SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mishedlo who wrote (11995)9/21/2004 10:02:41 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 116555
 
September 21, 2004
Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds
By ANDREW POLLACK

new study shows that genes from genetically engineered grass can spread much farther than previously known, a finding that raises questions about the straying of other plants altered through biotechnology and that could hurt the efforts of two companies to win approval for the first bioengineered grass.

The two companies, Monsanto and Scotts, have developed a strain of creeping bentgrass for use on golf courses that is resistant to the widely used herbicide Roundup. The altered plants would allow groundskeepers to spray the herbicide on their greens and fairways to kill weeds while leaving the grass unscathed.

But the companies' plans have been opposed by some environmental groups as well as by the federal Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Critics worry that the grass could spread to areas where it is not wanted or transfer its herbicide resistance to weedy relatives, creating superweeds that would be immune to the most widely used weed killer. The Forest Service said earlier this year that the grass "has the potential to adversely impact all 175 national forests and grasslands."

Some scientists said the new results, to be published online this week by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, did not necessarily raise alarms about existing genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. There are special circumstances, they say, that make the creeping bentgrass more environmentally worrisome, like its extraordinarily light pollen.

Because Scotts has plans to develop other varieties of bioengineered grasses for use on household lawns, the new findings could have implications well beyond the golf course. And the study suggests that some previous studies of the environmental impact of genetically modified plants have been too small to capture the full spread of altered genes.

Scotts says that because naturally occurring bentgrass has not caused major weed problems, the bioengineered version would pose no new hazards. And any Roundup-resistant strains that might somehow develop outside of intentionally planted areas could be treated with other weed killers, the company said.

In the new study, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency found that the genetically engineered bentgrass pollinated test plants of the same species as far away as they measured -about 13 miles downwind from a test farm in Oregon. Natural growths of wild grass of a different species were pollinated by the gene-modified grass nearly nine miles away.

Previous studies had measured pollination between various types of genetically modified plants and wild relatives at no more than about one mile, according to the paper.

"It's the longest distance gene-flow study that I know of," said Norman C. Ellstrand, an expert on this subject at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the study but read the paper.

"The gene really is essentially going to get out," he added. "What this study shows is it's going to get out a lot faster and a lot further than people anticipated."

One reason the grass pollen was detected so far downwind was the size of the farm - 400 acres with thousands of plants. Most previous studies of gene flow have been done on far smaller fields, meaning there was less pollen and a lower chance that some would travel long distances. Those small studies, the new findings suggest, might not accurately reflect what would happen once a plant covers a large area.

"This is one of the first really realistic studies that has been done," said Joseph K. Wipff, an Oregon grass breeder. Dr. Wipff was not involved in the latest study but had conducted an earlier one that found pollen from genetically engineered grass traveling only about 1,400 feet. That test, though, used less than 300 plants covering one-tenth of an acre.

The effort to commercialize the bentgrass has attracted attention because it raises issues somewhat different from those surrounding the existing genetically modified crops.

It would be the first real use of genetic engineering in a suburban setting, for example, rather than on farms. And the grass is perennial, while corn, soybeans, cotton and canola are planted anew each year, making them easier to control.

Bentgrass can also cross-pollinate with at least 12 other species of grass, while the existing crops, except for canola, have no wild relatives in the places they are grown in the United States. And crops like corn and soybeans have trouble surviving off the farm, while grass can easily survive in the wild.

The bentgrass, moreover, besides having very light pollen - a cloud can be seen rising from grass farms - has very light seeds that disperse readily in the wind. It can also reproduce asexually using stems that creep along the ground and establish new roots, giving rise to its name.

Because of the environmental questions, the application for approval of the bioengineered bentgrass is encountering delays at the Department of Agriculture, which must decide whether to allow the plant to be commercialized.

After hearing public comments earlier this year, the department has now decided to produce a full environmental impact statement, which could take a year or more, according to Cindy Smith, who is in charge of biotech regulation.

Ms. Smith, in an interview yesterday, said the new study "gives some preliminary information that's different from previous studies that we're aware of." But more conclusive research is needed, she said.

Bentgrass is already widely used in its nonengineered form by golf course operators, mainly for greens but also for fairways and tee areas, in part because it is sturdy even when closely mown. It is rarely used on home lawns because it must be cared for intensively. And creeping bentgrass does not cross-pollinate with the types of grass typically used on lawns, scientists said.

Executives at Scotts, a major producer of lawn and turf products based in Marysville, Ohio, said the genetically engineered bentgrass would be sold only for golf courses. They said golf courses cut their grass so often that the pollen-producing part of the plants would never develop.

And because nonengineered creeping bentgrass has not caused weed problems despite being used on golf courses for decades, they said, the genetically modified version would pose no new problems.

