http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html


--
Martin

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:20:27 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Good riddance I say, maybe they'll get a decent job now, with ethics?

There is more to life than dollars.

"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFG
GAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewsto
p.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed
in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.
--

Unless non-GM seed suddenly becomes "unavailable", leaving farmers no
alternative but to buy imported GM seeds ?

Bevan
..

In message m, Tim
Challenger d writes
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQ
MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/1
6/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Monsanto had it coming. They were far too arrogant and tried to force
their GM produce down everyone's throats. They deserve to lose their
European businesses. Too bad for their employees - but Monsanto gambled
for very high stakes and lost.

If enough people avoid GM soya then the premium prices offered for the
non-GM varieties will eventually force US growers to sow classical
crops.

There are other more responsible European GM crop developers who hate
Monsanto for giving the entire industry a bad name almost as much as the
greens and luddites do. GM is still a potentially useful technology.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:22:11 -0400, LordSnooty wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:20:27 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Good riddance I say, maybe they'll get a decent job now, with ethics?
Monsanto employed most people in the normal plant-breeding and seed sales
business in Europe. They aren't wholly a GM-seed maker. Hopefully thier
regular seed business will be taken over by another company. They'll still
be selling Roundup of course, so they're not pulling out completely and
Roundup sales make them a pretty penny.

There is more to life than dollars.
Right. They're only pulling out because they can't make any money and want
to concentrate on other, more GM-freindly markets. It would be nice if they
were doing it because they'd seen the light. Oh well.
Still, I hope the company rots in hell, and that the employees all get
other jobs.

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:04:30 +0100, Bevan Price wrote:

"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFG
GAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewsto
p.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed
in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.
--

Unless non-GM seed suddenly becomes "unavailable", leaving farmers no
alternative but to buy imported GM seeds ?

That's what was thinking -I don't know what share of the seed market that
Monsanto has in Europe. But I suspect it's fairly significant. Any idea?

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:51:35 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

In message m, Tim
Challenger d writes
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQ
MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/1
6/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Monsanto had it coming. They were far too arrogant and tried to force
their GM produce down everyone's throats.

It was the case involving a (I think) Canadian farmer who was prossecuted
for "growing" Monsanto seeds (Roundup Ready oilseed rape/canola) on his
land that really did it for me. Despite the fact that they were blown there
from neighbouring fields. He hadn't paid the growing licence, and so was
fined (a hefty whack, iirc). There were a few, er, inconsistencied, and I
suspect the farmer wasn't totally blame-free. Still, since then, Monsanto's
been a dirty work for me. It sums up the arrogant, bullying tactics of the
huge multinational corporations in general.

Funnily enough, and on-topic for uk.re.gardening, the farmer's name was
Percy Schmeiser, which in German - and allowing for variations in spelling
- is Percy Thrower. I wonder.....

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

The message t
from LordSnooty contains these words:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:20:27 GMT, Tim Challenger
"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Good riddance I say, maybe they'll get a decent job now, with ethics?

There is more to life than dollars.


/me sighs. Look further than the issue of the day Snooty.

--
email farmer chris on
Please don`t use as it`s a spam haven.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/16/ixnewstop.html

Not really following your thread, but in the announcement of the
results on the recent GM trials, it was said that the weed population
was severely reduced under GM rape and GM beet crops when treated with
the relevant weedkiller, but that under the GM maize, weeds actually
increased 3 times relative to the non-GM crop! How on earth can this
be!? It seems a nonsense to me, and hardly what would be wanted by the
farmers, as presumably the weeds compete for nutrients etc. Could it
be that someone got their data round the wrong way, and that actually
the weeds were reduced to 30% of the normal crop, broadly in line with
the other results. It would make more sense. Hard to believe, I agree,
but if true, doesn't give you much confidence in any of it!


--
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:51:35 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

In message m, Tim
Challenger d writes
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:58:13 +0200, martin wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FWR5QGCNKO04FQFIQ
MGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/10/16/wmons16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/1
6/ixnewstop.html

Good news for anti-GM-croppers, but bad news for all the people employed
in
thier normal (ie non-GM) crop business and research.

Monsanto had it coming. They were far too arrogant and tried to force
their GM produce down everyone's throats.

It was the case involving a (I think) Canadian farmer who was prossecuted
for "growing" Monsanto seeds (Roundup Ready oilseed rape/canola) on his
land that really did it for me. Despite the fact that they were blown
there
from neighbouring fields. He hadn't paid the growing licence, and so was
fined (a hefty whack, iirc). There were a few, er, inconsistencies,

(such as 90% of the crop was GM you mean? (according to a BBC news article)
I'm sure if you have kids, you'll always believe the one that says first 'he
did it not me'.

and I
suspect the farmer wasn't totally blame-free.

You mean, he planted it himself?

Still, since then, Monsanto's
been a dirty work for me. It sums up the arrogant, bullying tactics of the
huge multinational corporations in general.

Which is what? That large corporations dont have any right to their own
products and should ignore anyone who steals from them?
It does however say something about the efficacy of the GM crop if the
farmer wanted to steal the seeds.


Tw

In article , Chris Hogg
writes

Not really following your thread, but in the announcement of the
results on the recent GM trials, it was said that the weed population
was severely reduced under GM rape and GM beet crops when treated with
the relevant weedkiller, but that under the GM maize, weeds actually
increased 3 times relative to the non-GM crop! How on earth can this
be!? It seems a nonsense to me, and hardly what would be wanted by the
farmers, as presumably the weeds compete for nutrients etc. Could it
be that someone got their data round the wrong way, and that actually
the weeds were reduced to 30% of the normal crop, broadly in line with
the other results. It would make more sense. Hard to believe, I agree,
but if true, doesn't give you much confidence in any of it!

It seems to me that the level of weeds aren't directly related to
whether GM (glyphosate resistant) or non-GM crops were grown, but to the
amount and nature of herbicide used. In the case of the non-GM maize the
herbicide used (atrazine, IIRC) would seem to have been more effective
than the glyphosate presumably sprayed on the GM-maize fields.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:28:02 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

In article , Chris Hogg
writes

Not really following your thread, but in the announcement of the
results on the recent GM trials, it was said that the weed population
was severely reduced under GM rape and GM beet crops when treated with
the relevant weedkiller, but that under the GM maize, weeds actually
increased 3 times relative to the non-GM crop! How on earth can this
be!? It seems a nonsense to me, and hardly what would be wanted by the
farmers, as presumably the weeds compete for nutrients etc. Could it
be that someone got their data round the wrong way, and that actually
the weeds were reduced to 30% of the normal crop, broadly in line with
the other results. It would make more sense. Hard to believe, I agree,
but if true, doesn't give you much confidence in any of it!

It seems to me that the level of weeds aren't directly related to
whether GM (glyphosate resistant) or non-GM crops were grown, but to the
amount and nature of herbicide used. In the case of the non-GM maize the
herbicide used (atrazine, IIRC) would seem to have been more effective
than the glyphosate presumably sprayed on the GM-maize fields.


Ah! That makes more sense. Thank you.


--
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net