15-06-2008 00:34

What a lot of bosh from Simon Grose. The article relies heavily on putting others down without recourse to substance, and the  
use of emotive words. He has only 3 arguments in the whole article that can be considered as having any substance and all 3  
of these are fatally flawed. Read on .. 
 
"unfairly impugns the integrity and professionalism of the regulators" - so anyone with differing points of view to the regulators are not just people with differing points of view, they are amoral as well! Well said Simon. Good on you for casting aspersions on people's characters merely because they have an opinion. 
 
"Seed companies will only stay in business if their crops are safe to grow and eat." This statement supports the idea that it's  
perfectly acceptable for people in any numbers to get sick or die from consuming GM crops as a seed company responsible for such crimes wouldn't stay in business. Those in the population who were fortunate enough not to eat the contaminated products could happily eat products from other companies whose products had not as yet caused illness or death. Excellent thinking yet again! Survival of the fittest by business attrition and luck. 
 
"implies that Australia's public scientific resources should be saddled with the job of doing the seed companies' work for them." Let's strip the word "saddled" out of the sentence, an emotive word used to reinforce a point of view not through substance but bias. Yes, it is the job of our public scientific resources to ascertain the safety of food and food products. Surely Simon couldn't be saying that we should rely on the producer of foods for safety information?! 
 
Pathetic reasoning, pathetic article.

Guest