Re: Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops
Bill
> This makes me want to puke......these SOBs stand exposed as far as I am
> concerned. It has been a brilliant campaign developed over the last
> four decades. Bastards. Read carefully and see the developing
> incremental control over the worlds food. Frogs in a pot. Screw Bill
> Gates for multiple reasons.
>
> Charlie
>
> Full article at:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/13/8930/
>
> Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops
> by Rick Weiss
>
> Excerpt:
>
> A handful of the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology companies
> are seeking hundreds of patents on gene-altered crops designed to
> withstand drought and other environmental stresses, part of a race for
> dominance in the potentially lucrative market for crops that can handle
> global warming, according to a report being released today.0513 05 1 2
>
> Three companies — BASF of Germany, Syngenta of Switzerland and Monsanto
> of St. Louis — have filed applications to control nearly two-thirds of
> the climate-related gene families submitted to patent offices
> worldwide, according to the report by the Ottawa-based ETC Group, an
> activist organization that advocates for subsistence farmers.
>
> The applications say that the new “climate ready” genes will help crops
> survive drought, flooding, saltwater incursions, high temperatures and
> increased ultraviolet radiation — all of which are predicted to
> undermine food security in coming decades.
............................
GMO Opponents May Eat Their Own Words
<http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121067626681188103.html?mod=9_0002_b
_online_exclusives_right>
Credit Suisse
WORLD FOOD-SUPPLY ISSUES are by now major front-page news, and that
creates different political risks that will affect both sentiment and
reality for agricultural-science producers.
GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are the big winners, politically.
We have argued that the politics of GMOs will swing dramatically, with
declining anti-GMO sentiment propelled by rising food costs. That will
speed GMO introduction to new regions. We see that political shift as
moving much faster than may be apparent on the surface.
Fertilizer producers, by contrast, may be overplaying their (very
strong) hand, and are at risk of being painted as "price gougers." That
alone may not swing the supply/demand balance, but it certainly could
affect investor perception, and increase the risk of new government
intervention on several continents.
We have argued elsewhere that buyers already have good reason to
consider banding together into buying consortiums -- the staggering
price hikes recently announced in potash only add to that argument.
The biggest losers politically, for better or for worse, are likely to
be the well-meaning environmentalists. With little real science to
support their perfectly valid concerns (should have done that homework
after allŠ), they are likely to be increasingly marginalized, with
public sentiment shifting to more pressing (and measurable) concerns.
So politically, at least, GMO producers are on the upswing, and
fertilizer producers need to be careful. But that doesn't mean its time
to dump the stocks.
Fundamentals are still exceptionally good for fertilizer. What the
fertilizer industry may need now is a better PR team.
With the pullback in the stocks, our preference for Mosaic over the
others remains intact. We continue to like phosphorus more than potash
(and note that it is potash that grabs the most fertilizer headlines).
In the seed world, where Monsanto reigns supreme (and will continue to),
there are no cheap stocks, but none worth unloading either.
We do like the ag-chemical outlook, where pricing power is only now
taking hold. We currently rate DuPont and Syngenta (co-covered with
Rhian Tucker) Outperform.
-- Mark W. Connelly
-- Nils-Bertil Wallin
The opinions contained in Investors' Soapbox in no way represent those
of Barron's Online or Dow Jones & Company, Inc. The opinions expressed
are those of the newsletter's writer(s).
--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Billy
<b2forewagner-0068...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Bill <b2fore...@snip.net> wrote:
As I see it, the real problem is that, like Hurricane Katrina,
disasters are becoming opportunities. An analogy would be a person
who over insures their home, and then burns it down to collect the
insurance. If we "incentivize" disasters, what do you think we will
get? A President who doesn't believe in "Global Warming" maybe?
The incentives need to be placed on building community, not on it's
destruction.
--
Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&ref=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=related
Bill
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:48:27 -0700, Billy <wild...@getthe.net> wrote:
>
>
> >As I see it, the real problem is that, like Hurricane Katrina,
> >disasters are becoming opportunities. An analogy would be a person
> >who over insures their home, and then burns it down to collect the
> >insurance. If we "incentivize" disasters, what do you think we will
> >get? A President who doesn't believe in "Global Warming" maybe?
> >The incentives need to be placed on building community, not on it's
> >destruction.
>
> Good summation. My thoughts also.
I agree! I don't think environmentalists are marginalized only the
corporation media types want us to be. It is their job similar to the
adage I was just following orders comes to mind.
The current media won't ask or report on this. Our state school
curriculum is of scientific sleep too. Not everyone however.
I wonder if any high school student ever discusses the merits and
foibles of
From the above URL
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was founded with the
simple yet profound charge "to protect human health and the
environment." Yet a new UCS survey of scientists at the agency reveals
that challenges from industry lobbyists and some political leaders have
led to the suppression and distortion of EPA scientific findings--to the
detriment of both science and the health of our nation. In the report
Interference at the EPA, we propose steps to ensure the integrity of
future agency research."
Bill
Billy
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:48:27 -0700, Billy <wild...@getthe.net> wrote:
>
>
> >As I see it, the real problem is that, like Hurricane Katrina,
> >disasters are becoming opportunities. An analogy would be a person
> >who over insures their home, and then burns it down to collect the
> >insurance. If we "incentivize" disasters, what do you think we will
> >get? A President who doesn't believe in "Global Warming" maybe?
> >The incentives need to be placed on building community, not on it's
> >destruction.
>
> Good summation. My thoughts also.
Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery, and every truth
easily becomes a lie.
I. F. Stone
Persephone
wrote:
EPA - founded as "Environmental Protection Agency". Name
changed some 7-1/2 years ago to "Environmental Pollution Agency".
Change back next November? Stay tuned!
Persephone