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 (1165)	2/12/1999 11:54:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

BBC: Genetic food raises health fears Friday, February 12, 1999 Published at 14:01 GMT The threat to health posed by genetically modified food is one of the great unanswered questions of science. High powered technological advances mean that new types of genetically modified food are being developed almost daily. It is estimated that 60% of processed foods now contain genetically modified foods, such as soya. As yet there is no evidence that these foods have an impact on human health. But fears have been raised by research such as that controversially carried out by Dr Arpad Puztai, who found that rats fed on genetically modified potatoes suffered a weakened immune system and damage to vital organs. This includes an enlarged stomach wall and a shrunken brain. Some scientists believe that tinkering with the natural genetic structure of food is bound to have a damaging impact on health, which might only become clear in the longer term. Unpredictable nature Dr Mae-Wan Ho, of the Biology Department, Open University, warns that because no gene ever functions in isolation, there will almost always be unexpected and unintended "side-effects" from the gene or genes transferred into an organism. She said many new genes that are inserted into food stuffs are taken from disease-causing virsues - genetic parasites that have the ability to invade cells and insert themselves into the cell's genetic make-up. As such they have the potential to cause genetic damage and unpredictable physiological and biochemical effects. There is also the potential that the exchange of genes could lead to the creation of brand new disease-causing organisms, made up of genetic material from many different species. Dr Ho said: "We simply do not have sufficient understanding of the principles of physiological regulation to enable us to categorize those genetic modifications that will pose a risk and those that do not." The unpredictability of genetic modifications has been illustrated by an experiment on yeast which was genetically engineered to produce hgher levels of enzymes to break down sugar. Boosting the enzyme levels, however, led to the build-up of a toxic compound called methyl glyoxal. Increased antibiotic resistance Many scientists are concerned about the use of antibiotic-resistant "marker" genes in genetically engineered crops. They fear that exposure to these genes will eventually lead to the development of antibiotic resistance in the bacteria found in the intestine of animals - or humans - who eat the crops. In turn many micro-organisms may build up antibiotic resistance, and antibiotics may eventually lose their ability to combat disease. Serious concerns have already been raised over a genetically modified maize produced by the Swiss firm Novartis. The maize contains a gene which can generate resistance to antibiotics, and which the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has warned could rapidly neutralise medicine such as penicillin. Allergic response Genetically engineered food also has the potential to give rise to new allergens. Scientists fear that many of these will not be detected before wholesale release into the food chain because no-one can say what to test for. A transgenic soybean containing a brazil-nut gene has already been found to be allergenic, as has a transgenic yeast engineered for increased rate of fermentation. Dr Vyvyan Howard, a foetal and infant toxico-pathologist from the University of Liverpool, said genetically modified foods would have to be treated and tested like pharmaceutical drugs. He said: "We are going to have to treat these plants like pharmaceutical agents. "We consume food in a lifetime in tonnes, whereas with a drug you would expect to take it for a couple of days in milligrammes." Dr Ian Taylor, scientific political adviser for the environmental charity Greenpeace, said his organisation had serious concerns about the potential health impact of genetically modified products. He said: "There is a huge domain of scientific uncertainty about the impact of these things. "The medium or long-term effects of introducing genetically engineered organisms into the environment or the food chain are unknown and unpredictable. "No-one is even able to ask the questions about what the impact will be of introducing genes never before part of the human diet." news.bbc.co.uk

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1165)	2/13/1999 11:42:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

