer, who you appear to find yourself in agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference there to
our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for disease
reasons" ?



michael adams

....




--
Mike.

In article ,
Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:


Would you like to discuss the rules imposed after the government
achieved an international first by creating a new disease (BSE)?
The Germans, perfectly reasonably, banned UK beef as an interim
procedure. The UK government's response was to retaliate against
the British public by imposing the following restrictions:
(snip)

No attempt was made to control the feeding of ruminant protein
to ruminants (which cased the trouble)or control the feedstock
industry.

??

The feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants was banned in 1988.
Ruminant offal was banned in pig and poultry feed in 1990.
All ruminant material was banned in all stock feeds from 1996.
All animal protein was banned in all feed to food-animals in 2001.

Don't bet on it.

You are correct that I mixed up several timelines there. Yes, that
imbecility was a lot earlier than the other ones, and was NOT a
response to the German restrictions.

There was an initial, half-hearted ban in 1988 - but it had a lot of
(effective) exemptions and didn't take full effect until several
years later. That was 4 years after BSE had been identified, with
its probably transmission route, and a good quarter century after
the danger of feeding ruminant protein to ruminants was.

I believe that is still true for the purported ban on animal protein
in animal feed, though the transmission route of BSE has probably
been broken. Whether another, similar disease could be propagated,
is less clear.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death, mitten crabs, invasive freshwater crayfish, grey
squirrels, NZ flatworms, Dutch elm disease, scorpions on the Isle of
Sheppey, and all of those: but I've been thinking about it for
years --

as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of demand.
Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe. So -

b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large numbers
for disease reasons?


It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s livelihood
depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters should
the need ever arise.

....


Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong; but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.

....

And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an antidote to
triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617


Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference there to
our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for disease
reasons" ?



michael adams

....




--
Mike.

middleton.walker wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

Mike Roscoe wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in a message:.

I am about to import a plant from the USA and have sorted shipping
etc. Any help much appreciated
---

Well done you Rupert! Since 7/11, my son who lives in the USA has

not

been allowed to send any plant material to me here in the UK.
However, he IS allowed to send me seeds, the envelopes containing
them have been sometimes opened and inspected during transit.

Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor, increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


Where would Britain be today in regards to its supply of plants had your
forefathers not explored the world and returned with what are considered
today as being plant treasures....where would any country be.......H

There'd maybe be a few more Elms, much less Russian vine ?



Richard.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor,
increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced
against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


If we banned the international movement of all living creatures
and
the trade in fruit and veg etc etc then you might make a more
sanitary
environment (boringly sterile)

I was actually raising a serious question, in the hope of serious
discussion. The RHS shares my concern, and a paper on the subject
was
presented at a conference at Reading University last week.

--
Mike.


My answer was quite serious.

You mean "serious", as in "banning...the trade in fruit and veg"?

The plant in question is coming from the USA and can't be moved
without a phytosanitation certificate issued over there. Once the
thing arrives it will not be shifted until DEFRA have physically
inspected and certified it. Finally it's up to me to report
anything
I notice amiss. you want How much more safety do you think we
require?

The worry is that those measures seem to have proved insufficient in
the past. There are several reasons: the cleansing and inspection
regimes don't seem to be perfectly effective; and even if you are
skilled enough to notice something amiss and responsible enough to
report it, some of the things we may be at risk from are microscopic,
or may evolve once here (this isn't me speculating).

Do you have a link to the RHS paper you mentioned?

Good question. No. I'll look for it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you're
staying up later than I am, key words are Professor Brasier,
mycologist, RHS, Forest Research, Imperial College, Science Exchange,
Reading University, DEFRA -- perm any or all! I don't know the date,
but 23 or 24 November '05 seem likely. Please post a link if you get
there first.

--
Mike.

This is the article:-
http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Rupert wrote:
"Mike Lyle"
[...]
Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor,
increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced
against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


If we banned the international movement of all living creatures
and
the trade in fruit and veg etc etc then you might make a more
sanitary
environment (boringly sterile)

I was actually raising a serious question, in the hope of serious
discussion. The RHS shares my concern, and a paper on the subject
was
presented at a conference at Reading University last week.

