Microcap Investor
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Kgem,
I believe that write-up is outdated. The company should provide Business Week with a more current business plan.
janeyH,
By issuing approximately 100 million shares since mid-September, the company probably received additional funding. Only 10 million of those shares were to management for services rendered.
Technicality Puts Food-Safety Measure on Ice
By BILL TOMSON - December 2, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575649312054803920.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
A procedural mistake has at least temporarily delayed a food-safety bill approved Tuesday by the Senate that was expected to sail through the House and be signed into law.
Democrats are looking at several options to get the bill turned into law, aides said, but the House can't approve it "as is" because the legislation contains provisions that allow the government to collect fees.
Those fees are technically considered tax provisions because they raise revenue for the federal government, an aide said, and House rules say tax provisions must originate in the House version of any bill.
A House leadership aide said the food-safety bill would likely have to be wrapped into another measure being considered by the House, then sent to the Senate.
The bill was first approved by the House in July 2009. The Senate passed its version with a provision excluding small farms and food processors with annual sales under $500,000 from new Food and Drug Administration regulations, if they sell their products directly to consumers or restaurants no more than 275 miles from the production site.
"We are confident that we can work with our House colleagues to find a path forward and get this bill to the president before the end of the year," said a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
The bill would give the FDA power to mandate food recalls; keep better track of fruit and vegetable shipments so contaminated commodities can be found more quickly; and set new standards for food manufacturers.
Meat safety would remain the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Write to Bill Tomson at bill.tomson@dowjones.com
Interview With Michael W. Brennan Of Micro Imaging Technology, Inc.
67 WALL STREET, New York - December 2, 2010 - The Wall Street Transcript has just published its Medical Research, Diagnostic Substances & Life Science Tools Report offering a timely review of the sector to serious investors and industry executives. This special feature contains expert industry commentary through in-depth interviews with public company CEOs, Equity Analysts and Money Managers. The full issue is available by calling (212) 952-7433 or via The Wall Street Transcript Online.
Topics covered: Theranostics: Merger of Diagnostics and Drugs - Regulatory Reform & Reimbursements - Laboratory Developed Tests
Companies include: AstraZeneca (AZN); Lab Corp. (LH); Medtronic (MDT); Abbott (ABT); Agilent (A); Alexion (ALXN); Allscripts (MDRX); Alnylam (ALNY); Amerisource (ABC); Amylin (AMLN); Array (ARRY); Bayer (BAYRY); Beckman Coulter (BEC); Biogen (BIIB); Bruker Corporation (BRKR); CVS Caremark (CVS); Cardinal (CAH); Catalyst Health Solutions (CHSI); and many more.
In the following brief excerpt from just one of the in depth interviews in this special report, the Chairman and President of a diagnostics equipment manufacturer discusses the outlook for his company for investors.
Michael W. Brennan, Chairman and President of Micro Imaging Technology, Inc., has spent over 30 years within the computer industry and participated in the founding of four companies that successfully became publicly traded corporations through IPOs: three on Nasdaq and one on the London International Stock Exchange. Mr. Brennan's degrees are in electrical engineering from University of Southern California and an MBA awarded by Pepperdine University.
TWST: Briefly, what does the technology do?
Mr. Brennan: It has a capability of identifying any microbe, which includes all bacteria - fungi, spores, mold and anything that's in the microbe range. The bacteria family is the largest family of living organisms in the world. Some are good and some are very bad. We have proven through two world-renowned independent testing laboratories that we have that capability, and we've been certified by the only certifying body in the world, AOAC, that these tests are almost instantaneous and at an unbelievably low cost per test.When I say almost instantly, we've proven that we can do a bacteria test within five minutes of getting a sample, and it's somewhere in the order of only $0.10 a cost per test.
So those are the quantitative components that we're bring to the market. And we absolutely believe that our technology can save thousands of lives and multimillion dollars in health care costs by identifying pathogenic bacteria within our target market, food safety and health protection. Every time you pick up the paper, you see about the beef, lettuce, pepper, peanut and all other food product recalls. All of those things are contaminated by basically three bacteria: E. coli, salmonella and listeria. That's 90%-plus of all the pathogens, and food safety is our immediate focus. As I mentioned, we are certified for listeria and in the process of getting E. coli and salmonella done probably by early next year.
We had a very good Webinar presentation recently. The whole point was to show how simple it is to use the system. You take a sample of your unknown, the bacteria suspected, all identification processes start similarly - although, most take days and costs hundreds of dollars. With ours, you take a sample of what your suspected pathogen is, put it in a little testing vial with clean water, put it in our system, hit a button on the PC console, it says "identified." Within much less than five minutes, it will tell you the identification of the bacteria you're looking for, or if it's none of those, it will tell you "none". It's really that simple.We took everybody from start to finish yesterday in this Webinar in probably 15 minutes, and it takes us less than half a day to train a lab technician to be able to fully use and understand our system.
So where do we stand right now? It was a long process, because we have the hardware, which is elegant and is being manufactured for us by a world-class manufacturing organization. We have software that we developed in conjunction with California Institute of Technology, Caltech. Then we have laboratory procedures, and then we have the certification of the outside labs. For a small company, those are really ambitious projects or programs. Where we're at right now is at the final stages of getting the product built by a world-class manufacturer company, a company called OSI Systems (OSIS). From a hardware point of view, the systems are really simple. But the whole concept, we think, is revolutionary.
