From today's SF Chronicle/SF Gate. Scroll down about halfway.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/17
/BU105719.DTL&type=business
If you need a laugh after that, see this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/071500-104.htm
p
m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOOD FIGHT: The Senate seems poised to
approve a bill that would prevent states and
municipalities from enacting food labeling
requirements that did not conform to federal law.
The Senate bill, S. 1155, has more than 30
co-sponsors, including Senate Minority Leader
Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). It would stop states from
requiring manufacturers to label genetically modified
foods.
Supporters of genetically engineered foods hope the
Senate will bring the bill to a floor vote and, if it
passes, fold it into a Senate-House conference
committee, which could make it law. Opponents of
genetically engineered foods are concerned that
passage of this federal act would thwart their efforts
to get states like California to impose labeling
requirements.
Benjamin Cohen, senior staff attorney for the
Center for Science in the Public Interest, said a vote
on the measure could come at any time.
On a related front, opponents of genetically
engineered foods are still waiting for federal District
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to rule on a lawsuit
challenging the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's process for regulating genetically
modified foods.
Joe Mendelson, an attorney with the Center for
Food Safety, one of the groups that brought the
case, said it was a year ago last week that final
arguments were submitted. If successful, the
challenge could overturn the current regulatory
process.
BIOTECH PORK: A few weeks ago I reported
that the biotech industry was seeking three tax
breaks from the California Legislature. In the
horse-trading that produced the final state budget,
the industry got two of the favors it had sought -- a
boost in the state's R&D tax credit from 12 to 15
percent, and an increase in the amount of time firms
can carry forward losses until they are profitable
and therefore need the deductions.
The R&D credit really meant more to Silicon Valley
than to biotech, but the carry- forward provision
was particularly important to biotech firms, which
can run in the red for a decade. The old law
allowed five- to eight-year carry-forwards, and
biotech interests were pleased that a bill carried by
Assemblyman Ted Lempert (D-San Carlos)
extended that to 10 years.
The third tax break sought by biotech didn't make it
into this year's budget. The vast majority of biotech
firms lose money and so tax breaks are
meaningless. The red- ink firms would like to trade
certain tax breaks with the few biotech firms that do
have earnings -- and tax bills.
Legislators were reluctant to embrace such a novel
concept last year, but lobbyists are nothing if not
patient, and biotech promoters will doubtless return
to Sacramento next year in hopes of convincing
lawmakers that the state's biotech firms need and
deserve this additional break.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:00:33 EDT