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: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/8/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

British Farmers Spurn Genetically Modified Crop Trials Updated 10:27 AM ET June 8, 1999 By Paul Keller LONDON (Reuters) - British farmers are increasingly wary about running trials on genetically modified (GM) crops, fearing the public might turn hostile or boycott sales of other farm produce, farming experts said Tuesday. "There is a high degree of concern about public opinion over these trials (among farmers)," said Bill Shannon of the Cooperative Wholesale Society, which farms over 80,000 acres and was one of the first farming groups to pull out of recent GM crop trials. Some farmers worry their image could be damaged and say the trials to assess the environmental impact of GM crops will do little to allay unease about so-called "Frankenstein foods." Others fear their crops could be burned by environmental protesters who want a ban on all GM trials on the grounds they new crops could contaminate surrounding fields and plants. Monday a British farmer conducting a large-scale trial bowed to local opposition and destroyed his 25-acre trial crop of GM oilseed rape with weedkiller. He said he had been prompted by fears the farm might lose a lucrative organic farming certificate for its winter beans and that protesters might damage the crops. Government figures Tuesday appeared to show that concern about the public's reaction to the experiments had resulted in fewer farms taking part in trials sponsored by bio-technology firms compared with last year. The drop in numbers -- falling to 146 trials this year from 170 -- was described by a government spokeswoman as "quite understandable." It could be explained partly by bio-technology firms having fewer crops they wanted to test, she said. "But it is quite understandable with all the negative publicity that they may not be finding as many farmers who want to hold trials," she said. The government is holding its own trials of GM maize and oilseed rape which are expected to last four years. British consumers, prompted by the well-publicized concerns of green groups and heir to the throne Prince Charles, are nervous about GM ingredients and supermarkets have been competing to remove them from their product lines. The Norfolk Genetic Information Network pressure group -- based in eastern England where GM crop testing is concentrated -- asked farmers to list their concerns about the trials. "There was a surprisingly wide range of concerns. We had expected farmers involved in the trials to be quite gung-ho about it," said spokesman Jonathan Matthews. An overriding factor had been the perceived impact on the marketability of crops produced on farms where GM crop trials were taking place, he said. Consumer hostility toward GM foods has evoked memories of the mid-1990s when millions of shoppers shunned British beef because of a link to Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, the human equivalent of mad cow disease. An ICM poll in Tuesday's Guardian newspaper showed over 40 percent of those questioned said they had no faith in what scientists said regarding the safety of GM food. news.excite.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/8/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Getting Nostalgic About 'Nature' In the debate over genetically modified crops, the question isn't what's natural-it's what's right. And that's hard political work. Oliver Morton Newsweek International, June 14, 1999 One of the few diverting aspects of Britain's largely joyless European election campaign has been the Natural Law Party's approach to the issues. Other parties say simply that a particular version of Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe would be a rather good or bad thing-whatever. The Natural Law Party, on the other hand, promotes the values of Transcendental Meditation and yogic flying, an advanced form of the art which consists of flapping your knees while bouncing around in something like the lotus position. Apparently this has already lessened levels of violence in both Merseyside and the Middle East. The Natural Lawyers do, however, have one concrete political policy. The party wants a Europewide ban on all genetically modified crops. In this, if in little else, the Natural Law Party is very much in the mainstream. The British public has taken against genetically modified crops in a big way. Activists uproot them and supermarkets attempt not to furnish their customers with them. This week the Prince of Wales-a landowner and organic farmer-came out against them for the umpteenth time, a piece of nonnews that still managed to provoke headlines throughout the realm. Europeans have in general been more skeptical about genetically modified crops than Americans, who have so far