"There has been pollen flow but it has not created weeds," Michael P. Kelty, the executive vice president and vice chairman of Scotts, said in an interview yesterday. He said Scotts and Monsanto, the world's largest developer of genetically modified crops, had spent tens of millions of dollars since 1998 developing the bioengineered bentgrass.

The questions about the grass come after Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, said earlier this year that it was dropping its effort to introduce the world's first genetically engineered wheat, citing concerns by farmers that its use in foods might face market opposition.

Scotts is also developing genetically modified grass for home lawns, like herbicide-tolerant and slow-growing types that would need less mowing. But those products still need several more years of testing, Dr. Kelty said, adding that the company would avoid types of grass that could become weeds. "We don't want to put a product out there that is going to be a threat," he said.

Scotts and Monsanto have received some support for their argument from the Weed Science Society of America, a professional group, which conducted a review of the weed tendencies of creeping bentgrass and its close relatives at the request of the Department of Agriculture.

"In the majority of the country these species have not presented themselves as a significant weed problem, historically," said Rob Hedberg, director of science policy for the society, summarizing the conclusions of the review. He said that because people have generally not tried to control bentgrass and similar species with Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, "the inability to control them with this herbicide is a less significant issue."

Still, the society's report noted that bentgrass could be considered a weed by farms that are trying to grow other grass seeds. And the Forest Service, in comments to the Agriculture Department earlier this year, said that bentgrass has threatened to displace native species in some national forests.

John M. Randall, acting director of the Invasive Species Initiative at the Nature Conservancy, said bentgrass and related species had been a threat to native grasses in certain preserves that the group helps manage, including a couple near Montauk Point on eastern Long Island.

Other opponents of the genetically modified grass seized on the results. "This does confirm what a lot of people feared - expected, really," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "These kinds of distances are eye-popping."

The new study was done by Lidia S. Watrud and colleagues at an E.P.A. research center in Corvallis, Ore., who were trying to develop new methods to assess gene flow, not specifically to study the bentgrass.

They put out 178 potted and unmodified creeping bentgrass plants, which they called sentinel plants, at various distances around the test farm. They also surveyed wild bentgrass and other grasses. They collected more than a million seeds from the plants, growing them into seedlings to test for herbicide resistance and doing genetic tests.

The number of seeds found to be genetically engineered was only 2 percent for the sentinel plants, 0.03 percent for wild creeping bentgrass and 0.04 percent for another wild grass. Most of those seeds were found in the first two miles or so, with the number dropping sharply after that. Still, said Anne Fairbrother, one of the authors of the report, finding even some cross pollination at 13 miles "is a paradigm shift in how far pollen might move."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top



To: mishedlo who wrote (11995)9/21/2004 10:07:30 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 116555
 
September 21, 2004
THE ECONOMY
Where Do the Jobs Come From?
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

ASHINGTON

PRESIDENT BUSH says he loves small business, and small-business owners are overwhelmingly on his side in the election. But entrepreneurs are not yet giving Mr. Bush the one thing he needs the most: a surge in jobs.

For nearly 20 years now, political leaders of all stripes have taken it as gospel truth that small companies are responsible for about two-thirds of all new jobs created in the United States. (Senator John Kerry, who is as enthusiastic a small-business cheerleader as his opponent, outdoes him on this score, crediting the sector with 75 percent of all new jobs.)

First proclaimed in the mid-80's by David Birch, at the time a consultant and lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the assertion always obscured major distinctions between small companies with limited ambitions and new companies based on novel ideas or technology.

An abundance of evidence suggests that fast-growing young companies — from up-start retailers to Internet stars like Google — do indeed account for a very large part of employment growth. There is also evidence, though not definitive, that small companies have shed fewer workers over the last four years than large corporations.

But even in the more select group of fast-growing start-ups, the small-business dynamo is not what it was during the height of the economic boom. Venture capital funding is a small fraction of what it was before the stock market bubble burst in 2000. Information and technology companies have yet to recover from the dot-com bust. And even fast-growing small companies remain extremely cautious in how they add workers.

Consider Brian Le Gette and Ron L. Wilson II, who co-founded a quirky but booming design company in Baltimore called 180s. Fresh out of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1997, the two built a business on the reinvention of familiar products — making earmuffs that are light enough to be both hip and effective for athletes; gloves that can be warmed by blowing into a special conduit; sunglasses that adhere to the bridge of a person's nose.

But even as sales approach $50 million this year, Mr. Le Gette is keeping his work force lean. He outsources all manufacturing and distribution, hiring only "sharpshooters" with specialized experience in areas like design, finance or marketing. Last year, the company added fewer than 30 people, bringing the total number of employees to 100, and Mr. Le Gette plans to add even fewer people next year.

"We anticipate lower hiring," Mr. Le Gette said. "You get into the $60-million range, and you don't need as many people per million of sales. There's an economy of scale and scope at that level."

