On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message Where are some other honest comparison photos?

I have never seen photos of comparing cotton that is just coming
comparing up with RR and conventional. The latest research I know
of shows RR varieties costing a few pounds of lint and BT
varieties adding about twice what RR costs. In my moisture limited
conditions in south west Oklahoma no one can see the difference.
[...]

I doubt that a set of photos on the internet exists that compares those
conditions.

Now I see why:

From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document

No excuse in law. A business man who signs something without reading
it is doomed to bankruptcy.

-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

So? When you buy or use most software, you "sign" an agreement.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. You keep assuming that anyone is
forced to buy.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.

With another person's technology. Fair enough. If you want to give
your property away, you are free to do so.

This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission.

Fair enough. It is their property. If you want to do that, experiment
on your own property. You are not allowed to modify software you use,
either.

Friendly university scientists

Weighted emotive language noted.

with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research

As with Ford or GM products, and technology.

-- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.

They can make their own. If these "friendly" scientists make
fraudulent claims, they will be shown up by their peers.

The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees.

Of course. This is common in tort law.

Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee.

If the agreement they signed freely, coz they wanted the Monsanto
product, says this, then that is perfectly justified. If they don't
like it, don't buy it in the first place.

This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court.

This is contract law here, not tort law.

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

Perhaps only if you publish, if that's what the contract says. The
contact does not have to be fair, BTW.