Hi all
I am beginning to agree that this is leading nowhere. I already showed that lab tests can demonstrate toxic effects with a wide range of substances, including CO2, but this does not necessarily translate into *observable* or *demonstrable* effects in the field. Conversely, the lack of reports (other than dust from careless seed drilling) makes a very compelling case for the lack of harm.

An example of this is the wide range of food additives that are classed as GRAS, or generally recognized as safe. Many of these have been shown to be carcinogens in lab studies, but we aren't going to ban them, because the are *generally recognized as safe*! GMOs also appear safe despite the fears and phobias of millions of people. 

So now, the burden of proof rests on those who wish to claim harm. If there is NO PROOF that someone has been harmed by a ubiquitous product (other than psychological harm done to those people who find out that they are eating food with strange DNA in it), then you have a very weak case. It is not up to the rest of us to wage war with phantoms.

Pete

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html