Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
biotech & famine
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:50:41 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:33:53 GMT, Mooshie peas wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:17:22 +0200, Torsten Brinch posted: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:23:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger" 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. Try and get the genetics for the resistance to the blight that caused the Irish potato famine into commercial varieties with conventional breeding. I assume you mean genetics from _Solanum bulbocastanum_. Resistance genes from it were reported to have been transferred to potatoes using conventional breeding methods by 2000, and using genetic engineering by 2003. However, no commercial seed potatoes have become available from the introgression by either method so far, and expected time of arrival of any commercial seed potatoes on the market is unknown. And when did they start doing both? If you are interested just look it up. It's your story. Point is that no commercial varieties have been developed from it, and we do not know when that will be, if ever. So? Then show us another example of your contention that GM development of a plant characteristic takes longer than conventional. I haven't seen one example of this yet. Gordon, hypothetical commercial GM seed potatoes of the future, which have not yet been developed into existence are not very good examples of short development time of GM seeds. I am pretty sure Novartis is referring to actual experience from developing actually existing commercial GM varieties, when they say GM varieties generally take a bit more time to develop than new conventionally bred varieties. Such as? Why, the new varieties Novartis have had practical experience developing, of course; and perhaps new varieties from other companies, the development time of which Novartis as an insider to the industry might know about. So you have this contention that GM takes longer than conventional to develop a plant characteristic, but you can provide NO examples? If you make an assertion, please give us the examples you base it on. snip Oh, I do not base that on any particular examples. Well why didn't you say that in the fisrt place and stop wasting our time? If I want to know how development time of genetically modified varieties compares to the development time of conventionally bred varieties, I ask those who are actually developing new varieties, e.g. Novartis. I haven't seen Novartis posting here. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Animals avoid GM food (Was: biotech & famine) | sci.agriculture | |||
Animals avoid GM food (Was: biotech & famine) | sci.agriculture | |||
40 Hour Famine May 16-18 | Australia | |||
the great chilli famine of 2003 | Australia | |||
the great chilli famine of 2003 | Australia |