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: Anthony Wong who wrote (1392)	2/26/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: Bindusagar Reddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Anthony and Dan, do you think this news from Columbia a positive for MTC. BR

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1392)	2/26/1999 12:33:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Yes, as I described it previously, bans are "technically illegal" under WTO rules, given the way Colombia went. As I pointed out, Greenpeace was hoping some restrictions would be placed which would enitirely remove WTO power. I think there was more to it than just to "help" developing countries...that spin may have been what Greenpeace put on the issue to hide the fact that Greenpeace wanted to zap world trade. But the conference went in favor of the US and Monsanto anyway. (you said) Even without a treaty, countries can limit the import of genetically engineered seeds or foods under their own law, subject to challenge under world trading rules. Some countries, particularly in Europe, are doing this. The treaty was mainly meant to help developing countries, which now lack the expertise and the legislation to regulate biotechnology. (I said earlier) BUT, the Colombia conference foiled the plan of Greenpeace, since GM food now cannot be banned for import, subject to WTO intervention. In fact, the ban in the UK may now be technically illegal, considering the body which made that decision is a "state" of England.

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1392)	2/26/1999 12:56:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

But look at this, the article also suggests WTO will override; so bans would seem to be more than "technically illegal" if they are challenged. Maybe this is more of a victory than we think. I wonder if any bans will be challenged. Right now some Brits are scratching their heads wondering why the school ban is there...after the recent comments from the Royal Society. (from article) He said Washington did make compromises. But he added: "There were two compromises we were not prepared to make. One is to tie up trade in the world's food supply. The second is to allow this regime,without a lot of deliberation, to undermine the WTO trading regime."