swallowed the idea, and the food, with relatively few qualms. And among the Europeans the Brits have been particularly adamant in their refusal to have any truck with such things. The recent history of British agricultural politics-the culling of millions of cows for fear that their increasing madness was spreading into the population at large-has left the public profoundly distrustful of "unnatural" tinkering in the food chain. The prince says that he wants us to reject all genetic modification and instead "work with nature for the long-term benefit of humankind." The problem with this desire is that nature has no interest at all in the long-term benefit of humankind. Nature has no interest in anything. And even if it did, mankind has been overriding nature routinely for millennia. That's what agriculture is all about. A "natural" Britain would be a woodland that could feed only a few-when not covered by the glaciers of a "natural" ice age. Selective breeding-a subject royalty understands in its bones-removed nature from the farmyard long before the first endonucleases started to cut up the first artificial strands of DNA. People like the prince use "nature" not biologically but nostalgically, to refer to a time when things were not so dashed artificial. This is the perennial window dressing of the reactionary, nature as an ideological prop for people whose notion of what is natural tends to include their own position in society. For the prince-doubtless considered by many, if not himself, as Britain's "natural" sovereign-nature is part of our very souls, which is why we have an "instinctive" nervousness about tampering with it. His love for authentic British farming practices is thus part of his sense of what the nature of the British people is, an ideology of blood and the Soil Association. It is no shock that a man whose own genes have a constitutional importance should worry about genes elsewhere. And some issues that the prince brings up are legitimate causes for concern. The effect of genetically altered organisms on the wider environment needs to be understood better than it is today. The idea that this technology may be controlled by very few companies is disturbing. It fuels widespread fear that genetic modification will serve only as a handmaiden to agribusiness, rather than producing higher-yielding crops to be distributed equitably among farmers in developing countries. But these are all arguments for getting the genetic modification of crops right, technically and politically: not for abandoning it as intrinsically immoral simply because it is unnatural. The question is not what is natural. It is what is right. Reaching a judgment about that means balancing a lot of different issues and interests: the freedom a company should have to pursue profit within the law; the fear of harm to health or the environment; the altruistic wish to develop technologies that genuinely help developing nations; the self-interest that leads people to want cheaper or better food. Balancing these things is hard political work. But it is possible, and democracies have shown themselves in the long run to be pretty good at it. Democratic efforts to such ends, however, are not helped by a counterproductive nostalgia. Being unhelpful is not against the law, nor should it be. But the fact that Charles gets a platform on such matters purely because of the situation he was born into is still offensive. The bouncy-bottomed Natural Law Party may stand for a lot of tosh, but at least it stands for elections. That puts it one up on the prince. newsweek.com:80/nw-srv/printed/int/socu/ov0624_1.htm newsweek.com:80/nw-srv/printed/int/socu/ov0624_2.htm

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/8/1999 2:48:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Philippines readies Euro food ban Updated 9:18 AM ET June 8, 1999 MANILA, Philippines, June 8 (UPI) Philippine authorities are set to impose an import ban on certain European agricultural products over fears of contamination by the cancer-causing chemical dioxin, an official said. The ban to be imposed by the agriculture department would cover pork, poultry, eggs and related products coming from Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands, said an official of the government's National Meat Inspection Commission. The Philippine plan is in line with moves in a growing number of countries to ban European food imports because of fears of dioxin contamination, which was believed to have been introduced into the food chain through Belgian animal feed. The commission's chairman, Edgardo Dimalanta, said any poultry products imported before the ban takes effect will be impounded until it is confirmed that they were not contaminated with the chamical. Elsewhere in Asia on Tuesday, Taiwan suspended all imports of Belgian dairy products and animal feed effective immediately.

