Import of plant from USA
 

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

Import of plant from USA
 

I suspect that you would be best to get a broker, as the rules etc may
be quite complicated for the layman, but easy to understand and deal
with by someone experienced.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.

Mike Roscoe

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.

Well having explored this import a little further with DEFRA and the
American supplier I can assure you that the certifications and inspections
at both ends of the supply chain are very rigorous.
Let's hope foreign travel isn't subject to such rules-it might prevent the
spread of nastiness.

Import of plant from USA
 

"Mike Roscoe" wrote in message
...

"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.

Mike Roscoe

I think he can send you plant material if he gets the right bits of paper
but that will cost around 100 pounds (roughly 50 USA 50UK). Surprised that
he is allowed to send seeds without some kind of certification.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.


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)

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

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.



As a matter of interest which particular types of plants and
pests did you have in mind ?

Surely most economically beneficial and or horticulturally
interesting plants will have already been imported by now.

In addition, presumably both plants and pests need suitable climatic
conditions to survive unaided. So this limits concern to plants and
pests originating in temperate zones similar to our own.

Whereas if it was case of importing exotic plants and accompanying
pests from Borneo then the remedy would simply be to turn the greenhouse
heating off in winter.

Much plant material including fungi, migrate naturally along with other
forms of wild life, birds, insects, in any case without any help or
hindrance from the human race. Regulations or no regulations.


michael adams

Import of plant from USA
 

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

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.



As a matter of interest which particular types of plants and
pests did you have in mind ?

Surely most economically beneficial and or horticulturally
interesting plants will have already been imported by now.

I think that would be part of my point, if I'd reached the stage of
having a clear point. I said I was wondering: I wasn't preaching. The
plants we now import _are_ generally horticulturally interesting
rather than economically beneficial, and, by Heaven, we import an
awful lot of them. Almost anything we actually need, economically or
scientifically, can come in as seed or tissue cultures: the problem
is likely to be what comes in with growing plants. The quarantine
provisions for these are insecure.

In addition, presumably both plants and pests need suitable
climatic
conditions to survive unaided. So this limits concern to plants and
pests originating in temperate zones similar to our own.

And, of course and inevitably, those are the regions from which most
of our imports come. Call that a limit if you like, and I couldn't
argue; but it's a very wide limit.

Whereas if it was case of importing exotic plants and accompanying
pests from Borneo then the remedy would simply be to turn the
greenhouse heating off in winter.

Much plant material including fungi, migrate naturally along with
other forms of wild life, birds, insects, in any case without any
help or hindrance from the human race. Regulations or no
regulations.

Well, that's all obvious. But the fewer the imports, the fewer, and
the smaller in number, the accompanying species: that's reasonably
obvious, too. 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."

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.

--
Mike.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.
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?

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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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 ?

Import of plant from USA
 

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

Import of plant from USA
 

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

Import of plant from USA
 

"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

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

Nick Maclaren wrote:
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.

I have heard, sometimes last year, that they have recently found, 60
years later, a disease coming from the wood which made the american's
soldiers canteen box? This is apparently keeling many trees in Provence
- and spreading.

Import of plant from USA
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
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.

....

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

....


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.

....

i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er.....

The real irony being of course that if only the Native Americans
had applied similar restrictions to the European immigrants
and their accompanying plagues.....to which the latter had developed
resistance as a result of their proximity to domestic animals..
then the history might have been rather different.

In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the
rest of the world but not the other way around.

....


In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


....

AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one
go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity.

In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine
restrictions.



The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it isn't.

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally irellevant.

Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was the only
factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals around the world,
when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on everything else he has to say.

....


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.

....

Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists. And equally
scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird
flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas
this winter instead.

Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big
an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think
of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines
aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the oceans
of the world.

Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any radioactive
material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's now convinced
we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D cards.

Joined-up government at last!

....




...


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.
[...]

....

Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a purely
technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which awaits the
planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible invasion
of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

....



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.


....

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more extreme weather
· Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in next decade

/quote


michael adams





--
Mike.

Import of plant from USA
 

michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
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.

...

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed
importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

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.

When Brasier said "we", I assume he meant the United Kingdom in
particular, as he was addressing a British audience.

...
[...]
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.

i.e The UK, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and er.....

....and, er...almost all the others. I imagine similar regimes are
also in force in Switzerland and the landlocked Danube countries.

[...]

In other words its o.k for Eupropeans to lay waste to much of the
rest of the world but not the other way around.

Eh?


In the case of species thought likely to carry rabies, for
example, these measures can be positively draconian.


...

AFAIAA one has attempted to import large numbers of dogs all in one
go as most breeds of dogs are easily bred in captivity.

In the case of rabies, individual dogs are subject to quarantine
restrictions.

Er, yes, that _is_ what I had in mind.


The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant
imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it
isn't.

Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the
movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally
irellevant.

It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.


Furthermore the fact that Professor Brasier implied that this was
the
only factor preventing the movement of large numbers of animals
around the world, when in fact it plainly isn't casts doubt on
everything else he has to say.

I fail to grasp your reasoning here.

[...]

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.

...

