"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:41:13 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:35:06 +0100, Oz
wrote:

The introduction of RR crops into the EU will be pretty well entirely
determined by the savings on herbicides. If more herbicides are
required
then it won't happen.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Governments are under pressure
from the GM companies to introduce these crops, so it's likely that
they'll bow to that pressure...

They may grant companies permission to market RR crops but if it costs
farmers more to grow them then they will not remain in the market place
for
very long. It is simple economics. Farmers are looking for ways to
reduce
costs and improve profits.

So, the GM companies will seek to sell RR crops at a marginally
competitive price.

no, GM companys will have to pitch the price of their seed to that the
grower makes more profit than he would with a conventional crop.
If the margin on gm crops is lower than on conventional (and remember the
difference between margin and price) then the seed suppliers would have to
sell their seed cheaper than conventional seed.
But in many cases the only input price these companies can control is that
of the seed, in the case of sprays etc, the market in many countries is
pretty competitive, especially in the field of generic products.

Jim Webster

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:29:45 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

If they are uneconomic, they will not be farmed.

Again, it's not that simple.

As soon as GM crops are grown, freedom of choice is removed from the
farmer growing conventional or organic crops.

See what has happened in Canada, for example, where it is now almost
impossible to grow organic canola, because of contamination by GM
varieties. The same would happen in the UK.

regards
Marcus

writes

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:29:45 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

If they are uneconomic, they will not be farmed.

Again, it's not that simple.

As soon as GM crops are grown, freedom of choice is removed from the
farmer growing conventional or organic crops.

Not at all. The organic boys merely need to follow the ec definition of
gm-free of 2% and they are fine.

See what has happened in Canada, for example, where it is now almost
impossible to grow organic canola, because of contamination by GM
varieties. The same would happen in the UK.

Then change the definition to something more sensible.

After all organic producers use antibiotics, pesticides, fertilisers and
a wide range of products one might think they should not be using
anyway. If they choose a completely nil level then it's their own rod
that beats them themselves. Don't expect me to feel sorry for them for
being stupid.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

wrote in message
...

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:29:45 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

If they are uneconomic, they will not be farmed.

Again, it's not that simple.

As soon as GM crops are grown, freedom of choice is removed from the
farmer growing conventional or organic crops.

no because organic is a purely arbitrary definition which is why organic
farmers can use certain chemicals but not others, but can also use much the
same veterinary medication, but with different withdrawal periods

As for conventional, the only way gm would stop people growing conventional
is by being so profitable that they could not afford not to. Pay more for
conventional and gm will fade away

See what has happened in Canada, for example, where it is now almost
impossible to grow organic canola, because of contamination by GM
varieties. The same would happen in the UK.

Interesting, by your argument there is no reason why we should not import GM
cotton for clothing or GM maize gluten for livestock feed because this would
not effect the growing of organic varieties.


Jim Webster

Now that's really twisted logic...! :-)

Are you trying to tell me that using GM crops *reduces* the use of
chemicals. In fact, the opposite is the case. Otherwise why would the
UK have increased by 200 times the residue of glyphosate allowed on
soya?

regards
Marcus

Clearly, the use of glyphosate on soybean has increased. However,
herbicides have been used on soybean for decades. The use of those
herbicides that were used prior to the advent of RR soybean has
plummeted. In the case of soybean, the substitution of one herbicide
for another has resulted in a net wash, or close to it, in the amount of
chemicals used. Nevertheless, the switch to glyphosate has made
soybean production "greener" by promoting no-till agriculture, which
uses less fossil fuels and results in less soil erosion.

The real reductions in chemical use have come from the insect-resistant
crops, such as cotton.

For the record, I receive no money from anyone to sponsor or otherwise
defend GM crops.