permaculture

["matthew sullivan" <funcorporation@hotmail.com>]

Sep  7 1999  14:35                                     
                                                                 
     London, Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Axis Genetics, a leading     
closely held U.K. biotechnology company, has been placed in      
administration after running out of money, the Financial Times   
reported, citing Iain Cubitt, the company's chief executive. The 
Cambridge, U.K.-based company is the first U.K. biotech company  
to enter insolvency proceedings, the Financial Times said. Axis, 
which makes vaccines for genetically modified plants, may also be
he first corporate victim of public antipathy to genetic         
engineering, the newspaper said.                                 
     Marks & Spencer Plc, the U.K.'s biggest clothing retailer,  
said August 19 it is cutting genetically modified soya and corn  
out of the animal feed given to livestock used in its food range 
as a result of customer pressure.                                
                                                                 
(FT 9/7 1 www.ft.com)                                            
                                                                 
--Mathieu Robbins in the London newsroom (44 171) 673 2097/cp    
                                                                 
Story illustration: MNS LN <Equity> to chart Marks & Spencer     
Plc's shares.                                                    


*******************************************************************

My interpretation of this story is that the company ceased being funded 
because the people who were funding them felt their investment with Axis 
was too risky to be viable.  My interpretation could be wrong, but it is a 
positive move nonetheless!  I personally think that this story exemplifies 
something that everyone who is in the organic-field would do well to keep 
in mind: biotech companies are funded by shareholders who choose to invest 
in biotech companies because the return they will get on that investment 
justifies any associated risk.  It seems that the perceived returns on any 
biotech investment may be being outweighed by the associated risks
(of bad publicity, or consumer defiance).  So is it possible to further 
displace the biotech industry, and the chemical industries that support 
conventional farming?  These massive industries won't be completely 
displaced unless a range of issues all fall in line at around the same time 
- apart from the fact that the public (of consumers as a whole) needs to 
say "no" to these methods loudly, the displaced products need to generally 
(but not necessarily) be replaced by something: biotech with sensible 
organic techniques, coal with solar - that type of thing.

These are my opinions, and anyone who has a similar opinion - and 
especially a different opinion! - it would be great to hear from you.