"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
posted:

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you
don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green
propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the
US
farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities
are
very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if
there
is a bias it would be ageist private breeders.

Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on
the
benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They
should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and
use
of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment.

I agree, but must say that I've heard of lots of advantages of GM,
often from the greenies saying that it is false

The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the
green
lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they
claim to be protecting.

I understand that the US public were reasonably accepting of the
technology until, the European "Frankenfoods" scare campaign came to
town.

The US public is still accepting them with no real problem. In the greenest
part of the country a vote on and anti GM law lost 3 to 1. We have some
problem with green terrorists but we have been having that for a long time
they just added crops to their list of targets. The hit conventional crops
more often than GM crops but that doesn't seem to matter to them.

They do have a very secure organization. The government or law enforcement
hasn't been able to penetrate them to any degree at all.

Gordon