It is a huge marketplace and rapidly growing. The number of food products that had been recalled just in the past year is amazing. There is another submarket that the people aren't even aware of, and that's food products for animals. The important part is our government. Although it's talked a lot about doing some regulation, when it comes to food products, there is no real, true regulation. There was a big article last week about Texas closing down a food processing plant in San Antonio that was responsible for putting out contaminated chopped vegetables that have killed six people over the last few months, and had been traced to that company. But there is no real government regulation that says, "This is what you should do with your product before you put it out to the public."
If you add all that together, we are really seriously talking about a worldwide marketplace that is $8 billion to $10 billion just for testing annually. At the moment we have very few systems installed, a system with U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, at the Japanese Ministry of Food Safety, several systems in Malaysia for their food safety people and in some independent laboratories, where food processors send their product for testing.
The Wall Street Transcript is a unique service for investors and industry researchers - providing fresh commentary and insight through verbatim interviews with CEOs and research analysts. This special issue is available by calling (212) 952-7433 or via The Wall Street Transcript Online .
The Wall Street Transcript does not endorse the views of any interviewees nor does it make stock recommendations.
For Information on subscribing to The Wall Street Transcript, please call 800/246-7673
Kgem,
My rough (Brennan, Hollander & Frank) float number is 101.5 million shares (39% of outstanding shares).
Insider / Affiliate Shares Date of Filing
M. Brennan 23,298,600 Monday, November 01, 2010
V. Hollander 20,136,436 Monday, November 01, 2010
A. Frank 58,035,586 Monday, March 22, 2010
Total Float: 101,470,622 % of o/s - 39.0%
As for restricted share count, my guess is that the new 100 million shares have a 6 month restriction, being unregistered shares sold. It is likely that the early private placement investors are dumping shares that came off restriction (e.g. obtained prior to May 2010).
I still believe the registered Dutchess shares have not been introduced into the market.
smitter,
Thank you for the information. The transfer agent said approximately 260,447,000 shares are currently outstanding. 100 million shares issued since mid September; hopefully, the company is getting its needed capital.
I guess that share issuing will eventually end and there will be a significant reverse split of outstanding shares to have a reasonable stock price. Is this what other investors expect?
volume weighted average price
Kgem,
Did you receive a response from management regarding an update on shares outstanding? On September 15th, 161.8 million shares were outstanding. Management's ownership filings since that date stated that 11.1 million additional shares were issued.
The company should provide shareholders an update if a significant amount of additional shares are being issued. Typically, if share issuance is small, this can be done through quarterly filings. But if a large number of shares are being issued, then the company should report this through an 8-K filing (IMO). My understanding is that the next quarterly filing will be the 10-K and is due around the end of January.
smitter,
I do not believe that the company has used their agreement with Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, other than the 60,000 shares putted in September. From reading the agreement, it is my understanding that the company shall file an 8-K within 4 days disclosing the material terms of a trade. This is identified in Article 14 of the Agreement (link below).
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/808015/000114090510000065/mits1ex1020.htm
Also there is only 11 million registered shares allocated for the agreement.
FranzJosefHidin,
Are you willing to provide the name of the competitor?
Kgem,
Did you inquire as to current shares issued?
I bought yesterday, today, and last week.
ysung,
My belief is that the company is doing financing, thus, the downward pressure on the price.
The House, which passed a food-safety bill last year, has agreed to adopt the Senate version, bypassing the need for a conference to integrate the two bills, Harkin said Nov. 18. Once both chambers have approved the measure, lawmakers will send it to President Barack Obama for his signature. The White House supports the legislation, according to a statement issued Nov. 16 by the Office of Management and Budget.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/broadest-food-safety-overhaul-in-70-years-approved-by-senate-in-73-25-vote.html
NY Times editorial on proposed food safety law.
November 28, 2010
A Stale Food Fight
By MICHAEL POLLAN and ERIC SCHLOSSER
THE best opportunity in a generation to improve the safety of the American food supply will come as early as Monday night, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on the F.D.A. Food Safety Modernization bill. This legislation is by no means perfect. But it promises to achieve several important food safety objectives, greatly benefiting consumers without harming small farmers or local food producers.
The bill would, for the first time, give the F.D.A., which oversees 80 percent of the nation’s food, the authority to test widely for dangerous pathogens and to recall contaminated food. The agency would finally have the resources and authority to prevent food safety problems, rather than respond only after people have become ill. The bill would also require more frequent inspections of large-scale, high-risk food-production plants.
Last summer, when thousands of people were infected with salmonella from filthy, vermin-infested henhouses in Iowa, Americans were outraged to learn that the F.D.A. had never conducted a food safety inspection at these huge operations that produce billions of eggs a year. The new rules might have kept those people — mainly small children and the elderly — from getting sick.
The law would also help to protect Americans from unsafe food produced overseas: for the first time, imported foods would be subject to the same standards as those made in the United States.