--
Mike.


My answer was quite serious.

You mean "serious", as in "banning...the trade in fruit and veg"?

The plant in question is coming from the USA and can't be moved
without a phytosanitation certificate issued over there. Once the
thing arrives it will not be shifted until DEFRA have physically
inspected and certified it. Finally it's up to me to report
anything
I notice amiss. you want How much more safety do you think we
require?

The worry is that those measures seem to have proved insufficient in
the past. There are several reasons: the cleansing and inspection
regimes don't seem to be perfectly effective; and even if you are
skilled enough to notice something amiss and responsible enough to
report it, some of the things we may be at risk from are microscopic,
or may evolve once here (this isn't me speculating).

Do you have a link to the RHS paper you mentioned?

Good question. No. I'll look for it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you're
staying up later than I am, key words are Professor Brasier,
mycologist, RHS, Forest Research, Imperial College, Science Exchange,
Reading University, DEFRA -- perm any or all! I don't know the date,
but 23 or 24 November '05 seem likely. Please post a link if you get
there first.

--
Mike.


Ok Mike I have now read all (I think) of the articles you mentioned along
with contributions from other speakers.
I can't see how you can say:-
"The RHS shares my concern"
The RHS have merely given a forum for a debate on a topic of interest to
everyone.
I see no mention of the RHS supporting a particular view, which is the way
it should be.

Have I missed something or some quote from them ?

In article , Ian
Keeling writes
Nick Maclaren wrote:
Private imports of meat were limited to 100 grams that had
to be vacuum packed.
No limits were placed on the commercial importation of meat
from ANY country, or its resale.
No attempt was made to control the feeding of ruminant protein
to ruminants (which cased the trouble) or control the feedstock
industry.
Sheep and cattle had to be slaughtered for meat at a stage
when they would rarely show the overt symptoms of the disease.
I predict that any restrictions on the import of plants would be
similar in their scientific basis.

Ah, yes, the clever trick, if you can get away with it, is to make the
public think^H^H^H^H^Hfeel that something is being done in their
interests.

But what is being ignored is that the "market" is not itself sufficient
to sort out problems.

OK, so politicians etc might not be very good at it - but without rules,
many "enterprises" that sniff a profit will go hell for leather and damn
the effects (if they think they can get away with it).

I accept that in addition to good rules, there has to be effective
implementation. However, just because governments tend not to do that
very well is not necessarily a reason to do nothing.

--
regards andyw

Janet Baraclough wrote:
??
The feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants was banned in 1988.
Ruminant offal was banned in pig and poultry feed in 1990.
All ruminant material was banned in all stock feeds from 1996.
All animal protein was banned in all feed to food-animals in 2001.

Again - picked up at random off the website below taking the
accreditation and copyright. Janet you must stop surfing like this.
You've past the age. If you want to have a conversation and not butt in
at random with *your* facts and *your* knowledge* in others discussion,
just start your own thread.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Ag...animal-welfare

"Richard Brooks" wrote in message
...
middleton.walker wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

Mike Roscoe wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in a message:.

I am about to import a plant from the USA and have sorted shipping
etc. Any help much appreciated
---

Well done you Rupert! Since 7/11, my son who lives in the USA has

not

been allowed to send any plant material to me here in the UK.
However, he IS allowed to send me seeds, the envelopes containing
them have been sometimes opened and inspected during transit.

Broadening the discussion, I wonder if it's time to stop the
importation of plants altogether. Is the, perhaps minor, increased
risk of introducing pests and diseases worth it, balanced against
any, perhaps modest, benefit?

--
Mike.


Where would Britain be today in regards to its supply of plants had
your
forefathers not explored the world and returned with what are considered
today as being plant treasures....where would any country be.......H

There'd maybe be a few more Elms, much less Russian vine ?



Richard.
.......and don't even mention knotweed!!
Ann H

In article ,
"Ann Heanes" writes:
|
| Where would Britain be today in regards to its supply of plants had
| your
| forefathers not explored the world and returned with what are considered
| today as being plant treasures....where would any country be.......H
|
| There'd maybe be a few more Elms, much less Russian vine ?

