biotech & famine
 

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


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

biotech & famine
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:03:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:31:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

[quoting:]
Saving the Potato

Agweb.com
August 21, 2003
by Dean Kleckner
..
Without biotechnology, we may not ever breed a potato that isn't
vulnerable to fungal epidemics, triggering the starvation that killed
millions of people in the past.

Bwahahahaha.

POTATO OFFERS RESISTANCE TO LATE BLIGHT DISEASE
Agnet Dec 17, December 17, 1998 USDA - ARS News Service Aberdeen,
Idaho.

A new potato with resistance to the world's worst potato disease is
now available to plant breeders. "This potato is highly resistant to
attack by late blight, the disease that caused the Irish POTATO famine
of the 1840s," said plant pathologist Dennis L. Corsini with the
Agricultural Research Service in Aberdeen, Idaho. He and colleagues at
Aberdeen and at Prosser, Wash., developed the new spud, known as
AWN86514-2. .. The new potato's parents are a french-fry variety -
Ranger Russet, developed by Pavek - and a potato selected from
Poland's POTATO breeding institute. ARS released the new potato in
collaboration with the agricultural experiment stations of Oregon,
Idaho and Washington.

How do you get the resistance into other varieties?

How did you get into AWN86514-2, you think? However, how about
dealing with that stupid op-ed piece you posted first? It bloody
claimed that "without biotechnology, we may not ever breed a potato
that isn't vulnerable [to late blight]"

While conventional breeders have already bred potatoes with high
late blight resistance for years!

Research - ARS - Dennis L. Corsini and Joseph Pavek
USDA University of Idaho, R&E Center Aberdeen, ID 83210

.. We are devoting a great deal of our resources to late blight
resistance and have identified two selections that have high levels of
foliar and tuber blight resistance that will reduce the need for
applying fungicides weekly during the growing season. The first,
AWN86514-2, has been released as late blight resistant germplasm for
breeders. The other, A90586-11, has high yields with tuber type and
quality suited for french-fry processing, and we are continuing seed
multiplication and testing of it. .. We are [also] testing
transgenic Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet developed by public
programs for blackspot and virus resistance, and transgenic Lenape for
reduced glycoalkaloids. We have seen positive results for the
blackspot resistance and reduced glycoalkaloid traits, however plant
and tuber abnormalities are major problems with this material. snip

biotech & famine
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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.

So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation
between the development time for new GM varieties and new
conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research
and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis
in fact do not spend time doing?

You must be desperate resorting to dishonest snipping.
My full response to your "So you agree with Novartis..." paragraph
above was:

"No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than
conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz
you haven't given us an example of this."

Your dishonest twisting is noted, along with your continued inability
to exemplify your original contention that GM development of plant
characteristics is slower than conventional.

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:02:31 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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.

So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation
between the development time for new GM varieties and new
conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research
and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis
in fact do not spend time doing?

You must be desperate resorting to dishonest snipping.

Well, you are desperately not dealing with the question at hand.
Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

My full response to your "So you agree with Novartis..." paragraph
above was:

"No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than
conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz
you haven't given us an example of this."

Your dishonest twisting is noted, along with your continued inability
to exemplify your original contention that GM development of plant
characteristics is slower than conventional.

If you have an axe to grind in relation to something you think I've
said, you must -quote- me.

biotech & famine
 

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
. ..
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:


"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

No example, you see.

biotech & famine
 

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
...
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?


"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

No example, you see.

biotech & famine
 

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
. ..
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:


"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

No example, you see.

biotech & famine
 

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
...
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?


"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

No example, you see.

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

BT and RR cotton, beans and corn took how long by conventional breeding?

Gordon

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:53:14 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

BT and RR cotton, beans and corn took how long by conventional breeding?

Come, it is a simple question. Novartis would be in the position to
know whether or not there is additional research and development work
with genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally
bred varieties. Right?

And, Novartis told the Australian Committee that there is additional
research and development work with genetically modified varieties.

So, either you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee. ---Which is it?---

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:35:21 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:02:31 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:49:00 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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.

