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: Dan Spillane who wrote (2107)	6/2/1999 3:48:00 PM
From: jopawa	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2539

15:40 [MTC,RP] RHONE-POULENC AGRO SAYS GEDERAL JURY FINDS MONSANTO UNIT INFRIGNED ON CORN PATENT

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2107)	6/2/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Monsanto Co. Reiterated 'Buy' at DLJ Bloomberg News June 2, 1999, 8:40 a.m. ET Princeton, New Jersey, June 2 (Bloomberg Data) -- Monsanto Co. (MTC US) was reiterated ''buy'' by analyst William R. Young at Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp. The 12-month target price is $60.00 per share.

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2107)	6/2/1999 5:35:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Monsanto Co. Reiterated 'Buy' at Salomon Smith Barney Bloomberg News June 2, 1999, 12:25 p.m. ET Princeton, New Jersey, June 2 (Bloomberg Data) -- Monsanto Co. (MTC US) was reiterated ''buy'' by analyst James H. Wilbur at Salomon Smith Barney. The 12-month target price is $55.00 per share.

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2107)	6/2/1999 8:24:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

British scientists play down dangers of GM crops By Patricia Reaney LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - British scientists played down the dangers of antibiotic resistance marker genes in genetically modified foods on Wednesday, saying the threat to human health was negligible. One of the major health concerns about marker genes is that they could be transferred to the bacteria in the guts of animals or humans and make antibiotics used to fight diseases less effective. "There are more likely ways you will get antibacterial resistance," Professor Tom Sanders, of Kings College in London, said during a public debate about GM foods. The nutritional expert and a member of the government's advisory committee on food and safety (ACNFP) said the risk of resistance was much higher through over use by doctors and veterinarians than through GM crops. Sanders was one of a panel of experts from government, industry, academia and environmental groups who fielded questions from the public about the safety, ethics and potential dangers that GM crops and foods posed to people and the environment. GM foods have dominated headlines in the British press in recent weeks. Prince Charles, heir-to-the-throne and a dedicated organic farmer, publicly questioned its safety in a front-page newspaper article earlier this week. One of the 10 questions in his article was the possibility that the new crops, particularly those that had been made resistant to antibiotics, could produce unexpected toxic or allergic reactions. Dr Colin Merritt, technical manager for biotechnology at Monsanto <MTC.N>, the life science company that produces genetically modified maize and soya, said the chance of the marker genes inducing resistance to drugs was "infinitesimally small." But Adrian Bebb, a campaigner for the environmental group Friends of the Earth which has led a campaign against GM foods, argued that no product with the marker should enter the food chain. Despite government recommendations that the markers should be phased out as swiftly as possible, Friends of the Earth say 12 applications submitted for inclusion on the UK National Seed List contain antibiotic resistance marker genes. "We don't know the long-term impacts on our health and the environment," Beeb said, adding there should be a five-year freeze on the use of GM crops. moneynet.com@NEWS-P2&Index=0&HeadlineURL=../News/NewsHeadlines.asp&DISABLE_FORM=&NAVSVC=News\Company

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (2107)	6/3/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2539

What is really behind food flaps Houston Chronicle June 02, 1999, 07:53 p.m. By JIM BARLOW Many European countries won't let U.S. farmers sell beef to their consumers. They say the additives American farmers use in cattle feed are dangerous. The World Trade Organization, the referee in trade disputes, says that's not true. Unless they relent, this country has permission from the organization to impose 100 percent duties against a wide range of European goods -- which would end sales of those products in the United States. In Great Britain, they are upset about American vegetable producers using biotechnology to allow them to grow vegetables cheaper and faster. The Brits, roused to action by a strange alliance of Prince Charles and the tabloid press, are alarmed even though they can find no science to confirm their fears. In both cases, agendas are hidden. American cattlemen can deliver beef to Europe for 20 percent less than European farmers can produce. In Great Britain, the looney left is stirring up the outrage over biotechnology. Their agenda is called shared scarcity. They believe we all should drastically cut back our living standard -- including having everyone switch to a vegan diet. There is a choice out there. Dennis T. Avery, who looks at food and agriculture issues for the Hudson Institute -- an Indianapolis-based free-market think tank -- says it's a simple one. "We can't produce enough meat to feed tomorrow's 8.5 billion affluent people from today's farmland using today's technology. And we will need 10 times as much wood to house and educate them as we use today. In the next 20 years, the people of the world must either become vegetarian and self-sacrificing -- or else embrace biotechnology, factory farms and tree plantations." Vegetarianism not mushrooming The trouble is, vegetarianism just isn't all that popular. In the United States, about 5 percent of the population is vegetarian at any given moment. But most of them also consume cheese and milk -- and dairy cattle would take too much pasture land. Only half of 1 percent of First World residents are vegans -- that is, they also eschew meat and dairy products. To balance world food supply without using scientific farming, about half the world's consumers would have to be vegans. But even in places where vegetarianism is widespread, like India, affluence is widening food choices. India's economic growth has been running about 7 percent annually, about triple its population growth of 1.8 percent. The result is the Indian dairy industry has doubled milk-processing capacity. Three-fourths of the country's Hindus say they eat meat when they can afford it, although not beef, which is prohibited by their religion. There's no question that modern farming methods can keep up with the world's needs. We've done it before with the Green Revolution of the 1950s and '60s. Lately we've seen similar progress in improving yields from cattle and crops. Whether we go forward with them is a social decision. Blame population activists This mindless opposition isn't confined to overseas. We've seen decisions from U.S. regulators based on emotion, not science. North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural Resources says the state has a water quality crisis because its hog industry has gone from 2 million to 9 million animals. The department finally admitted that water quality in the state's rivers is better today than in 1970, when both the hog and human populations were much lower. Or look at the stance on pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has published brochures that say pesticides cause birth defects, nerve damage, cancer and other toxic effects in laboratory animals. Sure they do, at dosages far beyond what is on fruits and vegetables. Never mind that the U.S. National Research Council says no cancer deaths from pesticide residues have ever been found, nor are there ever likely to be any. A few years ago, a report from Tulane University claimed that pesticides caused endocrine disruption in humans and wildlife. The university was forced to withdraw the study after its results couldn't be duplicated. Behind all this are environmental activists who want drastic controls to stop population growth. They used to warn about how we would all be starving to death. But when farmers proved them wrong, they found a new enemy. To voice comments, telephone 713-220-2000 and dial in code 1000. Send e-mail to jim.barlow@chron.com. chron.com