On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:16:12 +0100, Christopher Norton
wrote:

and definitely not planted in the all together

--
Martin

We have had instances of that Martin. Strange bunch of farmers down here.

:-)

I blame global warming.
We never had that sort of thing in the nineteen sixties, when we were
led to believe that a new ice age was imminent.


--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:49:00 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these
words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains
these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM
trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en
masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and
were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be
helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

En masse would be great swathes of land with the required
amount of
land between it and "normal" crops.

En masse isn't a measurement, it just means, all together.

A swathe is only a mower width :-) Would you say that multiple
swathes, say five acres of a single GM crop, mechanically planted
in a
properly regulated Farm Scale Evaluation, means "planted all
together",
or "not planted all together"?


and definitely not planted in the all together

--
Martin
**************************************
An interesting programme ....told how the Japanese have been trialing
GM rice and have had to put a stop to it because the rice was reported
to have been triggering allergic reactions rather like wheat sometimes
does.
AND anyone who grows normal crops near a GM trial crop may find
themselves "up the townhall steps" accused by the growers of the GM
crops of stealing their technology, because the Canadian farmer had
some plants which had been pollinated by the GM neighbour
plants....Unbelievable? Monsanto did just this:-(

US biotechnology company Monsanto has taken a Canadian farmer to
court, accusing him of illegally growing its genetically-modified (GM)
crop.

The insurance companies wont insure farmers in case it turns out to be
a tragedy like thalidomide.

"welsh witch" wrote in message
...


"martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:49:00 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Christopher Norton contains these
words:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains
these words:


Rather bizarre as I live in close range of some of the GM
trials and to
be honest I would not say that they have been planted "en
masse".

What area of land was planted in the trials near you, and
were the
seeds sown mechanically?

Given Bry's recent definition of "in a laboratory" it would be
helpful
to understand your definition of "not planted en masse".

En masse would be great swathes of land with the required
amount of
land between it and "normal" crops.

En masse isn't a measurement, it just means, all together.

A swathe is only a mower width :-) Would you say that multiple
swathes, say five acres of a single GM crop, mechanically planted
in a
properly regulated Farm Scale Evaluation, means "planted all
together",
or "not planted all together"?


and definitely not planted in the all together

--
Martin
**************************************
An interesting programme ....told how the Japanese have been trialing
GM rice and have had to put a stop to it because the rice was reported
to have been triggering allergic reactions rather like wheat sometimes
does.

No doubt you'd support withdawning all products and foods that cause any
level of allergic reaction then? No more nuts for a start.


AND anyone who grows normal crops near a GM trial crop may find
themselves "up the townhall steps" accused by the growers of the GM
crops of stealing their technology, because the Canadian farmer had
some plants which had been pollinated by the GM neighbour
plants....Unbelievable? Monsanto did just this:-(


Indeed, it is unbelievable. A quick google showed MOnsanto's side of the
story;

"As proceedings opened in the Canadian courtroom on Monday, Monsanto's
lawyers said Mr Schmeiser's case was not about a few escaped plant seeds.

They say that 90% - more than 300 hectares - of the farmer's crop was grown
from their GM product, and that nature simply cannot be blamed. "

'some plants which had been pollinated'..... If what Monsanto say is true
(lets let the court decide, not usenet tittle tattle) then certainly your
statement is junk isnt it?


US biotechnology company Monsanto has taken a Canadian farmer to
court, accusing him of illegally growing its genetically-modified (GM)
crop.

Well, if he wants to grow their seeds shouldn't he pay for them?


The insurance companies wont insure farmers in case it turns out to be
a tragedy like thalidomide.


Fair enough let the free market decide. I dont see any insurance companies
putting a stop to GM soya though or there woudlnt be all this fuss about it,
would there..

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)