Nobody forces microbiologists to talk to journalists.

Unless they want to promote a public debate. And this one appears to
have chosen his journalist with some care.

And equally
scare stories are a staple of the media. Whatever hapened to bird
flu all of a sudden, now that we're all going to run out of gas
this winter instead.

Scare stories are not, as far as I know, a staple of _The Plantsman_;
or, to be fair, of _the Independent_. We can talk about avian flu and
the gas-men's strike in another thread, if you like.


Politicians,as well as microbiologists and the media have as big
an interest in scaring people unecessarily. Unless you can think
of a better reason why the U.K still needs Polaris submarines
aremed with Trident missiles on 24 hr standbye,patrollong the
oceans
of the world.

Oh sorry! Those are to prevent terrorists from stealing any
radioactive material from all these Nuclear Power Stations, Tony's
now convinced
we're going to need all of a sudden. Hence the need for the I.D
cards.

Joined-up government at last!

Yes, nuclear weapons are stupid, and ID cards a waste of effort in
the prevention of terrorism. I can't join that up with biosecurity,
though.


[...]

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.
[...]

...

Not really no. Compared with the potential catastrophe ( in a
purely
technical rather than judgemental sense you understand )which
awaits
the planet within the next 100 years I find worries about possible
invasion
of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much
moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.

[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp

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

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more
extreme
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

--
Mike.

Import of plant from USA
 

random snippage throughout

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
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.

...

So in this case of the Middle East, these people are indeed
importing
large numbers of live animals for the purposes of halal slaughter,
despite Professor Brasiers concerns about disease.

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.

It would obviously be more economic for them to import frozen carcasses
which had been slaughtered at source by non-Halal methods.

Which is why it's a particularly misleading example. Either way.

As without the trade in frozen carcasses, the Australian and New Zealand
meat trade probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

....


The actual point being, either it's necessary to restrict plant
imports
for sound scientific reasons based on the likely consequences or it
isn't.

Er, yes, again. That was what we were discussing.

....

So why was it necessary for Professot Brasier to mention the export of
animals at all ?

....

The fact that it also may or may not be done in respect of the
movement
of "large numbers of animals around the world" is totally
irellevant.

It was what I understand is known as an "analogy". It also shows that
such controls are possible.

....

There is no analogy, because the reasons why people don't move
large numbers of animals around the world has nothing to do with
their deciding against doing so for reasons of disease control.

And so the purported analogy is totaly misleading.

Muslims in the Middle East are more than happy to import large
numbers of live sheep, regardless of any health issues, because
they have specific religious requirements.

Until such time as people are prohibited from importing herds of
cattle or whatever into the U.K - and accept such a prohibition
without protest, we have no way of knowing whether such controls
are possible or not. Insofar as Britains "draconian" rabies
regulations are concerned

/quote

http://www.time.com/time/europe/maga...0313/pets.html

For those who campaigned to change what former Hong Kong Governor
Chris Patten called preposterous rules, Feb. 28 was a historic day.
It was particularly satisfying for Lady Fretwell, the wife of Britain's
former ambassador to Paris, who since 1996 has spearheaded the Passports
for Pets campaign. Her cause was given a poignant boost in its first year,
when two dogs died in quarantine and their high-profile owners made a fuss

quote

Maybe if Chris Patten or Lady Fretwell got into livestock dealing
in a big way there's no telling what could happen.

....

of these scepted isles by further hordes of lily beetles, elm bark
beetles, grey squirrels, cane toads or whatever to be so much
moving
the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Ah, well. If we're looking at the broad canvas, curing cancer and the
prevention of Altzheimer's disease don't really matter much, either.

....

Since when has anyone ever died from an infestation of lilly beetles
or cane toads ?

The conditions you cited inflict real distress and actual suffering.

....


[...]http://www.rhs.org.uk/learning/publications/plantsman/0305/opini
on.asp

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

Hysteria? Let's just hope Polar Bears are poor swimmers.

Don't even bother to entertain that hope: they seem to swim faster
than I can run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...654803,00.html

quote

Alarm over dramatic weakening of Gulf Stream

· Slowing of current by a third in 12 years could bring more
extreme
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

....

Killer fungi.

Indeed.


michael adams

....






--
Mike.

Import of plant from USA
 

In article , "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

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.

Has anyone read "Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience",
by David I Theodoropoulos? I haven't myself but it seems to have
bearing on this debate. You can see details at
http://www.jlhudsonseeds.net/Books.htm
along with a few other, well, er, offbeat books.

J.L.Hudsons also appear to be a source of Gibberellic acid in small
quantities, though what happens when it comes through UK customs
I have no idea.

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

[...]
weather · Temperatures in Britain likely to drop by one degree in
next decade

/quote

Well, yes. But it's hardly a reason for not discussing something
else.

...

Killer fungi.

Indeed.


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.

Import of plant from USA
 

snip


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.

Be far better to ban the importation of undesirable homo sapiens

Import of plant from USA
 

"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.

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.

....


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



michael adams

Import of plant from USA
 

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.

Import of plant from USA
 

Janet Baraclough wrote:
My son is a rural vet

(snip)

I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.