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: Edscharp who wrote (1608)	3/13/1999 6:17:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Good article, except it needs to expound on the last statement: "And Monsanto's Bt cotton has failed in some places in the United States." ...upon analysis, these failures were tied to weather patterns, and incorrect usage. Failures are known to happen in farming for a number of reasons, including something as simple as planting the wrong variety. I have heard anecdotal stories that some farmers in the US have been so anxious to get the Monsanto traits, they have selected the wrong base varieties for their region. In fact, the latest I heard about this is Monsanto will go so far as to give assistance in selecting varieties and planting, but will not hold itself liable to farmers mistakes. Also, on the "terminator"...there are several alternatives including plants which don't produce pollen at all.

To: Edscharp who wrote (1608)	3/13/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Miscellaneous interesting items which did not make headline news: 1) The "bad potato scientist" appeared recently before UK Parliament; although his scientific conclusions were independently shot down by yet another party, the UK press did not print a single story which mentioned this detail. In fact, the one story I could find did everything possible to fill print space without actually going into what was said (one of the oddest stories I've seen in a long time). Another story, printed the day before, claimed the scientist was going to reveal details of how GM was going to create mass plagues. (Source: New Scientist, examination of available UK news channels) 2) The farmers union in the UK isn't very happy with the GM scare; farmer incomes are way down in the UK...since they can't use GM products which lower input costs, they are pressured even further. (Source: union news page) 3) The US has "threatened" to give away US-grown soybeans. Beyond charity, these could be targeted at customers of the EU, or customers of suppliers to the EU. Would Greenpeace dare blockade charity shipments? (Source: statement by US government official, reuters) 4) Monsanto's recent data concerning the benefits of GM products were not carried by any UK news service that I could find. There is apparently implied censure of Monsanto, whereas scientific nonsense against Monsanto garners front-page coverage. (Source: examination of available UK news channels)

To: Edscharp who wrote (1608)	3/13/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Another dispute with EU/UK, not involving Monsanto; note, they claim to need "more testing" after TEN YEARS!!! EU may not meet deadline in beef hormone dispute By Doug Palmer WASHINGTON, March 9 - The European Union is unlikely to meet a May 13 World Trade Organization deadline to open its market to hormone-treated beef but is prepared to discuss temporarily compensating the United States for lost sales, an EU official said on Tuesday. "The deadline of 13 May is going to be difficult, if not impossible for us to meet," EU Ambassador to the United States Hugo Paemen told reporters after a meeting with senators from American farm states. "We want to live up to the rules, so we are ready to discuss compensation." Last week, U.S. trade officials warned the EU that it could face retaliation if it does not open its market by May 13. The WTO set that deadline last year after the EU lost its second dispute settlement panel ruling on the issue. U.S. punitive duties in the case could cover several hundred million dollars of EU goods in addition to those already targeted by the United States in a separate trade dispute over bananas. Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, told reporters that farm state lawmakers are "running out of patience" with the EU on hormone-treated beef and favor tough retaliation if the market is not open by May 13. "We've been talking about this much too long," Baucus said he told the ambassador. "It's time to do something." WTO rules allow the EU to compensate importers instead of dropping its ban. Paemen said the EU might follow that course only until some kind of labeling plan can be worked out. "We think the consumers should be free to make a decision whether they want to eat hormone-treated beef," he said. Injecting cattle with artificial growth hormones to make them grow bigger and faster is a common U.S. industry practice that international experts have determined to be safe. The United States currently exports its beef to 138 countries without any problem, U.S. trade officials say. Despite talk of compensating the United States, the EU has not conceded that it must open its market to hormone-treated beef. "We still have to do our own scientific assessment," Paemen said. If that does not raise any concern, "of course we have to live up to the decision by the WTO," he said. The United States has insisted the EU open its market by May 13, even if a new study is not yet complete. Last month, U.S. trade negotiators proposed a labeling plan that would let EU consumers decide whether to eat U.S. beef. While the the EU also favors that approach, the two sides have not yet agreed on what the labels should say, Paemen said. U.S. hormone-treated beef sales to the EU totaled about $100 million annually before the import ban was imposed in 1989. But U.S. cattle industry leaders estimate they are now losing at least several hundred million dollars each year because of the growth that would have occurred. Japan, with one-third of the EU population, imports about $1.5 billion worth of U.S. beef annually, said Chuck Lambert, economist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Unless there is a major breakthrough in the beef-hormone case, the United States is expected to begin this month to put together a list of EU goods for retaliation. Those would be in addition to $520 million of EU goods the United States has already targeted for 100-percent duties in the banana dispute. U.S. and EU trade officials will meet again on the banana dispute in the next several day, Paemen said. At issue in that fight are EU banana import rules which the United States says unfairly favor producers from the Caribbean over those from Latin America. The WTO will rule in April on the legality of EU's newest import regime, and Paemen repeated on Tuesday that EU the would comply with that decision.