No. The recent outbreak of Dutch elm disease was from timber
with bark on, not plants. Nobody knows what the cause of the
similar decline in paleo/meso/neo-lithic times was.

| ......and don't even mention knotweed!!

Why knot?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

michael adams wrote:
correction:subsitute "Brasier" for 2 instances of "Brewer"*

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

(I hope you're using QuoteFix or something: my "interleaved" reply
may otherwise be a bit inconvenient to follow.)

I'm not one to fly into mindless conniptions about
sudden oak death,[...etc...]

I meant that.

as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."

That's a very strange claim to make, IMO.

a) Why should anyone want to move large numbers of animals around
the world anyway ?

Well, people do. E.g., live exports of lamb to the Middle East. I may
be wrong, but I believe some of these come from as far afield as NZ.

The main reasons why large numbers of animals aren't moved around
the
world is surely because of economics, practicality, and lack of
demand. Certainly since the decline in zoos and circuses in Europe.
So -

b) Which particular species and breeds of animals is Professor
Brasier
suggesting are prevented from being moved around the world in large
numbers for disease reasons?

To the best of my inexpert knowledge, _all_ species are subject to
strict import controls in _all_ developed nations with maritime
frontiers. In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


It's maybe worth bearing in mind that Professor Brewer*'s
livelihood
depends,
among other things on convincing people of all these dangers. As
professionals
like himself are uniquely positioned to adjudicate on such matters
should the need ever arise.

Well, yes, to a point. I doubt if many microbiologists' livelihoods
depend significantly on scaring people unnecessarily: that's
generally the province of the more irresponsible journalists. I think
once again of MRSA and MMR.

...


Brasier, as I mentioned in another post, has just presented a
paper
on the subject at a DEFRA-backed RHS conference. He may be wrong;
but
that doesn't make the issue trivial, or liable to summary
dismissal
by minor verbal debating points.

...

And so presumably in the interests of seriousness, and as an
antidote
to triviality it's thought preferable to make oblique references to
" a paper", and cite vague Appeals to Authority by means of
mentions
of Professor Brasier, DEFRA, and the RHS, than it is to actually
provide
a link to the talk in question ? To wit -

http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=48617

That isn't the original, but only the _Independent_ article. See
below.


Maybe Professor Brewer *, who you appear to find yourself in
agreement
with, made a "minor verbal debating point" there himself, in the
paper
he gave to the DEFRA backed RHS conference, with his reference
there
to our "not moving large numbers of animals around the world for
disease reasons" ?

See comment above: I imagine you now see that comparison between the
biosecurity regimes applying respectively to animals and plants is
perfectly legitimate. You don't have to agree with any particular
conclusion, but the comparison is legitimate.
[...]

I'm surprised and a little disappointed by what I take to be your
tone here. I asked a question, at the same time making it explicit
that I didn't know the answer. I used the expressions "I wonder if"
and "perhaps minor risk". I didn't refer to the _Independent_
article, because newspaper pieces, even from "broadsheets", aren't
first-hand evidence. I didn't have a reference to the original paper,
and I still haven't found one. Here, though, from long before the
conference, is a brief summary of his own and Brasier's positions
from the Master of Katz Cambridge in the RHS's _Plantsman_:
http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publi...05/opinion.asp

_The Plantsman_ has never struck me as a particularly hysterical
periodical.

--
Mike.

Rupert wrote:
[...]
Ok Mike I have now read all (I think) of the articles you mentioned
along with contributions from other speakers.
I can't see how you can say:-
"The RHS shares my concern"
The RHS have merely given a forum for a debate on a topic of
interest
to everyone.
I see no mention of the RHS supporting a particular view, which is
the way it should be.

Have I missed something or some quote from them ?

They saw fit to give space to Ingram's views in _The Plantsman_. They
may not agree, but that shows they take the matter seriously; as I
said in my reply to Michael Adams, I'm at the stage of "wondering
if", and it's clear that the RHS shares at least that level of
concern. And, for what it's worth, without naming a source or giving
a reference, the _Independent_ article did say "His views are backed
by the Royal Horticultural Society, which fears another epidemic..."

--
Mike.