Seeking Alpha

David Greene

 
View as an RSS Feed
View David Greene's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Whole Foods Market Pessimists Are Heroes To Smart Investors [View article]
    It looks like Vermont may join Whole Foods on GMO labeling

    Mandatory GMO Labeling Bill Passed In Vermont Senate, Could Be Nation's First


    By Carey Gillam and Lisa Baertlein

    April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.

    "We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.

    The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.

    The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.

    The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.

    The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering."

    Andrea Stander, a spokesperson for the Vermont Right to Know GMOs coalition, said they expect the biotech industry to sue in an attempt to stop enactment of the bill. As such, the language of the bill includes formation of a fund that would pay legal bills.

    "It's not just Vermont," said Stander. "This affects everyone who eats. Consumers all across the country have woken up to the fact that we've become an unregulated feeding experiment by the biotech industry. People want to know if their foods are made with these ingredients. This gives people the choice."

    Consumer groups say labeling is needed because of questions both about the safety of GM crops - known as GMOs - for human health and the environment.

    The language of the Vermont bill states that foods made with genetically engineered crops "potentially pose risks to health, safety, agriculture, and the environment" and should be labeled.

    Last October, a group of 93 international scientists issued a statement saying there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims the biotech industry was making about a "consensus" on safety.

    The group said there needed to be more independent research as studies showing safety tend to be funded and backed by the biotech industry.

    But GMO crop developers like Monsanto, and their backers say genetically modified crops are proven safe.

    "This debate isn't about food safety," said Karen Batra, spokeswoman for the Biotechnoloy Industry Organization. "Our science experts ... point to more than 1,700 credible peer-reviewed studies that find no legitimate concern."

    Batra said mandatory labeling creates needless extra costs and complications for farmers and the food industry.

    Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after Monsanto and other GMO crop developers and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

    The Vermont bill makes it illegal to describe any food product containing GMOs as "natural" or "all natural." Unlike bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut, which require other states to pass GMO labeling laws before they can be enacted, Vermont's law contains no such trigger clause. (Editing by Bernadette Baum)

    http://huff.to/QG0ZEX
    Apr 23 07:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Monsanto Remains A Strong Buy [View article]
    ALERT!--First GMO labeling law may be passed in Vermont. Waiting for the governor's signature

    Mandatory GMO Labeling Bill Passed In Vermont Senate, Could Be Nation's First


    By Carey Gillam and Lisa Baertlein

    April 16 (Reuters) - The Vermont Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would make the state the first in the United States to enact mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.

    "We are really excited that Vermont is going to be leading on this," said Falko Schilling, a spokesman for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the bill.

    The bill, approved 28-2 by the Senate, has already passed the Vermont House of Representatives. It now goes back to the House to see if members will approve changes made by the Senate.

    The law is set to take effect July 1, 2016.

    The move in Vermont comes as the developers of genetically modified crops and U.S. grocery manufacturers push for passage of an opposing bill, introduced in Congress last week, that would nullify any state law that requires labeling of foods made with genetically modified crops.

    The Vermont law passed by the Senate would do just that - processed foods that contain genetically modified corn, soybeans or other GMO ingredients and sold at retail outlets would have to be labeled as having been produced or partially produced with "genetic engineering."

    Andrea Stander, a spokesperson for the Vermont Right to Know GMOs coalition, said they expect the biotech industry to sue in an attempt to stop enactment of the bill. As such, the language of the bill includes formation of a fund that would pay legal bills.

    "It's not just Vermont," said Stander. "This affects everyone who eats. Consumers all across the country have woken up to the fact that we've become an unregulated feeding experiment by the biotech industry. People want to know if their foods are made with these ingredients. This gives people the choice."

    Consumer groups say labeling is needed because of questions both about the safety of GM crops - known as GMOs - for human health and the environment.

    The language of the Vermont bill states that foods made with genetically engineered crops "potentially pose risks to health, safety, agriculture, and the environment" and should be labeled.

    Last October, a group of 93 international scientists issued a statement saying there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims the biotech industry was making about a "consensus" on safety.

    The group said there needed to be more independent research as studies showing safety tend to be funded and backed by the biotech industry.

    But GMO crop developers like Monsanto, and their backers say genetically modified crops are proven safe.

    "This debate isn't about food safety," said Karen Batra, spokeswoman for the Biotechnoloy Industry Organization. "Our science experts ... point to more than 1,700 credible peer-reviewed studies that find no legitimate concern."

    Batra said mandatory labeling creates needless extra costs and complications for farmers and the food industry.

    Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after Monsanto and other GMO crop developers and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

    The Vermont bill makes it illegal to describe any food product containing GMOs as "natural" or "all natural." Unlike bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut, which require other states to pass GMO labeling laws before they can be enacted, Vermont's law contains no such trigger clause. (Editing by Bernadette Baum)

    http://huff.to/QG0ZEX
    Apr 23 07:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Whole Foods Market downgraded by BB&T [View news story]
    WFM does have challenges if Walmart shows a lower cost organic alternative to what Whole Foods offers. If WFM starts having to trim their premium (read profit margin), the P/E ratio will come down, as will earnings.
    Apr 14 05:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Further Research Into Whole Foods Market [View article]
    WFM has been a leader in GMO-labeling by giving their vendors until 2018 to label their products as GMO or non-GMO. This courageous step will provide more transparency to consumers.
    Apr 1 09:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Agricultural Theme Play Opportunity: Syngenta [View article]
    There may be some insight into what to expect from Syngenta in last week's earnings announcement from Monsanto.
    Oct 7 01:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Monsanto: Back On The Growth Track? [View article]
    Monsanto will continue to have challenges in the public relations arena with their GMO seeds. With 90% of US corn production currently GMO, Mondanto has a great deal of exposure should more farmers opt out of the "GMO plan" and revert back to non-GMO.

