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.

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.

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.

"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

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?---

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.

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.

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.

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 _?_

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....

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)

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.

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

"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

"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