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 (1370)	2/24/1999 8:14:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

BBC: GM soya 'in Linda McCartney food' news.bbc.co.uk As I said, it's really very difficult to ban GM food. I wish the local councils luck.

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1370)	2/25/1999 12:36:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

CNN: U.S., others sink talks on biogenetics regulation February 24, 1999 Web posted at: 6:25 p.m. EST (2325 GMT) CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- Opposing an accord approved by more than 125 nations, the United States and five other countries scuttled efforts Wednesday to forge an environmental protection treaty on trade in genetically modified plants and animals. Washington said it was protecting the world's food trade from potentially crippling regulatory burdens. But critics said it was doing the bidding of multinational businesses, whose laboratory-produced crops could one day sow ecological catastrophe. The breakdown after 10 days of talks marked the first time in more than 20 years that a major international environmental negotiation has concluded in disarray, said Michael Williams, spokesman for the U.N. Environmental Program. The negotiations are to resume within 16 months at an undetermined time and place. The European Union and more than 110 other nations at the U.N.-initiated talks agreed late Tuesday to forge a so-called Biosafety Protocol, an outgrowth of the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. But the United States, Australia, Canada, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile blocked the proposed compromise, which would have permitted nations to restrict imports not only of experimental organisms but also of genetically altered crops such as soy, corn, cotton and potatoes. U.S. wants narrow focus "The United States has dominated these negotiations and they've now sabotaged them. They're obviously trying to force genetically modified food down the throats of consumers," charged Louise Gale, a spokeswoman for the environmental group Greenpeace. The United States, the world's main biotech exporter, wanted a narrowly focused treaty that "protected the environment and yet avoided unduly restraining international trade" in a rapidly growing mutibillion-dollar industry, said U.S. delegation chief Melinda Kimble. Biotech products such as insect-resistant crops and vaccines born of gene-splicing are touted by proponents as guarantors of future global food security. They produce higher yields than traditionally crossbred hybrids with fewer chemical insecticides and herbicides. Their patents are mostly owned by a handful of companies -- from Monsanto of St. Louis to Novartis of Basel, Switzerland, who insist the products are rigorously tested and safe. Critics, however, worry about the possibility of still unfathomable and possibly catastrophic consequences if the products go awry. Distrust of engineered products Developing countries want international safeguards to protect themselves against potential biogenetic disaster. They want biotech companies legally liable for any damage to biodiversity or human health -- another provision opposed by the United States. Many Europeans also distrust genetically engineered products. Although genetic engineering experimentation began two decades ago, development of biotech foods, vaccines and byproducts has only recently taken off. Worldwide, more than 67 million acres of genetically altered crops were sown in 1998, up from about 2 million in 1996. In the United States, between 25 percent and 45 percent of some major crops are already genetically modified. Industry officials expect some 90 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to be biogenetic within a decade. cnn.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1370)	2/25/1999 12:41:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Consumer body criticises 'scare tactics' on GM foods The Irish Times FRONT PAGE Thursday, February 25, 1999 By Kevin O'Sullivan, Environmental and Food Science Correspondent The main body representing Irish consumers has strongly criticised the "use of scare tactics to dissuade consumers from buying genetically modified (GM) foods". The Consumers' Association of Ireland has said, nonetheless, that people "should not be force-fed these products" facilitated by way of unlabelled products on supermarket shelves. In a response to growing public concerns surrounding GM foods, it underlined consumers' fundamental right to know what they are eating, and to know that it is safe. "In the absence of solid proof that GM foods are dangerous, we believe the decision to buy these products should lie with the consumer. Labelling is vital to make a clear decision. As an independent body, we feel it's not right to use scare tactics to dissuade consumers from consuming GM foods," a CAI statement said. The CAI said it was not against GM foods in principle, nor did it suggest that GM food and GM ingredients are in any general sense unsafe. However, consumers, the CAI added, had "the fundamental right to have the option of a GM-free alternative, if they so choose" when buying food. This could be exercised only if information was provided with details about the process of gene technology in a prescribed format. Under current EU labelling arrangements, most GM products do not have to be labelled, though more wide-ranging regulations are to be introduced this year. On the "crucial questions", whether the Government should ban GM foods until scientific evidence that they are harmless, or whether these products should be kept on the market until science has identified real dangers, the CAI concluded there was no right answer. "If we ban GM foods, we are limiting consumer choice, and even after a ban and extensive testing, there may still be no conclusive evidence of a health risk. The alternative is to authorise GM foods that have followed strict regulations and clearly label those products while conventional products remain available." Young Fine Gael has rejected as "emotive and un-founded" comparisons of modern biotechnology with technologies such as the nuclear industry. In its new policy document on GM foods, it advocates "a progressive, balanced and considered biotechnology policy for the future" and rejects the "Jurassic Park-type view of genetic modification" which has taken hold in many consumers. Green MEP Ms Nuala Ahern said the CAI stance contradicted that of European and British consumer associations "who have all called for moratoriums on GM crop development, particularly in light of recent scientific reports". The Green Party has pointed out that Greens in the European Parliament backed key elements of the Bowe Report recently, such as new demands for full GM product liability and more extensive labelling, but in a formal vote on the overall report voted against it because of reservations about some aspects. Green MEPs, nonetheless, allowed the report - which sets out reforms of EU regulations on the release of GM organisms - proceed to the next stage of the EU legislative process. irish-times.com

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1370)	2/25/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

U.K. Govt to Publish Label Rules on Genetically Modified Food Bloomberg News February 25, 1999, 3:00 a.m. ET London, Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. government will next week publish rules requiring all food containing genetically modified food to be clearly labeled, the Financial Times reported, citing no sources. Concern over genetically modified food is likely to grow in the U.K. in spite of government insistence it is entirely safe, especially after local governments across the country banned the foods from schools and care homes for five years. The government also plans to establish a Food Standards Agency early next year which will take over the role of licensing new genetically modified food from the agriculture ministry, the FT said. Public criticism of genetically modified food crops was visible in the U.K. last week when Greenpeace activists dumped 4 metric tons of genetically modified soybeans outside the official home of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. --Michael Bleby in the London newsroom (44 171) 330-7041/cp More News: MTC