So, you think Novartis lied to the committee about the relation
between the development time for new GM varieties and new
conventionally bred varieties, by postulating additional research
and development work for GM varieties, work which Novartis
in fact do not spend time doing?

You must be desperate resorting to dishonest snipping.

Well, you are desperately not dealing with the question at hand.

Which is to ask you for examples of your claim in your post:

"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

What has Novartis got to do with it?

My full response to your "So you agree with Novartis..." paragraph
above was:

"No. Read what I wrote. I disagree with you that GM takes longer than
conventional to get a particular characteristic in a plant. Mainly coz
you haven't given us an example of this."

Your dishonest twisting is noted, along with your continued inability
to exemplify your original contention that GM development of plant
characteristics is slower than conventional.

If you have an axe to grind in relation to something you think I've
said, you must -quote- me.

I have. See above.

biotech & famine
 

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
m...
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.

"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."

No example, you see.

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:47:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:53:14 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

BT and RR cotton, beans and corn took how long by conventional breeding?

Come, it is a simple question. Novartis would be in the position to
know whether or not there is additional research and development work
with genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally
bred varieties. Right?

Not what you originally claimed. You claimed that it was a myth that
GM was faster than conventional breeding methods. We are still waiting
for an example.

And, Novartis told the Australian Committee that there is additional
research and development work with genetically modified varieties.

So why did YOU claim that GM was slower than conventional methods?

So, either you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee. ---Which is it?---

No, YOU wrote:

"On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: 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.

Fact: 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.

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."


So where's your example of this to show that it is true?
Remember you are claiming that "GM is faster" is a myth.

biotech & famine
 

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
om...
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 _?_

biotech & famine
 

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....

biotech & famine
 

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)

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:19:59 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

No, in your original post, which I've pasted several times here, where
you claimed GM production of new plant characteristics was slower than
conventional methods, made no mention of Novartis.
It appeared to be your opinion. There was no attribution.

"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)

And you didn't attribute this source?

Can you give us the URL so we can check precisely what Novartis
claimed? I wonder if they gave an example.
I wonder what point they were trying to make.
I wonder why anyone persists with slow old GM techniques.

biotech & famine
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:35:54 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:19:59 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

No, in your original post, which I've pasted several times here, where
you claimed GM production of new plant characteristics was slower than
conventional methods, made no mention of Novartis.
It appeared to be your opinion. There was no attribution.

Right. However, I backed that opinion up pronto, as soon as it was
challenged, making an appeal to authority by noting that I
had written nothing but almost verbatim the same as Novartis
had said in its response to the Committee, regarding the
development time of genetically modified varieties.

"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)

And you didn't attribute this source?

You mean when I expressed this as my opinion, I didn't attribute
it to Novartis? Why should I? I attributed the above as the
authorative basis for my opinion, as soon as it was challenged.
What more can you ask.

Can you give us the URL so we can check precisely what Novartis
claimed? snip

Certainly.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...nq/sub26-e.pdf

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:35:54 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:19:59 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

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.

No, in your original post, which I've pasted several times here, where
you claimed GM production of new plant characteristics was slower than
conventional methods, made no mention of Novartis.
It appeared to be your opinion. There was no attribution.

Right. However, I backed that opinion up pronto, as soon as it was
challenged, making an appeal to authority by noting that I
had written nothing but almost verbatim the same as Novartis
had said in its response to the Committee, regarding the
development time of genetically modified varieties.

"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)

And you didn't attribute this source?

You mean when I expressed this as my opinion, I didn't attribute
it to Novartis? Why should I? I attributed the above as the
authorative basis for my opinion, as soon as it was challenged.
What more can you ask.

Can you give us the URL so we can check precisely what Novartis
claimed? snip

Certainly.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...nq/sub26-e.pdf

Please show me how to obtain Round Up resistance, or BT proteins in a crop
with conventional breeding methods. GM methods are infinitely faster then
conventional methods for introducing many genes not already in the seed
stock.

Gordon

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:53:14 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
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?

BT and RR cotton, beans and corn took how long by conventional breeding?

