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: jttmab who wrote (2315)	7/21/1999 12:41:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

AP article: Old heart drug makes surprising comeback phillynews.com:80/daily_news/99/Jul/20/features/HEAR20.htm

To: jttmab who wrote (2315)	7/21/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

US group hires ex-trade rep to lobby on biotech Updated 7:38 PM ET July 20, 1999 By Doug Palmer BOSTON (Reuters) - An organization representing U.S. grain farmers took action Tuesday to battle growing international opposition to genetically modified crops, hiring former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills to lobby world leaders on their behalf. The board of directors of the U.S. Grains Council also agreed to press for a "single undertaking" approach to the next round of world trade talks, fearing U.S. agriculture will have few bargaining chips unless it is linked with other issues as part of a comprehensive trade package. The Grains Council, its members frustrated by what they view as unfounded health fears abroad, agreed to spend about $300,000 to hire Hills to lobby world leaders in support of genetically modified crops over the next year. "While we respect our customers' right to establish standards for products of biotechnology, we cannot allow arbitrary and unsubstantiated health and safety claims to deny access to important markets," said Roger Pine, president of the National Corn Growers Association. During a report to the council on goals for the Seattle trade talks in November, Pine said U.S. corn farmers lost $200 million in sales last year because of the European Union's delay in approving new genetically modified varieties that had cleared regulatory hurdles in the United States. Hills, who was U.S. trade representative during the Bush administration, would lobby leaders in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere in an effort to keep EU consumer fears about genetically modified crops from spreading, council officials said. The executive panel voted to oppose the re-opening of the so-called "sanitary and phytosanitary agreement," which governs international food safety rules. Instead, they want U.S. negotiators to accomplish the more subtle task of getting other countries to agree on how the current SPS pact covers biotechnology products. The council also agreed to press for a "single undertaking" approach to the next round of trade talks. The decision came in response to an admission by current U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky that she had not decided whether to adopt a "single undertaking" or "early harvest" approach to the talks. Her comments caused an uproar among farmers. Because the United States has few farm import barriers, it has little to give in that sector to entice other countries to open their markets to more U.S. agricultural goods. For that reason, U.S. farmers want the upcoming multiyear talks to be a "single undertaking" that would not be complete until there is an agreement in all sectors. An "early harvest" approach that would let negotiators wrap up some sectors sooner than others could leave agriculture in the lurch, farm groups fear. U.S. trade officials have tried to assure farmers that negotiations on agriculture would be linked with enough other sectors to ensure a new farm trade pact can be reached. But the high stakes represented by the upcoming talks have turned a phrase that usually has a positive meaning for farmers into a negative buzzword. "I used to think early harvest was a good thing, but it's not any more," said Dale Spurgin, a Texas sorghum producer, drawing a laugh from fellow grain council members.

To: jttmab who wrote (2315)	7/21/1999 12:53:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 2539

Amid beef dispute, US halts hormone-free beef to EU Updated 7:42 PM ET July 20, 1999 By Julie Vorman WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States Tuesday suspended exports of hormone-free beef to the European Union, saying it was concerned that American meat companies were not delivering what they promised. The unexpected action by the U.S. Agriculture Department will cut off a relatively modest 25 million pounds a year in U.S. sales to the EU, out of total U.S. beef exports of more than 2.2 billion pounds. The announcement came at a time when Washington has separately battled with the EU to win the right to export beef from American cattle treated with growth hormones. On Monday, the Clinton Administration decided to slap 100-percent tariffs on a variety of European gourmet foods at the end of this month to punish the EU for blocking U.S. shipments of hormone-treated beef. About 90 percent of American cattle are given artificial hormones to make them grow faster, and to produce tender and less-fatty meat. But while the United States has fought for market access for the huge amount of beef from hormone-treated cattle, U.S. companies have also tried to fill the market niche for meat certified to be free of hormones. Last spring, the USDA told U.S. meat companies to improve efforts to certify meat labeled as "hormone-free" after EU testing showed that 12 percent of the beef contained hormone residues. The problem is one of accuracy in labeling, not food safety, said Tom Billy, administrator of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). "The industry has been asked to take steps to address FSIS concerns about the program before certification in reinstated," Billy said. "While hormones used to promote growth in cattle have been proven safe...the agency needs assurance that valid and accurate information is provided," he added. In April, the EU threatened to block U.S. shipments of the hormone-free beef if American companies didn't resolve problems with hormone residues. The USDA agreed to require the industry to pay for more sampling, and to establish control points to make sure the hormone-treated beef was not commingled with hormone-free beef. U.S regulators said they decided to immediately suspend the shipments after an EU audit of laboratory analyses showed residue problems. "We want the industry to propose certification of hormone-free beef at the farm and feedlot level," said one agency official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The FSIS, which regulates meat packing plants, does not have jurisdiction over farms. "We are also looking at in-plant oversight" instead of relying on companies to police themselves, the official said. "We're looking at what we can and cannot do." Meat labels may also figure in the ongoing quarrel between Washington and Brussels over U.S. beef from cattle treated with hormones. U.S. trade negotiators have repeatedly proposed a labeling scheme in which the EU would permit shipments of hormone-treated beef as long as it was clearly labelled so European consumers could choose whether they wanted to buy it. So far, the 15-member EU has rejected the idea.