News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Caiostro

09/18/08 6:33 PM

#14063 RE: jessellivermore #14061

Jesse, your comments make sense. Maybe this will help too.
GTCB is also mentioned in the end.
Today on msn.com
:

FDA to review genetically engineered animals
Meat industry wants to sell such products as human food
updated 3:39 p.m. ET Sept. 18, 2008
WASHINGTON - Super Chicken strutted a step closer to the dinner table Thursday.

The government said it will start considering proposals to sell genetically engineered animals as food, a move that could lead to faster-growing fish, cattle that can resist mad cow disease or perhaps heart-healthier eggs laid by a new breed of chickens.

The rules will also apply to drugs and other medical materials from genetically engineered animals, a field with explosive potential.

U.S. supermarkets currently sell no meat from genetically engineered animals. But a Boston-area company called Aqua Bounty Technologies hopes to win approval next year for its faster-growing salmon and make the fish available by 2011. "It tastes just like any other farm-raised salmon," said vice chairman Elliot Entis, who has sampled it.

Reaction from consumer groups was mixed. They welcomed the government's decision to regulate genetically altered animals, but they cautioned that crucial details remain to be spelled out. For example, the Food and Drug Administration does not plan to require that all genetically engineered meat, poultry and fish be labeled as such. It would be labeled only if there was a change in the final product, such as low-cholesterol filet mignon.

"They are talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled?" said Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union. "We are close to speechless on this." Consumers Union publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

Nonetheless, Gregory Jaffe, who heads the biotechnology project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest called the FDA's move a "good first step."

"This is the first time the federal government is announcing a comprehensive regulatory system that addresses the concerns from these animals," said Jaffe. "But it may not have addressed all the environmental concerns."

What would happen if a genetically engineered animal escaped and started reproducing with wild animals of the same species? asked Jaffe. The FDA said it would address that issue.

On Thursday, the FDA released a proposed legal framework for how it would resolve such questions as whether the altered animals are safe for human consumption and whether they pose any serious environmental risk. FDA officials said they were focusing on animals that will be used as food, or to produce medications that would then be consumed by people or by other animals. The agency is not interested in reviewing genetically engineered mice already widely used in lab experiments.

"Genetic engineering of animals is here and has been here for some time, " said Larisa Rudenko, a science policy adviser with the FDA's veterinary medicine center. "We intend to provide a rigorous, risk-based regulatory path for developers to follow to help ensure public health and the health of animals."

Genetic engineering is already widely used in agriculture to produce higher-yielding or disease-resistant crops. But it's unclear how consumers will react to altered animals, even if they come with a government seal of approval.

Genetically engineered — or GE — animals are not clones, which the FDA has already said are safe to eat. While clones are exact copies of an animal, genetically engineered animals are manipulated by scientists to bring about a change in their characteristics. In years past, this was done by crossbreeding animals with desirable traits.

GE animals are created when scientists insert a gene from one species of animal into the DNA of another animal to reprogram some of its characteristics. For example, fish could be made to grow faster, or pigs might be re-engineered to produce less waste.

To engineer Aqua Bounty's faster-growing salmon, scientists took a snippet of DNA from an eel-like fish and stitched it into the genes of salmon. Normally, Atlantic salmon produce growth hormone only in the summer months. But with the change, salmon produce growth hormone all year long, allowing them to grow to full size in about 18 months instead of three years, Entis said.

"This is like tuning up your car," he said. GE salmon would be kept in enclosed pens, to prevent their escape into the wild, and sterilized to keep them from reproducing.

While the introduction of GE animals by food companies will probably get the most attention from the public, it's the pharmaceutical industry that seems poised to reap the greatest benefits.

Barbara Glenn, an animal science expert with the Biotechnology Industry Association, said research is under way that could lead to the development of vaccines, transplant organs, replacement tissues, and other medically useful materials from genetically engineered animals.

For example, one company is experimenting with GE cows to produce human antibodies against such diseases as smallpox and pandemic flu. Another is trying to produce a pig liver that would be suitable for transplanting into a human patient.

Glenn said there is currently only one drug on the market derived from a genetically engineered animal, and it is not approved in the U.S. Available in Europe, the medication is an anti-blood clotting factor produced from the milk of GE goats.

"We are issuing this draft guidance now because the technology has evolved to a point where the commercialization of these animals is no longer beyond the horizon," said Randall Lutter, FDA deputy commissioner for policy. The agency's proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



icon url

thefranchise

09/19/08 1:59 PM

#14077 RE: jessellivermore #14061

All I know is 40 cents was too attractive to pass up for me ;)
icon url

DragonBits

09/19/08 6:58 PM

#14078 RE: jessellivermore #14061

Jessellivermore, regards the low price of GTC, it appears to me GTC is dealing from a weak position in any renegotiations with their partners.

You feel GTC is like a gold miner that has a claim on a piece of land that has been assayed and has a large vein of gold worth more than 500 million. But the GTC mine is the miner’s only source of income, and it has yet to produce much gold. The miner has taken on larger cash rich partners that have other revenue streams, and they have advanced the miner money for a 30% stake. (Strictly as an example, none of the numbers I use are representative of GTC’s actual situation) But the miner is running out of money and needs more cash to continue.

Granted the partners may lose some time and cash if the miner has to declare bankruptcy, but a GTC bankruptcy won’t seriously hurt Leo Pharma, LFB or Ovation viability as a company, and they could use their contracts to buy the GTC mine in a bankruptcy if it came to that. That way they could get the entire mine on the cheap, and if someone else outbid the partners for the mine, well they still have their claims on future revenues.

But as you imply, these partners don’t want a bankruptcy, which is GTCs’ only leverage in any renegotiations with their partners. So for the GTC owners, these issues are about survival and getting cut of the future big gains, for the partners it is a costly inconvenience at worst and at best they own the entire mine, or will have a larger profit.

So I believe GTC partners have much greater leverage in any renegotiations with GTC, and they will use that leverage to extract a greater shares of GTC’s future profits. The fact that GTC owns a very valuable resource will only make the vultures (partners) that much greedier. The only thing worse than dealing with the GTC partners would be getting a PIPE from black bart the market pirate.

Of course, it could always be that the gold vein isn’t worth as much as the miner has advertised to the public. Or the mining costs are much higher. Or maybe because of the high price of gold there are a lot of new mines coming on the market.

Ignoring these possible reasons for the low price of GTC, and while I can agree with you that it is likely GTC will find the money to survive, I believe they are dealing from a weak position that will limit their future profitability. Perhaps this is what the market sees as possibility.