You would think that such reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the American people would have long since sailed through Congress. But after being passed by the House of Representatives more than a year ago with strong bipartisan support, the legislation has been stuck in the Senate. One sticking point was the fear among small farmers and producers that the new regulations would be too costly — and the counter-fear among consumer groups that allowing any exemptions for small-scale agriculture might threaten public health.
Those legitimate concerns have been addressed in an amendment, added by Senator Jon Tester of Montana, that recently was endorsed by a coalition of sustainable agriculture and consumer groups. But now that common sense has prevailed, the bill is under fierce attack from critics — egged on by Glenn Beck and various Tea Partyers, including some in the local food movement — who are playing fast and loose with the facts.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is the bill’s most influential opponent by far. On the floor of the Senate the week before last, he claimed that only 10 or 20 Americans a year die from a food-borne illness, that the government doesn’t need mandatory recall power because “not once in our history have we had to force anyone to do a recall,” and that the annual cost of the new food safety requirements — about $300 million — is prohibitively expensive.
Senator Coburn is wrong on every point. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some 5,000 Americans annually die from a food-borne illness. Last year, at the height of a nationwide salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands, spread via tainted peanut butter, the Westco Fruit and Nuts company refused for weeks to recall potentially contaminated products, despite requests from the F.D.A.
And as for spending that extra $300 million every year, a recent study by Georgetown University found that the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. In Senator Coburn’s home state, it’s about $1.8 billion. Compared with those amounts, this bill is a real bargain.
In the last week, agricultural trade groups, from the Produce Marketing Association to the United Egg Producers, have come out against the bill, ostensibly on the grounds that the small farms now partially exempted would pose a food safety threat. (Note that these small farms will continue to be regulated under state and local laws.) It is hard to escape the conclusion that these industry groups never much liked the new rules in the first place. They just didn’t dare come out against them publicly, not when 80 percent of Americans support strengthening the F.D.A.’s authority to regulate food.
By one estimate, the kinds of farms that the bill would exempt represent less than 1 percent of the food marketplace. Does the food industry really want to sabotage an effort to ensure the safety of 99 percent of that marketplace because it is so deeply concerned about under-regulation of 1 percent? The largest outbreaks are routinely caused by the largest processors, not by small producers selling their goods at farmers’ markets.
Theodore Roosevelt ran up against the same sort of resistance when he fought for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. “Unfortunately,” he said, “the misdeeds of those who are responsible for the abuses we design to cure will bring discredit and damage not only upon them, but upon the innocent stock growers, the ranchmen and farmers of this country.” That is one reason the federal government decided to guarantee food safety during the last century — and why it must continue to do so in this one.
Michael Pollan is the author of “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual.” Eric Schlosser is the author of “Fast Food Nation” and a producer of the documentary “Food Inc.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29schlosser.html?ref=opinion?hp&pagewanted=print
Nice to see - 2 trades totaling 410k shares just executed at 8.4¢.
It is on the company's website but undated.
Company is looking to hire a new employee. I see this as a positive for shareholders.
CAREERS
Energize your career with MIT.
We're a company on the cutting edge of new technology. Most importantly, we value talent and reward it with a competitive salary, comprehensive benefits and an engaging work environment.
Microbiology Lab Technician
Microbiology Lab Technician to help support development of a new product. Primary duties include management of the lab, (e.g. equipment maintenance, calibration, etc.) operation and monitoring of water-based experiments with microorganisms, and record keeping. The ideal candidate will have an AA degree in Biology, Environmental Engineering or Chemistry, with 5 years experience in quantitative measurements or quality control. The individual must be a high energy self –starter with multitasking capability. Please email info@micro-identification.com.
http://www.micro-imaging.com/
janeyH,
The heavy November trade volume indicates the possibility that financing is underway.
Long wait for food safety bill may be over
By J. Taylor Rushing - 11/14/10 04:00 PM ET
Almost a year to the day after a unanimous committee vote, a long-stalled bill to promote food safety is poised for Senate passage within a week.
The bill by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) passed the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee on Nov. 18, 2009, with a 16-0 bipartisan vote. It had already passed the House in July 2009 on a 283-142 vote.
But it was then forced onto the Senate’s back burner while the upper chamber grappled for most of this year with healthcare reform and financial regulation reform. Now, with the midterm elections in the past, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring it forward for a procedural vote on Wednesday that leaders expect will pass.
The bill would prompt more regular processing plant inspections and greater government authority in food-recall cases. It is being pushed by Durin, HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and organizations such as The Pew Charitable Trusts.
“Obviously we’re disappointed that it hasn’t come up yet, but we have every confidence that it will pass this time,” said Sandra Eskin, director of Pew’s food safety campaign.
“What information we can cull from the Senate is that it’s been in the lineup, but healthcare came first. Then we were under the reliable information that it was going to come up during the second week in April, but financial regulation came up. Priorities are priorities. All we can do is push ours too.”
The bill has 20 co-sponsors, of which eight are Republicans including Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.). However, other Republicans are opposed. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), for one, issued statements in September that blamed the bill for “new and unnecessary spending” and “burdensome regulations.”
