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: JGoren who wrote (2040)	5/20/1999 10:53:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Blair Wrong on GM Crops, said Chief Government Scientist The Independent, 20 May 1999 independent.co.uk

To: JGoren who wrote (2040)	5/21/1999 5:47:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

Australia, Europe farmers want diverse gene giants Friday May 21, 5:08 am Eastern Time By Michael Byrnes LONGREACH, Australia, May 21 (Reuters) - Australian farm leaders and the head of Paris-based International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) have voiced concern about concentration of biotechnology ownership among a small number of world giants. This concentration mean that farmers growing genetically modified crops could be held to ransom on the price of seed, farm leaders said at the annual council meeting of Australia's National Farmers Federation this week. ''We're watching very closely as to whether they (biotechnology companies) are good world citizens or pariahs,'' Xavier Martin, vice president of the New South Wales Farmers Association, told Reuters. Australian farmers were now satisfied that biotechnology did not produce calves with 10 heads and three tails, he said. But they were concerned at the direction some technology companies had taken with price premiums, he said. ''The jury is still out (on the biotechnology companies)...there's always a question mark on whether it's fair or extortion,'' he said. Australian and European farm leaders broadly supported gene technology in food products at this week's annual conference. IFAP leader Gerard Doornbos predicted an explosion in the worldwide production of biotechnology foods in coming years. But concern about the ownership of biotechnology by a small number of big corporations was growing, he said. The NFF called on the Australian government to make its planned Gene Technology Office a statutory authority, to better regulate gene technology. This reflected Australian farmers' concern over the potential for intellectual property to be owned from planting to the retail shelf, NFF president Ian Donges said. The Australia farm sector has already had one confrontation with a multinational chemicals company. In 1997 U.S. chemical giant Monsanto Co (NYSE:MTC - news) introduced to Australia genetically modified Ingard cottonseed, which produces a cotton plant which internally generates its own pesticide. But Monsanto's price for Ingard cottonseed generated such serious rumblings among Australian growers that the U.S. company was forced to cut its price to A$185 a hectare from the initial price of A$210. The small number of biotechnology companies was ''certainly a concern,'' said Peter Corish, chairman of the main cotton industry body Cotton Australia. Biotechnology was very important to the cotton industry's future and Australia should try to ensure that technology was kept in as wide a range of hands as possible, he said. IFAP leader Doornbos sees biotechnology playing a major role in satisfying a projected doubling of worldwide food demand over the next 25 years. ''(But) if one multinational buys a lot of companies that have the latest developments in biotechnology...(it is) becoming a fairly small number (of companies),'' he said. The picture was also increasingly clouded by consumer emotionalism, with the British press referring to genetically modified organisms as ''Frankenstein food,'' he said.

To: JGoren who wrote (2040)	5/22/1999 7:02:00 AM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2539

The name of the game, The battle over genetically modified foods is not what it seems From New Scientist, 22 May 1999 IT'S NOT OFTEN that a nation sees its leading doctors, scientists and parliamentarians publishing reports on the same topic at the same time. But the British Medical Association, the Royal Society and an influential parliamentary select committee have all weighed in on genetically modified foods this week. There are no surprises from the Royal Society, whose report simply confirms that the experiments at the centre of the transgenic potato row which engulfed Britain in February were deeply flawed. And who could argue with the select committee's calls for more public participation in making decisions about engineered crops and the creation of a single government authority to evaluate the health and environmental risks? The problem with these sensible moves is that they won't calm the hysteria, while some of the BMA's recommendations will positively inflame it. On the basis of no evidence of any actual harm, for example, the BMA suggests that all antibiotic resistance genes used to make such crops should be banned, rather than simply phased out. Even with its less controversial suggestions on labelling, there's a hidden problem: many engineered foods are so heavily processed that there is no trace of any novel protein or DNA. To stick labels on them which imply nutritional or safety differences that don't exist would be misleading. So what sort of labels should we use? How do we make sure genetically modified crops and foods are adequately tested and labelled without at the same time pandering to irrational fears about the technology? The BMA calls for a blanket ban on commercial planting of modified crops until scientists have reached a consensus about the long-term environmental effects. This sounds good but is actually rather naive. Who decides when a consensus has been reached? Is a consensus even possible? And who decides which studies are valid? Take the claim that pollen from maize engineered to make the natural Bt insecticide can be toxic to the Monarch butterfly in the US when it drifts onto leaves eaten by caterpillars (see p 4). Astonishingly for a company with Monsanto's resources, it doesn't have a pile of data on everything there is to know about the potential threat of Bt-maize. But none of this proves Bt-maize is a bad thing. The caterpillars may have been exposed to far higher doses of genetically modified pollen in the lab tests than they would ever get in fields. And even if the conditions were realistic, the relevance of the study remains debatable. What ought to matter is not so much whether this pollen is more toxic than normal pollen--as the study claims--but whether it is any less toxic than pollen from maize treated with chemical pesticides. Unless governments define their aims and methodology clearly, no amount of research will produce a consensus on whether the risks to wildlife are acceptable. Another reason to reject blanket bans is that they encourage the belief that all GM crops are equally risky simply because they have been genetically modified. One of the biggest fears is that once planted, genes from modified crops will escape via seed and pollen, creating superweeds and cross-pollinating the crops of organic farmers. Even if there is a potential problem, why should it hold up the commercial growing of modified plants which don't produce pollen, such as potatoes or cabbages? Or prevent the growing of genetically modified versions of crops which are not grown organically? Another important question is also being ignored. Does it matter if a few genetically modified pollen grains are occasionally carried by wind or insects into an organic field? Organic lobbyists claim that as much as 1 per cent of their produce could become "tainted", but even if this figure is accurate, what would such a level of cross-pollination really mean? The organic industry is willing to consider food organic even if up to 5 per cent of it was produced nonorganically. But in the case of genetically modified crops, it seems to want a tolerance level of zero. Of course, many opponents do not want a consensus about acceptable levels of risk. What they really want is for the crops never to be grown because they object to them on ideological grounds. They recognise what many others don't: that this controversy is really an emotional and political battle in a wider war against unfettered free trade, globalisation and the power of multinationals. And you don't win such battles with science. You win them with propaganda. newscientist.com