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/8/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

IMS HEALTH Reports 4,797 Prescriptions Dispensed in U.S. For Vioxx in First 10 Days of Prescription Activity Compares to 3,231 for Searle's Celebrex over same period Updated 3:44 PM ET June 8, 1999 LONDON (BW HealthWire) - IMS HEALTH (NYSE:RX) today reported that 4,797 prescriptions were dispensed in the U.S. for Vioxx, Merck & Co. Inc.'s Cox-2 inhibitor, in the first ten days of prescription activity. Vioxx was approved by the FDA May 20 for relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis, management of acute pain in adults and treatment of menstrual pain. This prescription activity compares to 3,231 prescriptions dispensed for Celebrex -- Searle's Cox-2 inhibitor, introduced in January 1999 -- over its first ten days of prescription activity. IMS HEALTH is the world's leading provider of information solutions to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. Of the Vioxx prescriptions dispensed for the week ending May 28 -- representing the first four days of prescription activity -- IMS HEALTH's National Prescription Audit Plus(tm) (NPA) reports that 47 percent of business was generated by Primary Care Physicians, which include Family Practice, General Practice, Internal Medicine, and Osteopathic Medicine. More than 29 percent of Vioxx prescriptions were dispensed by Rheumatologists during this period. IMS HEALTH's weekly National Prescription Audit Plus prescription activity report, covering the Memorial Day week ending June 4, becomes available on June 14. This report will capture data from the first full week of Vioxx on the market and includes mail order prescriptions. IMS HEALTH's weekly prescription tracking service is the most complete service of its kind covering the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The service provides comprehensive coverage of three U.S. retail channels -- chain drugstores, independent pharmacies and food stores with pharmacies -- and includes cash and Medicaid prescriptions as well as third party reimbursement. It also provides unique access to mail order prescriptions. IMS HEALTH is the world's leading provider of information solutions to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. With more than $1.2 billion in 1998 revenue, IMS HEALTH operates in over 90 countries. IMS HEALTH is the largest pharmaceutical manufacturer information partner, with over 40 years' experience in the industry. Key products and services integral to customer day-to-day operations include: market research for prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products; sales management information to optimize sales force productivity; technology-enabled selling solutions for sales and marketing decision making; and technology systems and information services that support managed care organizations. Additional information and previous press releases are available at the IMS HEALTH website: imshealth.com. Contact: IMS HEALTH U.S.: Nancy Duckwitz (610) 834-5338 or U.K.: Michael Gury +44 171-393-5864 news.excite.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/9/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Merck Says Trial Shows Vioxx Better For Pain Updated 6:41 AM ET June 9, 1999 LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. drug group Merck & Co said Wednesday that results of the first head-to head trial of its new analgesic Vioxx showed superiority in three areas over its major rival, Monsanto Co's Celebrex. The company said in a statement that in trials on relief of acute pain following dental surgery, Vioxx had faster onset of action -- 30 minutes compared to one hour -- and "significantly better" peak efficacy. The company said the trial also showed that pain relief after a single dose of Vioxx lasted 24 hours compared to five hours for Celebrex. A spokeswoman for Monsanto's pharmaceutical unit Searle said the company would issue a response to the findings later Wednesday. Vioxx was cleared for sale in the UK on June 8, the first European Union market to approve the product, and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 20. IMS Health figures published Tuesday showed doctors in the U.S. wrote 4,797 prescriptions for Vioxx in its first ten days on sale, compared with 3,231 prescriptions for Celebrex in the first ten days following its launch in January. Celebrex is being co-marketed by Pfizer Inc. Both drugs are part of a new class of pain relievers known as Cox-2 inhibitors, which block an enzyme linked to inflammation. The main target market for both products, which have been dubbed "super aspirins," is relief of pain caused by arthritis. The great hope of Cox-2 inhibitors is that they will alleviate much of the gastro-intestinal side effects, including ulcers, linked to existing pain killers such as ibuprofen. Merck said although the incidence of gastro-intestinal complications in patients treated with Vioxx had been minimized, "the risk has probably not been completely eliminated." news.excite.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2151)	6/10/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Dan, this is something you've pointed out time and again, that there would be a significant price difference in food using non-GM ingredients [versus food using gm ingredients]: Northern Foods go GM-free itn.co.uk:80/Business/bus19990609/060902bu.htm Lord Haskins admitted that in time GM products may again be used in the firm's foods, if they could be proved to be safe to their customers satisfaction, and there was a significant price difference. He suggested that as GM soya became more and more widespread, non-modified soya might become very expensive, while segregation of GM soya in animal food could soon become effectively impossible.