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.