On Friday, Coburn spokesman John Hart said the senator “hopes to reach an agreement on the food safety bill that would avoid the need for a weekend session. He believes the American people have sent a clear message that it’s time to pay for new bills instead of borrowing.”
Democratic leaders are cautiously optimistic Wednesday’s votes will be successful. HELP Committee spokeswoman Justine Sessions said the measure “enjoys strong, bipartisan support.”
“Given the great need for better protections for Americans against food-borne illness, Sen. Harkin believes this legislation must pass before the end of the Congress, and will continue to work with the bipartisan group of cosponsors to ensure this happens,” Sessions said.
The bill’s long wait in the Senate actually generated controversy earlier this year when Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), author of the lower chamber’s food safety bill, criticized the Senate in an interview with The Hill. Dingell won re-election this month and is now the longest-serving member of Congress.
Dingell has hailed the bill as “a monumental piece of bipartisan legislation that will grant FDA the authorities and resources needed to effectively oversee an increasingly global food marketplace.” It is also critical, Dingell said, given the outbreaks of melamine, E. coli and salmonella in recent years.
The Senate bill is considered less controversial than the House. Some of the more contentious issues, such as imposing fees on food facilities to help finance the FDA's food safety inspection efforts, were not included in the version that passed through the HELP committee.
Among other provisions, the legislation would do the following:
• Attempt to prevent food-borne illnesses from reaching the population by requiring food-processing plants to upgrade the frequency and thoroughness of their safety inspections;
• Require the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department and Agriculture Department to jointly develop a national plan to improve food safety, as well as an HHS requirement for a national system to better prevent possible problems in the food supply;
• Grant HHS greater authority to order recalls of suspected tainted food;
• Improve inspections of foreign food imported into the U.S.
House Republicans were split on the bill, with 54 supporting it and 122 opposed. But even some staunch conservatives backed it, including Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann (Minn.).
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/129095-long-wait-for-food-safety-bill-may-be-over
humblehawk,
The insiders didn't buy shares. They were issued shares or options for their services to the company.
vinwin,
The Form 4s do not indicate that the options were exercised. When executive management receive options, they must report them through a Form 4 filing.
ysung,
I have talked to Michael previously on the telephone. It seems that his normal manner of speaking is to talk slow. I had difficulty hearing him talk on the webinar because he was linked through a connection. My thought is that once Michael listens to the webinar, he will recognize that he must talk louder and faster in future presentations.
The key point I drew from the webinar is that the board of directors prefers to delay a strategic partnership now is because the shareholders will not benefit as much as once the product is better recognized. Thus, the need to do piecemeal financing to commercialize, market and support the product. Hopefully, the company may be introduced to investors who see investment value and will do a large investment at a cost that is less dilutive to shareholders (e.g. financing above market price).
You can find them at this link.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/bus_entity_search.html
My guess is that the financing they provide is relative new and fits the needs of companies that expect to repay the principal prior to the conversion date happens.
Asher Enterprises, Inc.; see post #1930.
I registered.
My thoughts are that management entered into this financing, expecting to have cash on hand from sales to pay the debt prior to it becoming a diluting device for existing shareholders. It behooves the CEO and CFO to minimize dilution as they are probably the second and third largest holders of shares behind Tony Frank.
Management must be cautious in managing cash flows. They should pay the debt prior to it becoming convertible - March 7, 2011. Here is what was presented about this financing in the last quarterly filing with the SEC.
On August 16, 2010, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with Asher Enterprises, Inc. in connection with the issuance of an 8% convertible note in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000. The Note matures on May 18, 2011 and is convertible into common shares at a 39% discount to the average of the lowest three closing bid prices of the common stock during the ten trading days prior to the conversion date. Asher may convert any or all of the unpaid principal note prior to the maturity date, commencing 180 days following the date of the Note. The Company received the proceeds of the Note on September 8, 2010, less a $3,000 reimbursement to Asher for fees and expenses related to the referenced agreements.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/808015/000114420410049821/v196895_10q.htm
Kgem, here are additional questions to consider for the webinar.
What agencies and laboratories will the company be working with to promote the MIT 1000 for use in a hospital environment to test incoming patients for Methicillin Resistant Staph aureus (MRSA)?
In the Executive Business Summary, it is projected that the recent $500,000 private placement will involve 12.5 million shares being issued (4 cents a share). How confident are you regarding this projection?
Why is the Executive Business Summary not on the company’s website?
GM2807,
Management raised a very small amount on September 10th. Here is what was stated in the 10-Q.
On September 10, 2010, the Company received $1,240, net of $110 in fees, from Dutchess Opportunity Fund II, LP on the issuance of 60,000 shares under the terms of the May 4, 2010 Investment Agreement whereby Dutchess committed to purchase up to $5,000,000 of the Company’s common stock over a thirty-nine month period. .
The 10-Q provides information about financing through September 15th. There may have been some activity regarding the equity line subsequent to September 15th.
Kgem,
Below are two items for the list of questions. It is likely I will add additional questions. I have been a MMTC shareholder since December 2008.
1. Assuming the signing into law of the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, will management pursue business plan financing through mechanisms of the Small Business Lending Fund component of the Act to obtain straight debt financing so as to reduce dilution to current shareholders?
