On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:02:36 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

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

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".

In fact, you have read nothing but.

"Developing genetically modified varieties

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work and additional regulatory
requirements.

There is a common misunderstanding that genetic engineering
reduces development time. This misunderstanding is based
on the assumption that the seed developer has achieved the
goal as soon as they know the gene and can deliver it into
the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to
eliminate undesirable traits.

However, after fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic
modification can increase development time. The necessary
laboratory work is complementary to not a substitute for
field breeding work.

The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development."

(Quoted from: Novartis Australasia's response the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries
and Regional Services' invitation for submissions to the
Inquiry into Primary Producer Access to Gene Technology)