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 (2286)	7/16/1999 10:54:00 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Since I have tendonitis from an injury, seems like dosage correct. I do recall posts on the thread when Vioxx was touting "once a day" vs. "twice a day" that Celebrex can be dosed once. I can report now that Celebrex did not have the side effects of the Daypro--thank goodness. I really cannot imagine folks who have to take the anti-inflammatories every day for chronic pain putting up with the discomfort; you don't feel good! It's worth price not to have the discomfort; you wanna feel better when you take medication not worse. You know the old adage about an easy way to get rid of a splitting headache; hit your thumb with a hammer. BTW, my comment re stock price was more rhetorical than anything else.

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2286)	7/16/1999 9:04:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2539

"Frankenfood" headlines scare public, study shows By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The drive to come up with a catchy headline probably helped turn Europeans so strongly against genetically modified foods, while Americans so far barely notice, researchers said on Thursday. They said the volume and intensity of news coverage of controversial policies are often associated with an increase in public concern. But governments had better act on the public's fears, regardless of their source, the researchers said. "The lesson for science, industry and governments is: ignore public opinion at your peril," said George Gaskell, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics. Gaskell and colleagues analyzed the differences in attitudes with opinion surveys and studies of news coverage and government policies. "Just the very volume of press coverage around a controversial policy has been found elsewhere to be associated with increased public concern," Gaskell said in a telephone interview. Coining terms such as "Frankenfoods" to describe new crops also helped frighten people, said Gaskell, whose findings are reported in the journal Science. "It's the headlines and it's metaphors. The role of a metaphor originally is to make the unfamiliar familiar. It tells you that something is like something else," he added. "But at some point the metaphor becomes more than just an association. It becomes the thing." Although terms such as "Frankenfood" appeared in U.S. and British newspapers as early as 1992, the news coverage was much more intense in Europe, Gaskell's team said. Because of the level of the coverage, Gaskell said, people thought genetically modified food must be a dangerous and important issue. He said most "elite" media in Europe provided coverage of genetically modified foods -- such as longer-lasting tomatoes -- that was fairly positive. U.S. newspapers such as The Washington Post were, in fact, slightly more negative, he said. But then there was an explosion of European interest, marked perhaps most by the controversy over Monsanto's <MTC.N> Round Up Ready soybean, genetically engineered to resist the herbicide of the same name. "We think the rapid growth in press coverage in Europe from about 1992 is an indication to the public that there are some problems here, that there are contested issues," Gaskell said. Gaskell's team also surveyed Americans and Europeans on their knowledge and attitudes. "On a very simple test of basic biological knowledge there is not much difference between the Europeans and the Americans," Gaskell said. "But Europeans are ... much more likely to think that genetically modified foods are adulterated in some way. They are much more likely to think that if they eat genetically modified foods, their genes will be changed," he added. "This is much less so in the minds of Americans." Europeans also trust their governments less to keep them safe from any dangers genetically foods might pose. "I think Americans are, on the whole, much more optimistic about new technologies than are Europeans," he said. Gaskell said it was not clear why, but he would continue to study people's attitudes. "It may be part of popular culture, it may be the history of eugenics, it may be the BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease) crisis that hit Europe," he said. Gaskell said governments had better act on these public fears. "Had labeling been taken more seriously and the whole issue of segregation of crops, one wonders whether the present crisis would be as severe as it is," Gaskell said. Within five years virtually all U.S. agricultural exports will be genetically modified or combined with bulk commodities that have been altered, according to U.S. officials. The debate over their safety threatens to worsen already strained trade relations with the European Union. Some European consumer groups, wary after a series of scares over tainted food, have called for a moratorium on all genetically modified foods until more is known about their long-term effects. Earlier this week Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman warned U.S. biotech and food companies to heed consumer concerns and adopt voluntary labels for genetically modified products.