2. Has the Cooperative Research and Development (CRADA) been established with the USDA? Please provide more detail about the expansion of the USDA relationship that was mentioned in the posted Executive Business Summary.
Senate Bill Addressing Food Safety Is Stalled
By GARDINER HARRIS - September 18, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/health/policy/19food.html?hp
WASHINGTON — After his mother died from eating contaminated peanut butter, Jeff Almer went to Washington to push for legislation that might save others from similar fates. And then he went again. And again. And again.
Nearly two years have passed since Shirley Almer’s death. In that time, food contamination involving chocolate chip cookie dough and eggs has sickened thousands more.
But the Senate has still not acted to fix many of the flaws in the nation’s food safety system — although a bill to do so has broad bipartisan support, is a priority for the Obama administration and has the backing of both industry and consumer groups. The House passed its version of the bill more than a year ago.
“It’s so frustrating,” said Mr. Almer, of Savage, Minn. “I don’t even know who to blame.”
The blame lies with a tight Senate calendar, a stubborn senator from Oklahoma and an unusual coalition of left- and right-wing advocates for small farmers who have mounted a surprisingly effective Internet campaign. Their e-mail messages have warned, among other untruths, that the bill would outlaw organic farming.
Dr. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of food and drugs, said in an interview that she was still confident the legislation would pass, although she confessed to being bewildered by the lengthy battle to schedule a vote.
“This is a historic opportunity,” Dr. Hamburg said. “This legislation would provide F.D.A. with important resources and authorities that we really need to be able to do our important job.”
The latest hope for the bill’s advocates was that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, would schedule a vote on the bill this week. But the Senate calendar is full of measures that need to be passed before members leave in October to campaign, so Mr. Reid sought a routine agreement to limit debate on the measure.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, refused, saying that the powers granted to the F.D.A. in the bill would have financial costs, and that those costs needed to be offset by spending reductions.
Mr. Coburn also expressed doubts that expanding the authority of the F.D.A. would “result in improved food safety,” said John Hart, his spokesman.
Mr. Reid responded Thursday, saying, “In light of recent events like the egg recall in Iowa, it is unconscionable that Senator Coburn and his Republican colleagues are putting politics ahead of a common-sense, bipartisan bill to ensure that the food products our families consume every day are safe.”
So the legislation may have to wait until the Senate’s lame-duck session after November’s elections, when it still could die. Many of the gaps in the nation’s food protection system that the bill would close became apparent in the recent recall of 500 million eggs after more than 1,500 people became ill.
For instance, the F.D.A. never inspected the Iowa egg facilities at the center of the recalls. Even if it had, the agency would not have had the power to order that their eggs be recalled despite conditions it later found to be filthy. And until recently, producers were not required to ensure that their eggs were safe.
By requiring regular inspections of high-risk facilities, providing the F.D.A. with the power to order recalls and demanding that food makers create plans to process food safely, the proposed legislation would change many of the circumstances that led to the illnesses.
But in a little-known footnote to the egg recall, inspectors from the Agriculture Department regularly visited the Iowa egg facilities to grade the eggs and noted unsanitary conditions but never told the F.D.A. about them. That kind of poor communication and coordination between the government’s main food agencies is routine, and the legislation stalled in the Senate would do little to correct them.
Nonetheless, mainstream consumer advocates and major food makers are nearly united in calling for the legislation’s passage. Just a few years ago, many manufacturers were opposed to expanding the F.D.A.’s food authority. But when a relatively small producer sold contaminated spinach several years ago, the entire industry’s crop was thrown out, resulting in huge, industrywide losses. And once a food contamination scare affects a product, sales are slow to return to normal.
Tired of getting punished for the sloppiness of others, food companies have become so supportive of greater government oversight that they even embraced a House proposal to charge manufacturers an annual registration fee to finance more regular inspections. That proposal is not in the Senate bill.
“Industry needs a strong partner at F.D.A. with the right tools and, importantly, the right resources,” said Scott Faber, vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Cries of alarm about the legislation have arisen from some small farmers and their advocates, who have argued that the new regulations would be too costly and that F.D.A. inspectors would come barging into their homes. Linn Cohen-Cole, a small-farm advocate from Atlanta, calls the bill “a fascist takeover of the entire food supply.”
The bill’s sponsors in the Senate agreed to allow some exemptions for small farms and facilities, but those provisions are not forceful enough for Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana. In an interview, Mr. Tester promised to offer amendments that were “meant to let state and local laws deal with small producers, and the federal government will deal with the big guys.”
Both industry and consumer advocates have argued against such exemptions, saying that all food needs to be safe and that state and local laws often provide few protections.
Another source of conflict has been a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to ban the use of bisphenol-A, or B.P.A., in food and drink containers used by children. After failing to persuade her colleagues to include the ban in the bill itself, Mrs. Feinstein promised to offer it as an amendment.
No matter how such issues are resolved, consumer and industry advocates have called for some form of the legislation to be passed.
“People understand that eggs can be contaminated, spinach can be contaminated, peanut butter can be contaminated,” said Erik Olson, the deputy director of the Pew Health Group. “And it really is the government’s responsibility to prevent that.”
