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 (2053)	5/21/1999 5:16:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Government: GM foods not harmful May 21, 1999 After a week of claims and counter claims about genetically modified crops, the Government has finally spelled out its position on GM food. The Cabinet Office Minister Jack Cunningham said that products with GM ingredients, which are on sale in Britain now, are not harmful. Dr Cunningham told the Commons that genetic modification had the potential to produce food which was more nutritious and tasty. But he said the risks must continue to be assessed. Two advisory bodies will be set up to monitor developments, and there will be no unrestricted cultivation of crops. Dr Cunningham told the Commons genetic modification had the potential to produce "more nutritious" and better tasting food but the risks must be "rigorously assessed". The Government's "overriding duty is to protect the public and the environment" with controls that were "sound" and which commanded public confidence, the Cabinet enforcer said. Dr Cunningham said a review of the current regulatory system had found there were "persuasive arguments for strengthening the system" by setting up new bodies to take a "broader, long term" view of biotechnology development. A Human Genetics Commission and Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission would advise ministers on likely future technological developments and the ethical issues raised by them, MPs were told. The Cabinet Office Minister said the commission members would be "drawn from a broad range of interests" and would consult widely with the public. He added: "Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment." Anti GM campaigners claim the government's response so far has been typical of the rush to get biotechnology accepted. Dr Doug Parr, from Greenpeace, told ITN: "We think the government has been panicked into announcing everything because they want to try and reassure the public that everything is under control. We know that Tony Blair and his policy unit think that this is all a matter of media spin- neither we, nor, we think, the British public are quite so gullible." itn.co.uk:80/Britain/brit19990521/052104.htm

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2053)	5/21/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

The latest Bloomberg update: news.com Excerpts: Additional Markets Celebrex also has been approved for sale in eight additional markets since the beginning of 1999: Peru, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Switzerland and Hong Kong. It is awaiting European approval. The FDA gave Merck's drug little, if any, advantage over Celebrex on the prescribing label, said Jeffrey Chaffkin, an analyst with PaineWebber. ''The labels are essentially the same,'' he said. The good news for Merck is that the FDA didn't highlight questions about Vioxx's potential to cause water retention, Chaffkin said. Water retention, or edema, can be a concern for doctors treating elderly patients who already are at higher risk for some heart problems. Still, Merck had hoped its extensive studies would let it say more about Vioxx's apparent lower risk of causing ulcers and irritation in the gastrointestinal tract, Chaffkin said. ''They didn't get as strong a label in the GI as they wanted,'' Chaffkin said. ''Right now, in terms of sheer revenue, I think that Celebrex will always have an advantage.'' Chaffkin estimated peak sales of Celebrex at $2 billion to $3 billion, with Vioxx more likely to sell in the bottom of that range. Single Dose Some analysts see advantages in Merck's drug. While Monsanto's pill can be used once a day, some patients take it twice. Merck's drug is a ''true'' once-a-day pill, analysts have said. ''There may be some cost advantage (to Vioxx); once-daily dosing for Vioxx could be less expensive,'' said CIBC World Markets analyst Steven Gerber. ''At present, we think Merck has the edge.'' Gerber also said the approval is a chance for Merck to showcase its Merck-Medco Managed Care division, which provides pharmaceutical benefit services. ''This is also an interesting opportunity for Merck to use the power of its Medco division,'' Gerber said. ''We think they'll do a very good job with this product.'' To catch up with the team of Pfizer and Monsanto, Merck is likely to use ads directed at consumers as well as the more traditional ones placed in medical journals. It also will probably give out thousands of free Vioxx samples, a tactic Pfizer and Monsanto have used to promote Celebrex. Drug 'War' ''It's going to be war out there,'' said Jack Lafferty, an analyst with U.S. Trust, which holds about 9 million Merck shares, according to regulatory filings. In December, Merck announced that it would hire 700 new U.S. sales representatives, adding to a then-current sales force of about 4,000.