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: Professor Dotcomm who wrote (1906)	4/7/1999 7:10:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Amazon forest loss estimates double Logging's damage is less obvious than forest clearance, but no less real By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby The true extent of rainforest damage in the Amazon is more than twice as great as present estimates suggest, researchers say. The team says field surveys of logging and burning show far more deforestation than satellite monitoring has revealed. The researchers are based at several Brazilian and US institutions, including the Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts. Their work is reported in the current issue of Nature magazine. The researchers interviewed 1,393 wood mill operators, representing more than half the mills in 75 Amazonian logging centres. As well, they interviewed 202 landlords, whose properties covered 9,200 sq km. They found that logging crews annually cause severe damage to between 10,000 and 15,000 sq km of forest that are not included in current deforestation estimates. Insidious damage They also discovered that fires burning on the surface consume large areas of forest which again are not recorded. The researchers say the failure so far to register the much greater loss rate they have discovered is because the loggers reduce tree cover, but do not eliminate it. By contrast, ranchers and farmers deforest land in preparation for pasture and crops by clear-cutting it, and by burning whole areas. The more the forest burns, the more vulnerable to fire it becomes And where logging and fires have caused damage, they say, the vegetation will grow back fast enough to dupe a satellite. The only reliable way to find out what is happening is by field surveys. Logging and surface fires seldom kill all the trees. But they help to make them more vulnerable. Logging increases the flammability of the forest by reducing leaf canopy coverage by up to 50%. This lets the sunlight strike through to the forest floor, where it dries out the organic debris created by the logging. Worsened by drought And fires leave the surviving trees more susceptible to future blazes. The researchers say the area of surface fires may be much larger than usual during severe droughts. An unpublished Brazilian Government report says15,000 sq km of standing forest may have burned in the northern state of Roraima alone during the 1997-98 El Nino drought. More deforestation means more carbon emissions These so far unreported forms of forest loss, the researchers say, imply a need to look again at climate change calculations. They write: "Forest impoverishment through logging and surface fire causes a significant release of carbon to the atmosphere that is not included in existing estimates of the Amazonian carbon balance." Carbon dioxide is the principal gas caused by human activity that is implicated in global warming. The team says: "Logging and fire can virtually eliminate previously undisturbed forest in regions with seasonal drought and high concentrations of wood mills." One area in eastern Amazonia, they say, was classified as 62% forested according to conventional deforestation mapping techniques. Satellites not enough But they found that only about a tenth of the area classified as forest actually supported undisturbed forest. The researchers say: "Satellite-based deforestation monitoring is an essential tool in studies of human effects on tropical forests, because it documents the most extreme form of land use, over large areas, and at low cost. "But this monitoring needs to be expanded to include forests affected by logging and surface fire if it is to accurately reflect the full magnitude of human influences on tropical forests." news.bbc.co.uk

To: Professor Dotcomm who wrote (1906)	4/8/1999 2:31:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Science-Fiction Scare Stories 14 February 1999 The fact is that all new GM food must pass strict safety tests, says Monsanto's Ann Foster For you are what you eat. At least that's what we're told. So it's no wonder we feel so passionately about our food. We want food to taste good, look good and be affordable. But most of all, we want to know it's safe to eat. The current heated debate about genetically-modified foods is understandable. Consumers appear wary about food safety. It sometimes seems that there is a new food scare almost every other month. And, after BSE, it is no surprised that food safety is high on the political and media agenda. But the debate about GM foods has not really begun, at least not one based on science. Instead, there has been a debate based on science-fiction rather than science fact, in which myths are replacing reality. In some cases, this appears deliberate. For example, we are told that fish genes have been put into tomatoes. Only they haven't. Ask which company is doing this and no one knows. Not surprising really, when no such tomato is on sale. But it's an easy way to make people feel uneasy. As Professor Alan Malcolm of the Institute of Biology in London said recently: "People have been eating vegetable DNA for a long time without any of the genetic information appearing in their body cells or their offspring. Despite my fondness for tomatoes, neither of my children bears any resemblance to a tomato." The problem with the current debate is