Quarterly filed with the SEC.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/808015/000114420410049821/v196895_10q.htm
Webinar update this month of the Company's status, system and plans.
Press Release Source: Micro Imaging Technology, Inc. On Tuesday September 14, 2010, 8:00 am
SAN CLEMENTE, CA--(Marketwire - 09/14/10) - Micro Identification Technologies, Inc. (OTC.BB:MMTC - News) (MIT) announces that its plans to start production of the MIT 1000 System remain on-track to begin later this year. Critical sub-system electronics were successfully tested and the remaining tasks that include the build and test of the first production System present no additional challenges for MIT and its contract manufacturer, OSI Optoelectronics.
In addition, it was recently announced that 8500 pounds of beef were recalled due to E.coli contamination. The strain of E.coli causing the contamination was a shiga toxin-producing E.coli (STEC) known as E.coli O26 that many people believe should be classified as an adulterant (contaminant). Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Chief, Dr. Elisabeth Hagen stated to the New York Times, "If E. coli O157:H7 is an adulterant because it can kill your child, then other non-O157 STECs (like O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145) that cause 36,700 illnesses, 1,100 hospitalizations and 30 deaths in America each year, should be adulterants as well." The MIT 1000 has the capability to identify bacterial strains and plans have been initiated to add the non-O157 STEC's to its ID library in 2011.
"MIT is poised to be an important contributor to reducing future food contamination events as witnessed by the numerous MIT 1000 inquiries from prospective customers following the recent egg recall due to Salmonella and the aforementioned beef recall," stated Michael Brennan, MIT's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Brennan further stated, "The MIT 1000 System's ability to conduct an ID test in under 5 minutes for less than 10 cents classifies it as both a rapid and economical ID test that may enable food processors to confirm a food contamination event before widespread distribution has occurred."
MIT plans to host a webinar later this month to provide a more detailed update of the Company's status, system and plans.
About OSI Optoelectronics:
OSI Optoelectronics designs, manufactures and markets optoelectronic products and provides electronics manufacturing services (EMS) for use in a broad range of applications for commercial, military, aerospace, industrial, healthcare and homeland security options. Their products are widely used in training and simulation systems, satellite and missile guidance systems, medical imaging and diagnostic systems, among others.
OSI Optoelectronics has over 40 years of experience in the field of optoelectronics product development and manufacturing, and have established a global network of world-class manufacturing facilities to provide extensive engineering solutions and manufacturing capabilities and services for clients worldwide.
About Micro Identification Technologies:
MIT is a California-based public company that has developed and patented a rapid microbial identification (ID) System that revolutionizes the pathogenic bacteria ID process and can annually save thousands of lives and tens of millions of dollars. The System IDs bacteria in minutes, not days, and at a significant per test cost savings when compared to any conventional method. It does not rely on chemical or biological agents, conventional processing, fluorescent tags, gas chromatography or DNA analysis. The process is totally GREEN requiring only clean water and a sample of the unknown bacteria. Revenues for all rapid testing methods exceed $5 billion annually -- with food safety accounting for over $3 billion -- having expanded at a rate of 9.2 percent annually since 1998. Current growth projections are at 30 percent annually with test demands driven by major health, safety and homeland security issues. www.micro-identification.com
MIT has demonstrated the ability to detect and identify, within several minutes, the microbes Escherichia coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, and other pathogenic bacteria. MIT has performed over 300 tests for the identification of the aforementioned contaminants and scored 95% accuracy. The System can currently identify 23 species of bacteria and is easily expandable. The identification process has been verified by North American Science Associates, Inc. (NAMSA), an independent, internationally recognized biological testing laboratory. The NAMSA Test Report is available from the Company and, in MIT's opinion, demonstrates the accuracy, speed and cost effectiveness of the System over conventional processes. www.namsa.com
This release contains statements that are forward-looking in nature. Statements that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to future events or conditions or that include words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. These statements are made based upon information available to the Company as of the date of this release, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results could differ materially from our current expectations. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to dependence on suppliers; short product life cycles and reductions in unit selling prices; delays in development or shipment of new products; lack of market acceptance of our new products or services; inability to continue to develop competitive new products and services on a timely basis; introduction of new products or services by major competitors; our ability to attract and retain qualified employees; inability to expand our operations to support increased growth; and declining economic conditions, including a recession. These and other factors and risks associated with our business are discussed from time to time within our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
CONTACT:
Michael Brennan
Chairman
Email: Email Contact
Telephone: (805) 557-0614
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/MIT-Production-StartUp-Is-on-iw-3988927618.html?x=0&.v=1
I researched the involvement of the FDA in food safety earlier in the year. Here is my findings post on the YMB.
My understanding is any detection method goes through a validation process by organizations having expertise in the field. There is no indication from the company in its SEC filings that FDA approval is required. Nor is there any indication on the FDA website that it has approval authority over a detection method. Here is Appendix 1 from the FDA's Bacteriological Analytical Manual that covers rapid methods for detecting foodborne pathogens.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/BacteriologicalAnalyticalManualBAM/ucm109652.htm
Here is indication that the approval method is more of a peer-acceptance technique.
