On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:18:10 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:21:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:05:01 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:50:09 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:24:03 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news:kcjjkv07vra4pcqmcpr69fjqi67cp0vtcq@4ax. com...
So you agree with Novartis, that genetically modified varieties
generally take more time to develop than conventionally bred
varieties, due to additional research and development work?

No, the added time is due to red tape.

So, are you saying Novartis lied in their response to the Committee
when they said there is additional research and development work
with new genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally
bred varieties?

No, that you are wrong when you posted:

Well, it's what Novartis said to the committee, as regards the
relation generally between the development time for new GM varieties
and new conventionally bred varieties. What exactly do you think is
wrong with it?

No example. You claimed it, please supply an example, or admit that
you were just parrotting some unsubstantiated company blurb.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Novartis was making this
general judgement in its testimony to the Committee. And, the
judgement is on matters clearly within Novartis field of experience
and expertise. In that situation I need to come up with no stinkin'
example to seemingly support a Novartis general judgement :-) Because,
I am making a case based on a valid appeal to authority.

So, again, do you have reasons to think Novartis lied to
the Committee _?_

I've not read anything about Novartis and their "testimony".

You stated that GM was slower than conventional development of desired
plant characteristics, and I asked you for an example.
In vain, I suspect.

If you can quote Novartis saying this convincingly....