POSTnet The selling of a new drug, Celebrex is Monsanto's arthritis fighter Monsanto Co.'s much-anticipated new arthritis treatment, Celebrex, becomes available in January. Arthritis is a booming market as the population ages and more people live longer. The real test for Celebrex is how, or if, managed care firms, such as health maintenance organizations, will pay for the drug. Will they accept it as first-line therapy? Or will they say that cheaper generic brands can do just as well? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch takes a look at the drug industry and the launch of Monsanto's new arthritis medication, Celebrex. The selling of a new drug . . For arthritis sufferers, fighting the pain becomes a way of life. postnet.com . . Major forms of the disease postnet.com HMOs' impact on Celebrex . . HMOs could decide the future of Monsanto pain killer postnet.com . . Price strategy may help Celebrex get acceptance postnet.com . . Monsanto Celebrex information -- Information on Monsanto's new arthritis drug, Celebrex. monsanto.com Celebrex announcments . . FDA oks arthritis drug from Monsanto; Company says Celebrex is easier on the stomach postnet.com . . Monsanto prices Celebrex close to competitors postnet.com . . Monsanto arthritis drug gets approval of FDA panel postnet.com . . Monsanto gives details on new Arthritis drug postnet.com Letters and Commentary . . LETTERS TO THE EDITOR postnet.com . . Cautious optimism for a new drug postnet.com St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Celebrex website: postnet.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1165)	2/13/1999 11:49:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2539

Monsanto has supported fair regulation of biotechnology St. Louis Post-Dispatch Saturday, February 13, 1999 By Will D. Carpenter The Jan. 8 column by Molly Ivins is an excellent example of Will Rogers' assessment of profound opinion: "It's not what people don't know that gets them in trouble; it's all the things they know that ain't so." During the early 1980s and continuing to 1989, I was chairman of Monsanto Co.'s Biotechnology Strategy Committee. Monsanto had clearly identified biotechnology as a major corporate objective. We believed we had more than the usual scientific and marketing issues to manage. More important, we recognized that the largest potential stumbling block was lack of freedom to operate because of a flawed regulatory situation that could occur. Monsanto concluded that we could lose the freedom to operate because of one or both of two possible situations. The first was that products could turn out to have an adverse impact on the environment or the public. The other situation would be a perception that there were adverse effects. Unless both were addressed, we would not be able to capitalize on our biotechnology efforts. History had taught us that we could go from no regulation to punitive regulations in a short time, especially if some problem appeared, either real or perceived. In the early 1980s, vigorous, aggressive opponents of biotechnology were creating doomsday scenarios daily. Our approach was to ask for good, tough, science-based regulations well in advance of products. This would create a win-win situation. First, it would be the best way to protect the public and the environment as well as making sure that the public had the perception that the protection was there. The second benefit was that it would give industry a predictable regulatory environment in which to operate. Congress determined that no new laws or agencies were needed. The three regulatory agencies did end up with an acceptable regulatory system. There were the usual frustrations and debates about specifics, but compared to other regulatory issues and considering the magnitude of the subject, it was handled better than most. Another aspect was that of legislative and regulatory actions of the individual states that affected the biotechnology industry. There was a flurry of activity at the state level. Bills were introduced and regulations and agencies were created. If this had continued, there could have been a patchwork of state regulations that would have caused major problems for the industry. However, with initiative by the federal agencies, the state regulatory issues essentially went away. It is fascinating that Bill Lambrecht, who wrote a Dec. 27 article on Monsanto, and Ivins both were able to ignore the fact that every science-based organization, ranging from the National Academy of Science to the medical profession, has addressed the issue of biotechnology and has supported the concept of agricultural biotechnology. Moreover, the regulatory approach being used has been supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congress for 16 years. The speculative issues raised by Ivins about "jumping species" is very similar to the demagoguery of Jeremy Rifkin in the 1980s. If she had bothered to check, that issue is addressed in the regulatory requirements. If Ivins and Lambrecht can quote from those who destroy property and those who cannot provide data to substantiate their claims, why not quote from the world-renown scientists, as well as those who now have the possibility of sufficient food because of biotechnology? The non-scientific barriers that are preventing the benefits of biotechnology from being brought to bear are deplored by all reputable people. There have been no mishaps, no cries for new agencies or laws. There is science-based regulation in place. Do we deserve an "A+"? The answer is "No." However, I'll claim at least a "B+" rather than the "F" that Ivins and Lambrecht would give us. Copyright (c) 1999, St. Louis Post-Dispatch stlnet.com