Re: US firms 'tried to lie' over GM crops, says EU

"Bruce Sinclair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Webster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >>
> >> .. tho some had theorised that it was possible. Perhaps ..... "the
> >> atom is currently the smallest thing known" would have been closer ?
> >> Seems to me that anyone teaching science ought to say "this is the
> >> current theory" and/or "we currently believe this to be true".
> >> Uncertainty should be part of science from the start.
> >
> >Cling to the uncertainty should be part of science.
>
> Uncertainty has alwyas been a part of science ... done properly. If a
> scientist ever tells you "this is how it is" they obviously don't know
> what they are talking about (or they are talking to a reporter ... or
> both :) ).

So you would regard anyone asking for GM crops to be proved to be safe, or
conventional crops proved to be safe as being mendacious as they should know
that this cannot be achieved?

>
> >What was it you said about GM v Conventional crops?
>
> Basically that the uncertainty is being ignored by those that want to
> sell it ? Something like that. At least, that's what I was trying to
> say ... inject a little healthy doubt into the "this is how it is"
> statements :)

but I would suggest that no one in agriculture has anything but healthy
doubts about ANY new crop or crop variety.

Jim Webster