In article <b$gNBKANdfv2EwJy at wildflwr.freeserve.co.uk>, David Brear
<dbrear at wharfe.demon.co.uk> writes
>I am personally against GM crops but it seems that on this simple basis at
>least, the new tech may be helpful.
New technology almost always has something to offer both recreational
and commercial growers. It also almost always has a flip side. When new
technology has been researched and tested, designed and manufactured,
the new product will be marketed by people who have put a whole lot of
time, effort, skill and finance into it. They will be fully aware of
all the pros and cons, but it will not be in their commercial interest
to draw any more attention to the flip side than they are obliged to.
In the matter of genetic modification the promoters of the project do
not seem to even be putting over much of a case for its beneficial
effects. Up to now most of the case against seems to be more emotive
than informed. What does seem to be emerging is that very large scale
interests are at work. World scale food programmes inevitably involve
world scale economics and politics. BSE was a good pointer to that.
We may be able to retain an option whether or not to eat GM food, or use
GM seeds, plants etc. in our gardens, but how much option will we have
about the wider effects of GM on our lives?
Alan Gould: <alan at agolincs.demon.co.uk>