In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:
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?

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.

This is the UK. If you encourage the government to impose more
bureaucracy and restrictions on the hoi polloi in the name of
safety, they will. The changes will, of course, no nothing to
increase safety, and may even do the converse.

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:

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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.

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