Bacteriological Analytical Manual (The BAM) is a collection of procedures preferred by analysts in U.S. Food and Drug Administration laboratories for the detection in food and cosmetic products of pathogens (bacterial, viral, parasitic, plus yeast and mold) and of microbial toxins. The manual's contents reflect the history of methods development described above. Except for some rapid methods listed in Appendix 1, all these methods have been used and peer reviewed by FDA scientists as well as by scientists outside FDA. However, not all of these methods have been fully validated by collaborative studies. In some instances, collaborative studies are not possible because uniform test samples can not be prepared (as with encysted parasites). In other instances, FDA needs to use a method before the time it takes to achieve full validation.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/BacteriologicalAnalyticalManualBAM/ucm071363.htm
YMB Post Link: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?bn=75402&tid=64&mid=66
The SEC closely examines registrations from small companies. Once satisfied that all government requirements are met in the registration, the SEC will issue a Notice of Effectiveness for the registration. Based upon the numerous S-1 amendments filed by the company, I expect the Notice of Effectiveness to be coming soon, hopefully before the end of the month.
Here is a link to the SEC's web page that announces the Notices of Effectiveness.
http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=geteffect
Their last presentation did not generate much interest from new investors. It was given on April 23, 2008 at the Houlihan Lokey 7th Annual Healthcare Conference.
Date Open High Low Close Volume Adj
Close
2008/05/30 - - - - - -
2008/05/29 - - - - - -
2008/05/28 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 10,000 0.80
2008/05/27 0.65 0.90 0.65 0.90 200 0.90
2008/05/26 - - - - - -
2008/05/23 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 100 0.90
2008/05/22 - - - - - -
2008/05/21 - - - - - -
2008/05/20 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 100 0.80
2008/05/19 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.90 7,200 0.90
2008/05/16 - - - - - -
2008/05/15 - - - - - -
2008/05/14 - - - - - -
2008/05/13 - - - - - -
2008/05/12 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 100 0.90
2008/05/09 - - - - - -
2008/05/08 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 1,000 0.80
2008/05/07 - - - - - -
2008/05/06 - - - - - -
2008/05/05 - - - - - -
2008/05/02 - - - - - -
2008/05/01 - - - - - -
2008/04/30 - - - - - -
2008/04/29 - - - - - -
2008/04/28 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 2,000 0.80
2008/04/25 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 100 0.80
2008/04/24 - - - - - -
2008/04/23 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 880 0.80
2008/04/22 - - - - - -
2008/04/21 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 100 0.80
2008/04/18 - - - - - -
2008/04/17 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 100 0.90
2008/04/16 - - - - - -
2008/04/15 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 100 0.90
2008/04/14 - - - - - -
2008/04/11 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 4,000 0.80
2008/04/10 - - - - - -
2008/04/09 - - - - - -
2008/04/08 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 7,521 0.80
2008/04/07 - - - - - -
2008/04/04 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 2,500 0.85
2008/04/03 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 600 0.80
2008/04/02 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 1,600 0.80
2008/04/01 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 100 0.85
2008/03/31 - - - - - -
2008/03/28 0.65 0.80 0.65 0.80 578 0.80
2008/03/27 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 140 0.80
2008/03/26 - - - - - -
2008/03/25 - - - - - -
2008/03/24 - - - - - -
2008/03/21 - - - - - -
2008/03/20 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 100 0.85
2008/03/19 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 100 0.85
2008/03/18 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 478 0.65
2008/03/17 - - - - - -
2008/03/14 - - - - - -
2008/03/13 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 210 0.80
2008/03/12 - - - - - -
2008/03/11 - - - - - -
2008/03/10 - - - - - -
2008/03/07 - - - - - -
2008/03/06 - - - - - -
2008/03/05 - - - - - -
2008/03/04 0.75 0.85 0.75 0.85 1,600 0.85
2008/03/03 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 100 0.80
Final Data Capture
Once the fee, any correspondence, and/or drawings are matched with the application and all requirements have been met for issuance as a patent, the application is then forwarded to the Final Data Capture (FDC) stage of the process . An “Issue Notification” would be the next step in the processing of a patent and is mailed approximately 3 weeks prior to the issue date of the patent.
PR Today - Czech Republic and Hungary next for Neonode; ''We see great potential for the continued roll-out of Neonode N2''
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071010/20071010005871.html?.v=1
Czech Republic and Hungary next for Neonode; ''We see great potential for the continued roll-out of Neonode N2''
Wednesday October 10, 10:43 am ET
STOCKHOLM, Sweden--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Neonode (NASDAQ:NEON - News), the Swedish company focusing on the development of unique user experiences, technologies and products within the mobile phone industry, today announced it will launch Neonode N2 on the Czech and Hungarian markets together with Difo, one of the largest distributors in the region.
"We are very happy to be able to present such a unique device as Neonode N2 to our partners, such as Vodafone, O2 and T-Mobile, and are looking forward to our strategic partnership with Neonode," said Rudolf Chvatal of RRC Group in Prague.
