Re: aconomic arguemtns+

["Co-op" <coop1@crockettnet.com>]

HERVE wrote:
>We already dealt with it on this list. You have only limited seeing of th
>economic poitn of view. Bollgard coton was a failure ("Monsanto paying
Delat
>farmers to settle genetics seeds complaints" NYT 24 feb. 1998 p. D9 also in
the
>FT,  ...).
>
>Yet this cotton goes on being sold !
>At least the cotton of Monsanto : has had major defects (see UCS "Bt cotton
>fails to control Bollwrom", "Buggy cotton may cast doubts on new seds" Wall
>Street Journal 23 july 1996) and it is still sold.
>
>So please, I regret anti-GMO do not read enough your arguments (having
>ennemies in their side, but I don't bother), but read their's.

Herve,
Bt cotton is not a failure.  It is a resounding success!  The fact that you
call it a failure shows how little you know ablut the facts.  Last year the
BT varieties in my state had the highest yields(by far) - and fewer
insecticide applications!  You do not see the full picture from where you
are sitting.  Don't you see that if it is not of value to the farmer he
would not purchase the GM seed?  Our crop here in Tennessee USA is 50 to 60%
BT- and looking great.  I know - I am out there everyday.

No, GM, BT seed are not a cure all.  Yes, the plants have weak points that
allow species (cotton bollworm)that are not as susceptible to bt to survive
and cause damage.  (the cotton bollworm)  I would also like to point out the
fact that BT  was intended to target the Tobacco Budworm which is resistant
to many of our insecticides and can cause massive crop destruction in US
cotton fields.   BT gives almost 100 percent control of this pest - (and
really does a good job on the Cotton Bollworm, as a matter of fact.)

Just as a side note:  It seems to me that you are letting some anti-American
sentiment get the best of you herve.  Why?  Don't you think that France has
spies that are doing the same thing trying to promote their economic
interest as well?  Maybe if France was more successful against the US and
the WTO you wouldn't be bitching as much.  Oh, and Wendy Kyle is right.  The
bit of propaganda the lodi loppers put out ( and they did release it) about
their feat to save the world is full of, well, bull shit.  I have stated
before and I will state again - Roundup is one of the safest pesticides on
the market today!  I have repeatedly had the chemical in direct contact with
my skin and had no, repeat, NO ill effects.  You people sitting behind your
computers all day trying "save the world"  really just need to get a clue
about some things.
You in particular Herve.

Bill Brooks

-----Original Message-----
From: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>
To: rroush@schooner.waite.adelaide.edu.au
<rroush@schooner.waite.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc: gentech@gen.free.de <gentech@gen.free.de>
Date: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:13 AM
Subject: aconomic arguemtns+


>>>Now Monsanto has
>>>genetically engineered crops such as corn, cotton, and soy beans to be
>>>resistant to huge amounts of this deadly chemical.
>
>>Also wrong.  For example, even Monsanto advises growers not to use
Round-up
>>on the cotton after its fourth true leaf stage. And why would the farmers
>>use more herbicide than just needed to control the weeds? Never mind that
>>they are more environmentally aware that these people seem to think,
>>growers also want to save money.
>
>I agree with you on this and with some other arguments of your e-mail.
>
>But :
>
>>Do you honestly think farmers are so stupid that they can't determine for
>>themselves if the resistant varieties are a scam?  If it is a scam,
farmers
>>will buy less seed.
>
>We already dealt with it on this list. You have only limited seeing of th
>economic poitn of view. Bollgard coton was a failure ("Monsanto paying
Delat
>farmers to settle genetics seeds complaints" NYT 24 feb. 1998 p. D9 also in
the
>FT,  ...).
>
>Yet this cotton goes on being sold !
>At least the cotton of Monsanto : has had major defects (see UCS "Bt cotton
>fails to control Bollwrom", "Buggy cotton may cast doubts on new seds" Wall
>Street Journal 23 july 1996) and it is still sold.
>
>So please, I regret anti-GMO do not read enough your arguments (having
>ennemies in their side, but I don't bother), but read their's.
>
>Here the point is : even if a product is bad, it can be sold.
>
>Last :
>>Not one of these farmers feels held hostage
>All the peasants I met in my talks are horrified to be kept by the
"agreement"
>of Monsanto. I think we do not meet the same peasans.
>
>HLM
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
>subscribe or help is:
>
>              GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
>
>The searchable WWW list archive is available at
>
>              http://www.gene.ch/archives.html
>
>