News of the Week did not define the boundaries of such a zone, and the information office in the Soviet Embassy in Washingon, D.C., was unable to supply additional details. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n officials w e r e quick to reject the proposal. Their chief argument is that the U.S. is seeking a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons and such a regional ban would "divert efforts" at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which for years has been trying to hammer out a chemical arms treaty. Officials also point out that Gorbachev's proposal would require that the U.S. remove its chemical weapons from West Germany to the U.S., whereas the U.S.S.R. would only have to reposition its weapons to the Soviet Union. Being closer to central Europe, the Soviets would have a leg up on resupplying its troops and allies in the event of an outbreak of war. Coming before the November summit with President Reagan, Gorbachev's offer is viewed skeptically in Washington as a mere political move. More so as Rau's party has already agreed with the ruling East German Socialist Unity Party on language to establish such a chemical-free zone. This agreement is toothless as it is between political parties, not between governments. The concept of a chemical-free zone in central Europe was first put forth by Olof Palme, the social democratic Prime Minister of Sweden. Soviet Embassy spokesman Vladimir Brusnitsyn "believes" he "recalls that a Tass statement" may have preceded Gorbachev's more recent offer. •
Unilever bids for Richardson-Vicks Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch consumer products firm, has made a proposal to acquire Richardson-Vicks. The offer was promptly rejected by the U.S. producer of health care and beauty products. Richardson-Vicks also owns J. T. Baker Chemical, the high-purity laboratory chemicals producer. The company had been Richardson-Merrell prior to the sale of its 8
September 16, 1985 C&EN
Merrell ethical drug operation to Dow Chemical in 1981. In U.S. chemicals, Unilever owns National Starch. Unilever says that it is offering $54 per share for Richardson-Vicks, more than 35% above the recent trading price of the stock. The day before the offer was made, Richardson-Vicks stock closed at $40 per share. The $54-per-share offer gives the deal a potential value of about $1.3 billion. According to Richardson-Vicks, Unilever has said in previous discussions that it will not pursue any offer not approved by RichardsonVicks' board. It will be difficult for Unilever to make headway if Richardson-Vicks does not go along with an offer. Richardson-Vicks has adopted antitakeover measures that require any
merger to be approved by two thirds of the shareholders of the firm's outstanding stock. Richardson family interests and company management already control almost 32% of the company's outstanding stock through direct ownership, trusts, and company profit sharing and pension plans. In addition, the company's board has begun a stock repurchase program for 5 million shares, which will raise the percentage controlled by the family and executives to more than 40%;. Unilever seems to recognize its problem. Following RichardsonVicks' rejection, Unilever N.V. chairman Floris A. Maljers struck a conciliatory note, saying, "I very much hope that Richardson-Vicks Inc. will re-examine its position and we can work together to achieve this very important and beneficial merger." •
Groups agree on changes to pesticide law A coalition of environmental and citizen groups and the agricultural chemical industry have agreed on a number of proposed changes to the pesticide law. The agreement is the result of months of negotiations among the more than 40 parties involved. "It represents the first time that the environmental and consumer community and a regulated industry have ever reached agreement on a major piece of environmental legislation," says Nancy Drabble, speaking for the environmental coalition. The exact legislative proposals to change the law will be made at some later time. No current Congressional action on the law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act, is scheduled now. Although there are some major points still to be resolved, many of the areas of conflict were settled. Regarding pesticide registration, the agreement calls for the law to be changed to require companies to submit within four or five years all data for reregistration of existing products. If the data are not in by then, the Environmental Protection Agency can cancel the registration. This also applies to the invalid test data revealed in the Industrial
Biotests Laboratory scandal. If new tests are not substituted for those inaccurate ones, EPA can suspend those registrations until new data are ready. The a g r e e m e n t also proposes expanding the right-to-know portions of the law. The changes would allow EPA to make company health and safety studies available before registration of a product. The current law permits disclosure after registration. The proposal provides for information to be given to local communities and officials about the chemicals produced in their area. Also, EPA would be required to make a list of ingredients designated inert that are used with pesticides and are known or suspected of being health problems by themselves. Jack D. Early, president of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, representing manufacturers of pesticides, says the agreement is an important first step to improving the pesticide law. He says "some difficult negotiations remain" as the parties move to draft the proposals in legislative language. In addition, he hopes that agreements such as this, between industry and consumers, "will serve to help lower public concerns about health-related aspects of the use of agrichemicals." • CIRCLE 92 ON READER SERVICE CARD
— •
