[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Axis Genetics Is First Insolvent U.K. Biotech Company, FT Says
- To: permaculture
- Subject: Axis Genetics Is First Insolvent U.K. Biotech Company, FT Says
- From: "matthew sullivan" <funcorporation@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 1:38:57
- Newsgroups: permaculture
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.