Come, it is a simple question. Novartis would be in the position to
know whether or not there is additional research and development work
with genetically modified varieties compared to new conventionally
bred varieties. Right?

And, Novartis told the Australian Committee that there is additional
research and development work with genetically modified varieties.

So, either you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee. ---Which is it?---

When you show me a round up ready field crop developed with conventional
breeding we can see which is faster.

Gordon

biotech & famine
 

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."

Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

What has Novartis got to do with it?

I generally just lurk here, but cannot resist. Torsten knows, because I
sent him email, that Novartis can have nothing to do with this. The
reason is that Novartis is not, and never has been, in the agro
business. When Novartis was formed by the fusion of Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy they spun off their agro divisions as a new firm, Syngenta.

biotech & famine
 

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:07:11 +0200, Tom Bickle
wrote:

I generally just lurk here, but cannot resist. Torsten knows, because I
sent him email, that Novartis can have nothing to do with this. The
reason is that Novartis is not, and never has been, in the agro
business. When Novartis was formed by the fusion of Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy they spun off their agro divisions as a new firm, Syngenta.

Novartis was formed in 1996, by fusion of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, as
you say. Syngenta was spun off 4 years later, in 2000, combining the
agchem, GM crops research and seed divisions of Novartis with the
agchem and GM crops research divisions of AstraZeneca.

What I have been quoting is from Novartis Australasia's response to
an Australian parliamentary commmittee. The response is dated June
1999 -- that is, while Novartis still had agchem, GM crops research
and seed divisions.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...nq/sub26-e.pdf

biotech & famine
 

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

biotech & famine
 

"Tom Bickle" wrote in message
...


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."

Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

What has Novartis got to do with it?

I generally just lurk here, but cannot resist. Torsten knows, because I
sent him email, that Novartis can have nothing to do with this. The
reason is that Novartis is not, and never has been, in the agro
business. When Novartis was formed by the fusion of Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy they spun off their agro divisions as a new firm, Syngenta.


Tom,

Your just plain wrong. The spin off formed Novartis. Syngenta was
created when Novartis merged with (or bought out, I can't recall) Zeneca.

Dean Ronn

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

biotech & famine
 

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

You mean, like, a rocket is infinitely faster transport to
the moon than a car?

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

You mean, like, a rocket is infinitely faster transport to
the moon than a car?

That's not quite true. It is probably possible to induce a mutation for
round up resistance and find it in a crop. It is probably true for BT
protein genes as testing for them would take so long that it would be
impossible to find. Round up resistance could be found by spraying with
Round Up and seeing if anything lives.

Gordon

biotech & famine
 

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:06:24 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

You mean, like, a rocket is infinitely faster transport to
the moon than a car?

That's not quite true. It is probably possible to induce a mutation for
round up resistance and find it in a crop. It is probably true for BT
protein genes as testing for them would take so long that it would be
impossible to find.

I think you got it now. Good! What would 'method Y infinitely faster
than X' practically mean anyway, if not 'by method Y possible,
whereas with X not'.

So, if the difference is one of possibility, why did you express it in
terms of speed?

As I remember how this came by, first you said GM seeds can be
developed in a short time. But, then we found Novartis had said that
GM does not reduce development time of new varieties, but rather
increases it. So, we were in a way talking about relative speed there.

However, you were pressed on this issue, so you sought to leap to
examples of transgenesis rather outside the scope of conventional
breeding, but made possible by GM, while expressing this as
demonstrating that GM is in some way 'infinitely faster' than
conventional methods.

Round up resistance could be found by spraying with
Round Up and seeing if anything lives.

But, not if it is not there in the first place. I should not need to
educate you on the difference between 'finding' and 'introducing'.

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:06:24 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:09 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:42:19 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

.. GM methods are infinitely faster then conventional methods
for introducing many genes not already in the seed stock.

;^)

You mean, like, a drill is infinitely faster than putty for
drilling a hole?

?

You mean, like, a rocket is infinitely faster transport to
the moon than a car?

That's not quite true. It is probably possible to induce a mutation for
round up resistance and find it in a crop. It is probably true for BT
protein genes as testing for them would take so long that it would be
impossible to find.

