In article
<b2forewagner-006857.07174914052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Bill <b2forewagner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <t4uk24d6o3ilvgt5pdkqnheq0rdi8k4d6s@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Charlie wrote:
>
> > 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 re****t 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 re****t 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 ****ft 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
> sup****t their perfectly valid concerns (should have done that homework
> after allŠ), they are likely to be increasingly marginalized, with
> public sentiment ****fting 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).
As I see it, the real problem is that, like Hurricane Katrina,
disasters are becoming op****tunities. 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
|
