Lloyd Spear wrote:
>This discussion is interesting, but it seems to me that both sides might be
>selecting words, phrases, and even science to support their prejudices.
>
>Now that some field tests have been completed it might be worthwhile to have
>a presentation at one of the major meetings of beekeepers.  I wonder if the
>ABF people might be interested in doing so at their January 2001 meeting?
>Perhaps such a presentation, as well as a question and answer opportunity,
>might clear up the use of terms such as "practically non-toxic" and "the
>NOEL is greater than 20 ppm".

        That's a very hard-headed attitude, Lloyd  -  just as long as you
apply it consistently, it will serve you well.  Just remember that those
who have invested billions in GM are more likely to be prejudiced than,
say, Ivy League academics trying to get tenure and subjected to the most
stringent scientific standards.
        The suggestion of scientist speakers for the Jan mtg is very good.
An obvious choice would be Margaret Mellon PhD JD, chief of the Union of
Concerned Scientists work on GM.  Also you might invite Dr John Losey,
asst. prof. at Cornell, the leader of the team that published the monarch
results in _Nature_.  And then of course there's Prof. Patrick Brown of UC
Davis, whose general criticisms of current GM crops I've previously
recommended.
        You could also consider a global star, Prof D T Suzuki of UBC  -
one of the most prominent of GM critics.

R


-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949