"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:51:35 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

In message m, Tim
Challenger d writes
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQ
MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/1
6/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed
in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Monsanto had it coming. They were far too arrogant and tried to force
their GM produce down everyone's throats.

It was the case involving a (I think) Canadian farmer who was prossecuted
for "growing" Monsanto seeds (Roundup Ready oilseed rape/canola) on his
land that really did it for me. Despite the fact that they were blown
there
from neighbouring fields. He hadn't paid the growing licence, and so was
fined (a hefty whack, iirc). There were a few, er, inconsistencies,

(such as 90% of the crop was GM you mean? (according to a BBC news article)
I'm sure if you have kids, you'll always believe the one that says first 'he
did it not me'.

and I
suspect the farmer wasn't totally blame-free.

You mean, he planted it himself?

Still, since then, Monsanto's
been a dirty work for me. It sums up the arrogant, bullying tactics of the
huge multinational corporations in general.

Which is what? That large corporations dont have any right to their own
products and should ignore anyone who steals from them?
It does however say something about the efficacy of the GM crop if the
farmer wanted to steal the seeds.


Tw