that it ignores the lengthy and exhaustive regulatory process through which all GM foods must pass. Scientific bodies in Europe and the UK carefully scrutinise every example of GM food before it is approved for sale. Companies such as Monsanto must provide hard evidence that these foods pose no threat to health. This involves evidence of extensive testing for potential problems, like the risk of allergic reactions or potential toxicity. Only when they are fully satisfied that no such risks exist will the regulatory bodies approve a GM product. Another problem with the current debate is that so-called "Frankensteinfood" simply makes a better story than dull, old scientific facts. It's easy to ask the question: "What if this or that happens?" And in many cases there are some very good answers. Unfortunately, people tend to switch off when they start to hear "boffin talk". But until we focus on the science, consumers will continue to be short-changed on the pros and cons of GM food. This is surely not what we want. The Royal Society and the House of Lords' EC select committee have each recently highlighted the benefits that biotechnology can bring. "Just as today's food requirements could not have been met by the technologies of the 1940s, the prospect that current practices will feed a population of 8bn by 2020 [an increase of 2bn] is unrealistic," the Royal Society concluded. And the House of Lords' EC select committee came to a similar view. After hearing a wide range of views - the committee concluded that "biotechnology offers great potential benefits to agriculture, industry, consumers and even the environment". At the same time, we understand public concern that the introduction of GM foods needs to be closely monitored. We fully support this and endorse the House of Lords' view that "the risks involved in genetic modification can . . . be controlled if a strict management process is in place". Labelling of GM foods is also to be welcomed and has Monsanto's full backing. We also welcome the government's decision to set up a ministerial group to look at biotech issues and an environmental stakeholders' forum through which people can have their say on GM crops. The more information about GM foods the better. Consumers should have access to all the facts. And they should also know about some of the benefits biotech can bring. For example, in the US, the introduction of a GM cotton with built-in pest resistance has saved American farmers from using 850,000 gallons of insecticide over the past three years. This is not just a financial saving for the farmer, it's a huge saving for the environment as fewer chemicals are needed to control pests. And there are other important health benefits GM crops can offer. One example is a new GM oil seed rape that produces beta-carotene, a precursor for vitamin A. This crop could help tackle the problem of night blindness, a vitamin A deficiency that currently kills an estimated 10m children a year. There is also a higher solids potato that absorbs less fat and can be used to produce healthier french fries and crisps. These types of benefits have often been ignored in the race to grab the headlines. As has the problem of how we feed double the world's population without doubling the amount of land needed to grow the food. Or encroaching on marginal land, such as rainforests, to grow more staple crops such as soya, wheat and maize. These issues need to be addressed and the potential of biotechnology properly explored before we make up our minds. It is to be hoped that his will happen soon. If not, we can look forward to a further polarisation of views, in which claim and counter-claim down out scientific discussion. Do we really want to take that road to nowhere?

To: Professor Dotcomm who wrote (1906)	4/8/1999 2:52:00 AM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Let me re-iterate my point... The US market is swimming in liquidity, yet investment in small caps, biotech, and other areas has been languishing for some time. Some on Wall Street describe this as a "divergence." This means that some areas are having problems financing expensive research, development, and capital equipment expansions. What's worrisome is that some of these investments are important for productivity gains in the long term. So perhaps some small medical biotech firm is working on a cheap cure for cancer, but will never make it due to scarce funds. Or, in general, small cap investment may never recover, and a whole segment of the economy will keel over. AT THE SAME TIME some companies are struggling, companies like Yahoo and Amazon are awash in funds. However, these are very "economically thin", non- investment-oriented companies. Pull up a balance sheet for Yahoo, and you will see what I mean. Most of the expenditure goes towards advertising. Further, little "brick and mortar" is required for these thin businesses to expand, so there is no "trickle down" effect from invested capital. Said another way, Yahoo really only needs to add more web page links to expand. They don't need to do research, build plants, or hire a broad set of employees. Basically, what you have is a big pile of money sitting there, generating little or no economic value. Keep in mind, it isn't Yahoo that generates economic value, but the Internet itself, which improves logistics for many micro-economies. (earlier points) Message 8741606 Message 8742525