Through the deal with Difo, a division of the RCC group and one of the largest distributors of mobile/smart phones in Eastern Europe, Neonode will get direct distribution of Neonode N2 to both retailers and operators on the Hungarian and Czech markets. Neonode N2 will be distributed in the Czech and Hungarian region beginning in November.
"With Difo we now add another piece to the puzzle with a strong regional partner that has achieved great results in Eastern Europe," said Mikael Hagman, President and CEO of Neonode.
Neonode showcased its new mobile phone, Neonode N2, earlier this year to critical acclaim. In August Neonode N2 was launched in South Eastern Europe and is planned for several additional markets during the rest of this year and beginning of 2008.
"We see great potential for the continued roll-out of Neonode N2 with upcoming releases in Portugal in mid October, followed shortly after that in Spain together with MediaMarkt and in Sweden where we will release a special edition together with Telenor. Sales are according to expectations both in our own web shop and in Greece, where we have received very positive feedback regarding brand awareness and product demands. We look forward to introducing this unique product to additional markets," Mikael Hagman continued.
About Neonode
Neonode designs, develops and sells patented technologies and products focused on unique user experiences (UX). With offices in Stockholm, Sweden and San Ramon, California, Neonode Inc. is a publicly traded company (NASDAQ: NEON - News) with licenses and products sold worldwide through both direct web sales and local distribution partners. More information is available at www.neonode.com.
About DIFO (division of RRC Group)
DiFo (Digital Focus) is a truly Pan-East European specialized distributor with offices in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Almaty, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Belgrade, Ljubljana, and an Export Markets division covering additional 12 countries including Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Turkey and Israel. Main segments of DIFO business are Mobility (Smart phones, PDA phones, PDAs, navigation systems etc), Connectivity (mainly WiFi solutions) and Visuals (LCD TV and monitors). www.digital-focus.com.
Contact:
Neonode
Mikael Hagman, +46 8 678 18 50 (President and CEO)
Daniel Stalbo, +46 8 678 18 50 (Marketing Director)
Source: Neonode
E-P Viewpoint of Dispute with Isonics.
First, thanks Chronos for the sponsorship.
Here is a link to the E-P Holdings 10-Q. In it, you can read the E-P side of the dispute. Apparently, E-P was the first to initiate binding arbitration. From reading the statements, I get the impression that E-P can produce and deliver Si-28, however, it seems reluctant to do so due to the DZ issue. Any other reads on this?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1059568/000095015201503240/l89399ae10-q.txt
On December 1, 1999, Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC ("EPT") acquired the
depleted zinc distribution business (the "DZ Business") of Isonics Corporation
("Isonics") for approximately $8.2 million, payable $6.7 million at closing and
$1.5 million in three installments of $500,000 each payable on the first three
anniversaries of the closing. At the time of the acquisition, a single customer
represented approximately 55% of the DZ Business. Following the completion of
the acquisition, this customer informed EPT that it would no longer be
purchasing depleted zinc from an outside supplier. EPT initiated binding
arbitration against Isonics on March 26, 2001 with the American Arbitration
Association in Dallas, Texas pursuant to contractual dispute resolution
procedures. EPT'S arbitration demand is based on breach of representations and
warranties in the purchase and sale agreement for the DZ Business as well as
fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks to recover damages in excess of
$10 million and other remedies. While the company believes it has a meritorious
claim against Isonics, there can be no assurance that the company will obtain
any recovery as a result of this claim.
In connection with the sale of the DZ Business, EPT agreed to sell 200 kg
of isotopically purified silicon-28 to Isonics. Due to various factors, EPT has
not yet
delivered any silicon-28 to Isonics. Isonics has asserted a counterclaim against
EPT in the DZ Business arbitration described above for failure to deliver
silicon-28, seeking damages in excess of $10 million. EPT believes that any
obligation to deliver silicon-28 has been excused by, among other things, a
force majeure clause in the purchase and sale agreement for the DZ Business.
Contemporaneously with the purchase and sale of the DZ Business, EPT and Isonics
entered into a supply agreement (the "Supply Agreement") pursuant to which EPT
agreed that, commencing upon delivery of 200 kg of silicon-28, EPT would devote
the capacity of a pilot plant used to produce such material to producing
silicon-28 and sell all silicon-28 produced in such pilot plant and meeting
certain specifications, as well as any silicon-29 or silicon-30 actually
produced as a byproduct, to Isonics for a ten year term. Isonics amended its
counterclaim in the DZ Business arbitration to assert a claim that the Supply
Agreement requires EPT to produce a certain amount of silicon-28, silicon-29 and
silicon-30 and alleging damages of not less than $75 million for anticipatory
breach of such alleged obligation. EPT believes that the terms of the Supply
Agreement and applicable law clearly establish that the Supply Agreement does
not impose any obligation to produce any quantity of silicon-28, silicon-29 or
silicon-30 and that Isonics' claims are without merit. Isonics also amended its
counterclaim to allege that EPT's parent company, Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
("EPI") is liable for any damages of EPT under an "alter ego" theory, a claim
which EPI and EPT believe is also without merit. EPT and EPI intend to assert
other defenses as well and to defend this counterclaim vigorously. EPT continues
to explore alternative processes that may enable it to produce silicon-28, but
there is no assurance that such efforts will be successful.