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.