Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2141)	6/7/1999 3:56:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Britain cancels June 14 air trade talks with U.S. Monday June 7, 3:35 pm Eastern Time (Adds details, background, quotes) By Tim Dobbyn WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - Britain on Monday canceled a June round of talks to hammer out a new aviation agreement, angering U.S. officials dismayed by this latest snag in years of troubled efforts to expand air traffic between two countries. A British spokesman said the meeting had been canceled at London's request and would likely be rescheduled for July 5. ''We need more time to refine our negotiating position,'' the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions spokesman said. The United States found the cancellation particularly frustrating after informal talks last month in London seemed to be yielding results. ''When it comes to aviation talks, the United Kingdom never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity,'' said a State Department official. Last month, Britain made informal verbal proposals for a transition to open skies which the United States described at the time as ''productive.'' State Department spokesman Frank Jenista said formal talks had been due to take place June 14 under a schedule agreed to back in April at a meeting between U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater and John Prescott, Britain's deputy prime minister and transport minister. A proposed alliance between British Airways (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BAY.L) and AMR Corp.'s (NYSE:AMR - news) American Airlines announced almost exactly three years ago led to stepped up efforts to revise the current bilateral agreement know as Bermuda II. U.S. officials conditioned antitrust approval of the alliance on a significant opening of the British aviation market, particularly London's busy Heathrow Airport. The talks have been anything but smooth. The U.S. side walked out of talks in London last October to protest what it alleged was British inflexibility. British Airways and American Airlines put their plans to jointly market tickets on each other's flights through code-sharing on hold last year. Under the current aviation agreement dating back to 1977, and modified in March 1991, only British Airways, Virgin Atlantic Airways [VA.CN], American Airlines and United Airlines (NYSE:UAL - news) are allowed to use Heathrow for transatlantic services. Jenista said said Britain was the largest U.S. aviation partner still working under such a limited agreement. Since the latest round of talks began in July of 1996, 24 countries had reached liberalized ''open skies'' aviation pacts with the United States while Japan, China and France had agreed to significant market openings, he said. ''We have new routes opening up and prices coming down all over the world except between the U.S. and the U.K. - it's kind of frustrating,'' Jenista said.

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2141)	6/7/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 2539

OPINION: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology June 7, 1999 (Excerpt from story) Fourteen million of those people are children who have severe eye damage due to the vitamin deficiency. "Many of them go blind," Lipton said. " Banning (bio-engineered) field trials globally would amount to blinding children." (Full story) Bridge News, New York via NewsEdge Corporation : May 31--By Dennis T. Avery of the Hudson Institute CHURCHVILLE, Va.--Is Europe having second thoughts about its opposition to biotechnology? There was a minor flurry of headlines in Britain recently after the Nuffield Council on Bioethics reported the world has a moral obligation to develop genetically modified crops to "fight Third World hunger." An environmentalist who took part in the deliberations of the London- based bioethics group said that if biotech foods could help fight the problem, " it would be immoral of us to stop" their use. British Prime Minister Tony Blair found it "extraordinary" that the media would neglect positive reports on biotechnology like the Nuffield report, while giving huge coverage to reports "which fed the hysteria." The response of European environmental groups to this "moral imperative " was woefully weak. Christian Aid, a church-based development agency headquartered in London, called the council's report "naive" and claimed the solution to world hunger lies in organic farming. But yields from organic farming are lower than average. Christian Aid's focus seems to be on saving the jobs of small-scale organic farmers. Who in the affluent world of the future will be willing to leave his or her air-conditioned office cubicle to hoe corn and pull weeds in the hot sun? Friends of the Earth, a London-based environmental group, calls world hunger more of a political problem than a scientific one. Perhaps the group was talking about its own political campaign to block the use of farm technologies like hybrid seeds and genetically engineered crops? How the world manages to triple today's farm output in order to feed the world of 2040 will be a critical decision concerning the wildlife that Friends of the Earth is pledged to protect. But Europe no longer seems to care about either humanitarian or environmental arguments. The region is solely focused on its own vague, unproven food safety concerns. The Financial Times recently noted a favorable report by a British House of Commons committee on the safety of genetically modified foods, saying it brought "a refreshing note of reason to a debate too long dominated in Europe by sensationalism and hysteria." The Times added, "Authorities have been too ready to ban products with no proven health risks just because they arouse population suspicion." Europe started crying wolf about food safety 20 years ago, when it began worrying that the hormones being developed to stimulate growth in cattle might increase its already expensive beef surplus. Then, without any scientific evidence of consumer risk, the European Union banned meat growth hormones. (EU farmers didn't mind. Residues found in meat show that they use unregulated growth hormones bought on the black market.) The EU then began offering special subsidies for organic food, which gave EU bureaucrats visions of restoring the traditional small peasant farms. Organic yields were also lower, which meant less surplus food had to be subsidized for sale on the world market. The true cost of this "surplus reduction," however, was erosion of public confidence in modern farm output. Because the governments that made up the European Union felt organic food was safer, European citizens came to feel the same. Codex Alimentarius, the international food safety referee based in Rome, has blown the whistle on the EU's meat hormone ban. It formally concluded that the EU has shown no valid evidence of risk from meat hormones. The EU's first response was to demand more time. This spring, the Codex and the World Trade Organization demanded action instead. So the EU called a shameless press conference where a couple of captive scientists talked about findings of hormone-related cancer risk. The scientists refused to talk about the level or probability of the risk, which almost certainly means the "risk" is less likely than a person being hit by lightning twice. Meanwhile, countries that use pesticides have average life spans 20 years longer than those that don't. The IQ scores of American kids have continued to trend upward throughout the pesticide era. Western Europe is essentially asking the rest of the world to reject science and accept its emotion-based regulation of food production designed to protect a set of EU farm subsidies that don't even keep Europe's small farmers on their farms. However, the enormous human and environmental costs of banning modern farm inputs would mostly be paid by the Third World. Michael Lipton of the Poverty Research Unit at Sussex University in Britain recently pointed out that 200 million people in the Third World suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Those people could be cured by a Rockefeller Foundation project to genetically-engineer rice with enhanced vitamin A. Fourteen million of those people are children who have severe eye damage due to the vitamin deficiency. "Many of them go blind," Lipton said. " Banning (bio-engineered) field trials globally would amount to blinding children." The "harvest" of Europe's policies is easy to predict: increased hunger and malnutrition for tens of millions of people; sight impairment, even blindness, for millions of vitamin-deficient children; the plowing down of 10 million square miles of wildlife habitat. Western Europe should be ashamed of itself.