Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
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? ? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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'. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |