last reply to Camargo de Miranda, archive 838
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: last reply to Camargo de Miranda, archive 838
- From: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:36:32 +0930
- Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1292196096==_ma============"
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"-_VQe.A.qsF.VfO12"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
We're going in circles
<excerpt>If this means less varieties available in the market,
varieties more uniform in terms of their genes, we have a problem.
Not an issue that transgenics will significantly affect. Replied to in
my note to Le Meur.
On profits and yields. Don't believe me if you don't want to. However,
the undeniable facts are that growers still have choices (What happened
to the varieties they were growing just 1-2 years ago, bought from
other seed companies? Are you trying to tell me that no one can buy
those any more? Why can't the growers save their own non-transgenic
seed?). Still growers are adopting transgenic crops in masses, even in
Brazil. I know that that growers are very smart and generally make the
choices that increase their incomes. Given that Monsanto's seeds cost
more money, growers must make more money through yields to pay for
them. A few may make the wrong choice, but not thousands. You would
apparently have us believe that growers are fools.
The fact is, monopolies are a hard way to make a profit. Someone
always comes along with a better product, or a higher bribe. The
easiest way to make money is a better product.