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.

Pastimes : Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike McFarland who wrote (61)	8/26/1999 12:06:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103

(:>)RED FACED Well! At least with my 5.00 investment I got to see the additonal pictures not shown on the website. I thought I had read some of the information in the magazine article, but with my advanced age.....yesterday can be a blur.(:>>)

To: Mike McFarland who wrote (61)	9/7/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Respond to of 103

Is the tide turning against GMO's? Tuesday September 7, 3:05 pm Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Consumer Alert Consumer Alert: ADM -- Specialty Market to the Rich WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The following op-ed piece is by Frances B. Smith, Executive Director of Consumer Alert: Archer Daniels Midland Co. -- fond of touting itself as ``Supermarket to the World' -- should change its slogan to ``Specialty Market to the Rich of the World.' ADM recently warned its grain suppliers they would have to segregate crops produced from biotechnology from those produced conventionally. Not only would this redundancy cause prices to rise significantly for consumers on a whole range of food products, but reactions like ADM's could spread and grind to a halt the potential benefits that biotechnology could bring to millions of starving and malnourished people in developing countries. ADM's action came in the wake of hysteria in Europe fueled by anti- biotechnology activists and fanned by tabloid-type media coverage. The anti- biotech campaigns have moved quickly to the U.S. and Canada. Leading the charge was Greenpeace, whose first targets were baby food producers -- Gerber, for one -- whom they scared into promising ``never ever to do it again, mommy,' that is, to use food produced through biotechnology in its baby foods. Gerber is going to use ``organic' food instead, even though there is no scientific evidence that organically grown food is safer, purer, or more healthful than conventionally grown or bio-engineered food. Indeed, agronomists point to Centers for Disease Control data showing fresh, unprocessed organic foodstuffs may have a higher incidence of food-borne pathogens. Some large companies before Gerber had already caved in to the fear- mongering campaigns against foods produced through biotechnology, even though they know and have stated publicly that there is no scientific justification for their actions. As ADM said in its statement, the company ``remains supportive of the science and safety' of bioengineered crops, but it was worried about customers abroad who are concerned about gene-altered crops. ADM's buckling under, however, speaks more loudly than its ``supportive' words to customers and consumers and is likely to provide fertile ground for activists to make further inroads. Indeed, Reuters quotes European activists as declaring ``victory' in response to ADM's cave-in. Critical public health benefits that biotechnology can offer could be set back through companies' playing into the hands of Greenpeace, et al. If biotechnology research proceeds at its current pace, the human and environmental benefits of agricultural biotechnology could be dramatic and widespread in the near future. That would mean higher crop yields and a likely reduction in pesticide usage. Biotechnology is the best hope we have of meeting the growing food demands of a world population that will increase by at least 50 percent in the next several years. If we don't increase yields on the land already being farmed, the alternative is to put more land into production -- lands that now represent forests and wildlife areas. Among the possibilities of biotechnology are drought resistant crops and plants resistant to aluminum toxicity, which cuts crop yields in vast regions of the world, primarily in developing countries. Enhanced nutritional levels of staple crops can prevent diseases that are life-threatening or debilitating. In just one example, gene-altered rice has been enhanced with Vitamin A and could help eradicate blindness, caused by a deficiency of that vitamin, in millions of children. Currently, consumers know little about those benefits. Activist groups that are campaigning against this new technology in countries across the world ignore the positive and instead promote images of fear and dread to depict the products of biotechnology. It is not a food safety issue, however. It is an issue of a new technology that rubs against the values and tastes of some, who, in satisfying their own preferences, would deny biotechnology's benefits to the world.

To: Mike McFarland who wrote (61)	9/13/1999 9:50:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103

Well! It has finally happened. Wondered when it would occur and now it has. "Planned Lawsuit To Fuel Biotech Debate By Julie Vorman Sep 13 5:21pm ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. farm and environmental groups said Monday they would file a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages from major agribusiness companies that have allegedly amassed too much control over genetically-modified (GM) seeds. The planned antitrust lawsuit, to be filed in a federal court by December 1, would raise a fresh issue in the growing international debate over bio-engineered crops. Consumer groups throughout Europe have demanded labels on U.S. food made with GM soybeans, corn and other crops. U.S. growers, who eagerly embraced GM crops to improve yields and pest resistance, are beginning to worry about a consumer backlash to bio-engineered foods. And farmers in less-developed nations have complained that patents on GM seeds unfairly bar them from re-using seed the following season. ``We're moving from the GM food labeling issue to an even broader issue of GM seeds and concentration in world agriculture,' Jeremy Rifkin, an environmental activist and head of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends, said in a telephone interview from London. The foundation and the National Family Farm Coalition are working with dozens of farm groups around the world to plan the U.S. lawsuit and similar ones in other countries. The U.S. lawsuit will seek billions of dollars in damages from all major seed companies including Monsanto Co, DuPont Co, Zeneca Group, Novartis, as well as agribusiness giants Archer Daniels Midland and privately owned Cargill Inc., Rifkin said. Most of the companies declined to comment on the planned lawsuit, but asserted the seed industry is competitive. ``We have 42 percent of the market share (for corn), but we have to fight for that every year and give farmers a choice,' said a spokesman for Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Although details about the planned lawsuit remained sketchy, the U.S. groups said they were concerned about growing concentration of ownership in the commercial seed business. Fewer than a dozen companies now control most GM seeds sold throughout the world, and they are quickly buying out smaller competitors, Rifkin said. The two U.S. groups also want seed companies to stop claiming patent rights that bar farmers from re-using GM seeds the following spring. That requirement is especially onerous for poor farmers in developing countries, he said. But seed companies have already abandoned that approach in favor of another way to recoup their millions of dollars invested in GM seeds, according to Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute. Companies are developing GM seeds that can ``turn on' a special characteristic -- the ability to repel pests or drought -- only if a farmer buys a special chemical to treat the seeds, Pinstrup-Andersen said. ``If the seed it not treated, it will revert back to its original characteristics. That means the farmer is no worse off, but can choose to pay to become better off,' he said. ``We don't go after bigness just because it's there,' said Michael Hausfeld, an antitrust lawyer representing the groups. 'It's only a problem when it has the inherent potential for abuse, like with these seed companies.' The filing of the antitrust lawsuit will be timed to coincide with the World Trade Organization gathering in Seattle in late November. Heads of government and agricultural ministers are scheduled to launch a new round of trade talks aimed at phasing out government crop subsidies, improving food safety standards and discussing the impact of biotechnology. At the current pace farmers are adopting GM seeds, in 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 farmer complaints about alleged concentration in the seed industry have also been heard by Congress. Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat, is drafting a bill to call for a one-year halt to all mergers among agribusinesses with net revenues of more than $50 million. Wellstone, speaking in an interview, said he was concerned about ``the potential for abuse' amid rapid consolidation in the grain, livestock and seed sectors of agribusiness. ``This is an area of concern for many farmers, who don't want to be able to buy seeds from just one company, much like they don't want to market their livestock to a single company, and sell their grain to one company,' said Richard Stuckey, vice president of Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. More Finance News