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 (1643)	3/17/1999 12:22:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

It's about time I make at least a partial discussion of food labeling, with regard to "GM". The discussion in the article (link below) is similar to others, and sounds like a good case for labeling, until you realize all modern varieties of crops already in the food supply contain many genetic modifications which are not explicitly documented -- instead of just a few, as is the case with genetic engineering. Since the changes themselves are undocumented, it follows that the impact of such changes (if any) are also not documented, and therefore unknown. Indeed, it would be a monumental task to determine all the "possible" benefits and disadvantages of each modern crop variety, from the standpoint of genetics. To make things worse, such new modern crop varieties -- created without the aid of explicit genetic engineering -- are released into the environment with some frequency. (See supporting story below for a variety of crop which is not "GM", but is like another "GM" variety.) In fact, one of the primary techniques used to create the crops in our food supply is the selection of genetically mutated plants which contain a desirable (visible) trait -- but at the same time these plants contain a host of unknown, unseen traits. This process has taken many years; more recently, irradiation and other techniques have been used to accelerate this process. The bottom line is, there are already crops out there which have been genetically changed without notifying the public, and are not "GM" per the definition which seems "correct" in the sense of the UK media. Indeed, in many ways, existing crops have been certified and tested far less than newer engineered crops. To further complicate matters, products sold as organic are also based on varieties which are genetically modified in the same way, and have the same unknown long-term consequences. So governments are in kind of a bind. Firstly, they cannot truly label a product "GM" or "GM-free"...since indeed all modern crops, organic or not, contain genetic modifications which have not been scrutinized. In other words, it would be false advertising to label agricultural products as genetically modified, in order to discriminate them from others. In fact, even among plants of the same apparent variety, there is some genetic modification which is unknown due to parental lineage, combined with the normal mutation which is part of genetics. So where does this leave us? The best solution is to test food products and varieties, bioengineered or not, taking into consideration all aspects which will screen out danger, bioengineered or not. And this is exactly what is being done, at least in the US. However, when a food differs in a discernable way (which makes it different as a food), it should indeed be labeled. A corn variety which has a higher sugar/starch ratio will affect a consumers health, if they are diabetic. In fact, such a trait is already bound to certain corn varieties; thus, we have our first candidate for labeling with a genetic trait, which will directly affect the health of the consumer. So not only would a consumer have a choice, but the choice would be meaningful in health terms. Dan Spillane 03/16/1999 (Supporting story, A QUESTION OF BREEDING) newscientist.com (Article discussing GM labeling) Not good enough from The Press, New Zealand March 16, 1999 Should genetically modified food be so labelled? Few would doubt that the answer is yes. But despite assurances from the Prime Minister that consumers have a right to know what is in the food they eat, there is still suspicion that National will fudge the issue. ... press.co.nz

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1643)	3/17/1999 2:07:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2539

Exhaustive list of reasons why stock went up recently: 1) Strong Celebrex sales; possibility of new studies coming out soon regarding GI benefit, pain efficacy, and possible anti- colon cancer effect. 2) Ouster of EU commission. Old commission was anti-US, according to the Washington Post. Therefore, it's possible that the anti-US trade policies went out the door with them, including the negative agricultural (GM food) ones. Since the GM food issue in Europe has been a major factor holding down Monsanto's stock price, there is at least some hope that things may improve. (related supporting detail, from BBC) The Washington Post says the 20 have "played a central role in the EU's ambitious drive to become a global rival to the United States," but were forced to resign for "tolerating widespread fraud, corruption, and mismanagement over a period of years." 3) Al Greenspan's speech, and reference to Monsanto's technology as being crucial (see my earlier posting): a. Al gives implied endorsement of Monsanto ...and a credible one at that! b. Al mentions data point linking 80% of farm price drop to Asian crisis. Since Asia is coming back, and Monsanto has been hurt by this, outlook is better going forward. 4) Brazil, a Monsanto customer, also appears to be on the comeback trail. 5) DuPont's explicit (and further implied) endorsement of bioag technology. If there were a chance of awful hidden dangers in bioag products, DuPont would certainly know this by now, since this tech has been out for years under DuPont's control. In other words, it appears to some they were holding off making a full commitment here, until they were sure about putting many billions of dollars to work. 6) Monsanto is somewhat of a hedge against increased inflation, and may benefit somewhat if prices go up on commodities. This may be the case as Asia recovers. 7) Rumors of buyout from Abbott, and Pfizer. 8) From tape action, apparent large buyer of shares.