I'm talking about consumer *appeal* -- perceptions -- not toxicological
evidence. There is abundant marketplace evidence that consumers simply do
not want GM foods. If you want to force them to eat their GM spinach, good
luck to you.
>
> >
> > > Perhaps you could explain to me how transfer of GM modified traits
>to
> > >the
> > >wild could be uncontainable?
> >
> > Yikes, the uncontainable ecological damage caused by *natural*,
>non-native
> > invasive species is bad enough. See the ample literature on gypsy
>moths,
> > kudzu, leafy spurge, melaleuca, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, and
>on
> > and on. Who knows what havoc a GM superweed might cause?
> >
>
>So your explanation is to cite irrelevant facts. The only GM superweeds I
>am
>aware of are fairly easily contained. I have explained why they are
>unlikely to
>be a huge problem but you do not anwer.
I don't like the proximity of the word "unlikely" to the words "huge problem." I'm looking for a categorical guarantee that there will be *no problem at all* arising from GM technology.
> > Ah, Mick Hume & Co. Always good for a laugh. But if it's facts you
>want,
> > see below:
> >
> If you think Mick Hume and Co are funny than James Heartfiled's
>Socialism of
>Fools will really crack you up:
>http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM119/LM119_JH.html
Yes, I had many droll moments with Heartfield on this very subject here on the list last year. He sort of slunk away after a while.
Carl ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com