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 (1594)	3/12/1999 6:03:00 PM
From: Exacctnt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2539

Anthony, I find it interesting that Pioneer would announce that it was in talks with DuPont. Pioneer probably thought that their stock was undervalued and disclosed that they were in talks to jack up their stock price to get more out of DuPont in a takeover. The strategy, if true, paid off as PHB jumped almost 10 points today. I wonder if DuPont is pissed about the disclosure. Regards, Bob

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1594)	3/12/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

(A must read article) A QUESTION OF BREEDING (highlight from the article) One of the document's more alarming observations has nothing to do with GM crops, however. "Potential adverse effects," it notes, "may be just as likely to occur as a result of conventional plant breeding programmes." (full story) By David Concar and Andy Coghlan As the media storm in Britain over GM foods entered its second week, the focus shifted from health to the environment. New Scientist reveals the latest research on the impact of GM crops on wildlife. But first, discover why conventional plant breeding is every bit as risky... IT LOOKS JUST LIKE an ordinary oilseed rape plant, but farmers in Canada know it as "Smart Canola". Because it carries genes for resistance to two families of herbicides, the farmers can kill off every weed in sight, without fear of damaging their harvest. The prospect of plants that could in effect conspire with farmers to produce chemically sterilised fields has sent Europe's conservationists into a flat spin. They have issued dire warnings about the perils of agricultural biotechnology and call for moratoriums on GM plantings. But Smart Canola is not quite what it seems. While European officials agonise over the pros and cons of growing GM crops, they could do little to stop farmers planting this oilseed rape. The reason: Smart Canola is not genetically engineered. Scientists at Pioneer Hi-Bred in Des Moines, Iowa, used normal breeding and selection techniques to create Smart Canola. This involved screening thousands of naturally occurring variants for strains resistant to herbicides. The company rejects any suggestion that its crops will encourage farmers to sterilise their fields and thus harm wildlife. "You don't just go out there and apply these chemicals randomly," says company spokesman Tim Martin. But because the crop is not genetically engineered, Martin's assertion would not need to be put to the test before the rape could be grown in Europe. The only trials required would be experimental plantings designed to evaluate its performance to confirm that it really is a novel variety. In fact, Pioneer has already made one application to market Smart Canola in Britain. This was turned down, but only because the yield was too low--a problem the company is confident it can solve. Smart Canola is just one of several conventionally bred crops that could in theory pose the same environmental hazards as GM plants. And yet these crops would bypass rules compelling companies to show that their GM crops are unlikely to create environmental problems. Other plants that could slip through the net include maize and soya beans designed to resist the same herbicides as Smart Canola, also from Pioneer Hi-Bred. David Robinson of the Scottish Crop Research Institute near Dundee, a member of the British government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), says existing legislation is plagued by a "double standard" that defies reason. "The idea that herbicide resistant crops produced by genetic engineering are inherently more hazardous than ones produced by conventional techniques is simply nonsense," he says. This point is reiterated in a report from ACRE on GM crops and wildlife that was released last week. Headlines claimed that the document detailed a catalogue of environmental disasters waiting to happen, from genes escaping from GM crops to create superweeds to insect and bird populations already decimated by intensive farming being killed off by genetic engineering. In fact, the report is an even-handed analysis of the risks and benefits of introducing the crops onto Britain's farmland. It's true that the conservation watchdog English Nature has called for a ban on commercial plantings of GM crops that are resistant to broad spectrum herbicides. It is worried that more farmland would be wiped clean of wild plants as a result. The ACRE report acknowledges these fears but also lists possible advantages. These include less need to till soil to control weeds, which could help stem erosion. One of the document's more alarming observations has nothing to do with GM crops, however. "Potential adverse effects," it notes, "may be just as likely to occur as a result of conventional plant breeding programmes." Martin takes a more positive view of ACRE's statements on the similarity between GM and conventional crops. "I see it as affirmation that conventional breeding can work just as well," he says. But for environmentalists, the ACRE report carries as a sobering message. While they concentrate on attacking GM crops, the plants' conventionally bred cousins could sneak into Europe through the back door. For comprehensive international GM coverage, see gmworld.newscientist.com from New Scientist, 27 February 1999 newscientist.com