Does that mean that the small-business job machine is a myth? The issue is important, because political leaders in both parties have tried to justify a wide range of policies by appealing to the needs of small-business owners.

President Bush pushed through generous tax breaks that allowed small companies to write off their investment in new equipment. Partly at the behest of small-business lobbying groups, Mr. Bush has pushed hard for eliminating inheritance taxes. The Bush administration has also rolled back Clinton-era regulations on workplace safety, particularly ergonomic rules for people who work at keyboards, and has tried to revise overtime regulations.

But small companies and big corporations were all shedding jobs from 2001 through most of 2003, and they are still cautious about hiring.

Overall, the percentage of people who work at small companies has remained roughly constant over the last decade, which would seem at odds with an economy where small companies account for the vast bulk of new jobs.

According to the Census Bureau, employment at smaller companies actually climbed more slowly than at large corporations between 1990 and 2001, the most recent year for which data is available. The number of people working at companies with 20 to 100 employees climbed to 20.3 million from 17.7 million, about 13 percent over the 11-year period. But the number of people at companies with more than 500 employees climbed to 57 million from 43 million — an increase of 32 percent.

But some analysts say such comparisons miss a key issue: they argue that job creation comes from what Mr. Birch once described as "gazelle" companies — young enterprises with pioneering ideas that quickly grow into big companies. A company like Google, which did not exist 10 years ago, already shows up in government statistics as a large corporation.

"The key issue isn't the size of the company but its age," said Zoltan J. Acs, dean of the University of Baltimore's Merrick School of Business, who has studied the issue closely.

"What we know for certain is that much of the growth comes from young companies," Mr. Acs said. Based on an intensive analysis of job flows in 1996, Mr. Acs found that most of the growth in employment came from new companies or new establishments at existing companies. Over the long-term, Mr. Acs estimated, about half of all new jobs come from fast-growing new companies and the other half comes from expansion at existing companies.

There are differences when looking beyond the simple question of size, which is apparent in a recent study by Cordelia Okolie, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ms. Okolie analyzed data from the spring of 2000, the waning days of the economic boom, in two ways. First, she sorted companies by their size at the start of the quarter, in March. Then, she analyzed the same data but sorted the companies according to what size they were three months later.

The first analysis showed that virtually all the job growth seemed to come from companies with fewer than 250 workers. But the second analysis, based on the size of work forces at the end of the quarter, showed that nearly one-third of all additional employment showed up at companies with more than 500 workers.

Either way, small companies seemed to provide most of the additional jobs. But the real job growth did not come from people with dreams of being small-business owners. It came from people bent on building big companies.

"It may not be that the smallest firms create the most jobs per se," Ms. Okolie said. "It may be that the youngest firms create the most jobs. It may be young companies that happen to be innovative and also happen to be small."

That is a distinction that neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry tend to emphasize. But the distinction is important in terms of another important issue in the campaign, job quality. Overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly wages are lower at small establishments — $627 at companies with 20 to 40 employees in 2003, versus $919 a week at companies with 500 employees and $1,079 a week at companies with 1,000 workers or more.

Likewise, small businesses have been cutting back on health insurance benefits far more than large corporations. According to the latest study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 63 percent of companies with fewer than 200 employees offered health insurance benefits, compared with 99 percent of larger companies.

Both candidates support special tax breaks for small companies. Mr. Kerry has promised $170 million in new money for loans to small businesses; a new "jobs tax credit" for small companies that increase their work forces; elimination of capital gains taxes on investments in small companies; and a bigger share of federal contracts for small companies.

Mr. Kerry also contends that his biggest contribution to small business would be his plan to reduce health insurance costs, which have been rising at double-digit rates for several years.

That plan, estimated to cost at least $682 billion, would have the federal government underwrite much of the cost of catastrophic health insurance, which the Kerry campaign says will reduce the cost of health insurance premiums by about $1,000 a year.

Mr. Bush claims to have already increased lending to small business by 50 percent, and he too promises to give small businesses a larger share of federal contracts.

But the heart of Mr. Bush's appeal to small business is on tax cuts and deregulation. Because the vast majority of small-business owners are taxed on company profits as individual income, Mr. Bush's reduction of individual income tax rates effectively reduced taxes for millions of small companies. On top of that, his last tax package quadrupled the amount of money that small companies could immediately write off on purchases of new equipment.

Mr. Kerry contends that his health care proposals would greatly reduce one of the most worrying costs to small-business owners and make it easier for them to compete by offering health insurance benefits similar to those of large corporations.

Small-business owners and executives at large corporations alike are far more likely to support Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry, who they fear would both raise their taxes and increase regulation.

That said, Mr. Kerry and the Democrats can point to solid evidence that they would not necessarily be bad for entrepreneurship: new companies had one of their biggest booms ever during the Clinton years.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top