I think you got it now. Good! What would 'method Y infinitely faster
than X' practically mean anyway, if not 'by method Y possible,
whereas with X not'.

So, if the difference is one of possibility, why did you express it in
terms of speed?

As I remember how this came by, first you said GM seeds can be
developed in a short time. But, then we found Novartis had said that
GM does not reduce development time of new varieties, but rather
increases it. So, we were in a way talking about relative speed there.

However, you were pressed on this issue, so you sought to leap to
examples of transgenesis rather outside the scope of conventional
breeding, but made possible by GM, while expressing this as
demonstrating that GM is in some way 'infinitely faster' than
conventional methods.

Round up resistance could be found by spraying with
Round Up and seeing if anything lives.

But, not if it is not there in the first place. I should not need to
educate you on the difference between 'finding' and 'introducing'.

Go play your tiresome word games some where else.

biotech & famine
 

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:43:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Go play your tiresome word games some where else.

Yeah right. No more talk about 'infinite fastness'.

So, where were we: You'd said GM seeds can be developed in a short
time.

However, as we've found, Novartis told the Australian Committee that
GM does -not- reduce develop time for new varieties, rather t
increases it. Novartis says there is additional research and
development work with genetically modified varieties. Now, these are
matters on which Novartis would have som considerable expertise.
Right?

So, do you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee?

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 21:43:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Go play your tiresome word games some where else.

Yeah right. No more talk about 'infinite fastness'.

So, where were we: You'd said GM seeds can be developed in a short
time.

However, as we've found, Novartis told the Australian Committee that
GM does -not- reduce develop time for new varieties, rather t
increases it. Novartis says there is additional research and
development work with genetically modified varieties. Now, these are
matters on which Novartis would have som considerable expertise.
Right?

So, do you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee?

No you are. It only takes longer with the draconian review process and in
varieties that it is possible to arrive at by conventional breeding.

You can keep repeating the same post as long as you like and not put words
in my mouth.


Gordon

biotech & famine
 

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:50:12 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message

You'd said GM seeds can be developed in a short
time.

However, as we've found, Novartis told the Australian Committee that
GM does -not- reduce develop time for new varieties, rather t
increases it. Novartis says there is additional research and
development work with genetically modified varieties. Now, these are
matters on which Novartis would have som considerable expertise.
Right?

So, do you agree with Novartis, or you are saying Novartis lied to
the Committee?

No you are.

Are what?

It only takes longer with the draconian review process and in
varieties that it is possible to arrive at by conventional breeding.

But, that is not what Novartis says. So you do not agree with them?

biotech & famine
 

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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?

For field crops, it actually takes less time to introduce the triat since
there is often a have a very strong selectable marker associated with it.

biotech & famine
 

"Tom Bickle" wrote in message
...


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."

Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

What has Novartis got to do with it?

I generally just lurk here, but cannot resist. Torsten knows, because I
sent him email, that Novartis can have nothing to do with this. The
reason is that Novartis is not, and never has been, in the agro
business. When Novartis was formed by the fusion of Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy they spun off their agro divisions as a new firm, Syngenta.

Your conclusion is not correct. Novartis was indeed formed by the merger of
Ciba Geigy and Sandoz. This took place in 1996. Syngenta was spun off from
Novartis in 1999.

biotech & famine
 

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:59:23 GMT, "David Kendra"
posted:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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?

For field crops, it actually takes less time to introduce the triat since
there is often a have a very strong selectable marker associated with it.

Do you have an example of this, David? A trait that took less time by
conventional methods to introduce into a plant compared with by GM
methods? Everyone seems to be asserting this with no examples to back
it up.

biotech & famine
 

"Mooshie peas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:59:23 GMT, "David Kendra"
posted:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
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.

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.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of
selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah :-) Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. snip

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?

For field crops, it actually takes less time to introduce the triat since
there is often a have a very strong selectable marker associated with it.

Do you have an example of this, David? A trait that took less time by
conventional methods to introduce into a plant compared with by GM
methods? Everyone seems to be asserting this with no examples to back
it up.

sure...all disease resistance traits :) molecular markers has cut years off
the process