    There a more and more incentives for farmers to reconsider their pact with GMO production. The nutritional value of GMO crops are suspect and the heretofore touted rising yields is not panning out as expected.

    Input costs have gone up for farmers that expected expected their shift to GMO will see lower input costs. After an initial benefit of lower input cost, Mother Nature has begun adapting to the GMO
    introduction by mutating around the GMO hybrids.

    Going into this Fall, Monsanto is going to have to contend with more press coming out of the GMO labeling referendum in the State of Washington.

    At least in the near term, Monsanto could offer long term new investors a lower entry price.
    Oct 7 01:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Genetically Modified Food Investing [View article]
    Great overall background of the GMO players, Mr. Trefz.

    Do you see any risk that these GMO stocks have with the GMO labeling referendums coming up in the short term? The momentum that is developing to label food GMO or non-GMO will likely prompt consumer questions into what is GMO. You have to admit that the forces against GMO have done a good job in generating concern over the long term side effects of eating GMO food, regardless of the studies. And, let's face it, the FDA is not batting 1.000 when it comes to protecting the safety of the consumers. The jury is still out on GMO--both the nutritional value and its long term health effects. I would suspect that the WashingtonState vote on GMO labeling will generate more "bad" press regarding GMO and these stocks may suffer in the near term.

    I would be interested in your opinion,Larry. And thanks in advance for your reply.
    Sep 28 12:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Companies Developing The Future Of Cancer Therapy [View article]
    As with any pharmaceutical company, the major challenge is getting through the necessary clinical trials and having the stock structure to meet those costs until a company goes cash flow positive. Lion Biotech has that problem of balancing need for capital with the need to limit necessary stock dilution. Bigger companies can always self finance from positive cash flows.
    Sep 27 11:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chesapeake Energy: Great Company But Negative Free Cash Flows Are A Huge Turn-Off [View article]
    Nicely researched article. I believe that CHK is doing well recently because of the RECENT changes in management and capital budgeting going forward coupled with the expectation that natural gas prices willnot remain at these low levels for long. As everyone know, the markets look to the potential in the future and the leverage that CHK may offer in the event of higher prices with much improved management is a powerful elixir.
    Sep 27 11:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Monsanto And The Challenge Of The Hungry Planet [View article]
    GMO does not solve all problems and may actually create more....

    Bllomberg article: Rootworms Are Resistant to Monsanto Corn in Two States


    http://bloom.bg/16MGIyT

    and there is this:


    Nutritional Value Of Corn: Does GMO Corn Contain The Same Nutrients?

    Not good news for Monsanto.

    http://bit.ly/1fseUZW


    Sep 26 05:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Best Food Stock You Never Heard Of [View article]
    Whole Foods is encouraging their suppliers to get their food products certified as "non-GMO" through the Non-GMO Project. How do you think GMO-labeling initiatives will affect Where Food Comes From?
    Sep 23 02:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alleged Off-Label Marketing, Patent Woes And Other Issues May Spell Disaster For Avanir [View article]
    The only way a short seller can book a gain is by closing out the position--and buying to cover the short. Gravity is in the uncomfortable position of having to be a buyer to actually profit by the temporary decline.

    Of course, they could expect AVNR to go much lower, but sometthing tells me that Gravity knows that the other analysts are working on follow up research to refute the assertions of the Gravity report.

    This rebound could be quicker than most expect.
    Sep 16 10:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Alleged Off-Label Marketing, Patent Woes And Other Issues May Spell Disaster For Avanir [View article]
    Pretty aggressive negative report. Extrapolating potential damages based on unrelated prior cases is sensationalistic at best. But for an admitted shorter, totally expected.

    It is mutually exclusive to say you do not trade, but you short.

    I would suspect a response out of the company in the next few days. Unless they decide to not attract attention to this "report".

    And I must admit that I have never seen unsubstantiated and impossible to verify recorded conversations as a major supporting point for a research report.

    But, for now, the short side is winning. As of August 15, there were over 19 million shares short. The number for September 15 is probably much higher.

    Could be good for traders playing a short squeeze.
    Sep 11 02:44 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Food Technology Is A Dirt Cheap Oligopoly Acquisition Target [View article]
    Congratulations on a good article, Mr. Long.

    I have a question regarding the valuation. You cite the number of shares outstanding. DOes this number reflect the Fully Diluted number--including all preferred shares and warrants?

    Thank you for your reply.
    Aug 16 12:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BioAmber: Is It Too Early To Invest In This Sustainable Company? [View article]
    Nice write up, Kevin. Thanks for your insight.
    Jul 23 12:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
115 Comments
55 Likes