News of the Week genetically engineered interferonproducing version of B. subtilis does not secrete that protein. Cetus' interferon project is being carried out under an agreement with Shell Oil & Chemical Co., that will lead "to a joint venture company, if and when we show that interferon can be produced commercially," Farley says. Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., OTA officially released a 331-page report, "Impacts of Applied Genetics: Micro-Organisms, Plants, and Animals." The report immediately was challenged by the Center for Urban Education/Peoples Business Commission. The Washington-based group consistently has criticized the incipient genetic engineering industry, saying that knowledge of genetic engineering inevitably will be used to exploit people. The Center for Urban Education's specific criticisms are being leveled at former OTA study director, Zsolt Harsanyi, who left to become vice president of DNA Sciences, a company newly formed by the brokerage firm E. F. Hutton. Dan Smith of the center says, "Harsanyi's position represents a classic and dangerous conflict of interest. . . . The entire study and Harsanyi's role should be thoroughly reviewed." "I see no problem of conflict of interest," says Joyce C. Lashof, assistant director of the health and life sciences division at OTA. "In the course of doing his work, he [Harsanyi] became known. He had no offer until after the draft of the report was done and out for review." Lashof also notes that Smith has offered no substantive criticism of anything within the report. People who wish to judge for themselves can obtain the report from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20052. Stock number is 052-003-00805-0 and the price is $8.00. D
Terra Chemicals to be bought out Another medium-sized U.S. chemical company is about to disappear from public ownership after takeover from the outside. Fertilizer producer and marketer Terra Chemicals International of Sioux City, Iowa, says it has agreed in principle on a proposed cash tender offer of $21 per share for the 45% of its 5.3 million shares of common stock still in public hands. Total 6
C&EN April 27, 1981
value of the offer would be about $50 million. The offer is to come from Plateau Holdings, jointly owned by Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting Co. of Toronto, and by Minerals & Resources Corp. of Bermuda. Hudson Bay already owns the other 55% of Terra Chemicals stock. The real controlling power in both companies owning Plateau Holdings is Anglo American Corp. of South Africa. South African control comes in a complicated chain running through Minerals & Resources, Anglo American Corp. of Canada (100% owned by Minerals & Resources), and Hudson Bay (44% owned by Anglo American Corp. of Canada, the rest publicly held). Hence, after the proposed merger, Terra Chemicals would have indirect 50-50 ownership by Hudson Bay and Minerals & Resources, both of which would be controlled from South Africa. This chain is analogous to the string of corporate entities through
which Anglo American Corp. controls Engelhard Minerals & Chemicals. The completed merger will depend on a definitive merger agreement, approval by Terra shareholders, and a favorable opinion from investment bankers. Terra has postponed its annual shareholders meeting from April 28 to probably late June to allow time for shareholder consideration of the move. Terra produces nitrogen-based fertilizers and animal feed ingredients at three sites in Iowa and Oklahoma, the Oklahoma operations being coowned with W. R. Grace and Gulf Oil. However, most of Terra's sales come from reselling fertilizer from other producers. Terra markets its fertilizers through nearly 100 retail farm service centers in the Midwest, South, and Southwest and through separate distribution to wholesale customers. In 1980, Terra made $10.3 million after-tax profit on $299 million in sales. •
OSHA set to reconsider I sad standard In a graceful pirouette on its previous analysis was not required in setting stand, the Occupational Safety & these health standards. Health Administration last week said The Supreme Court has yet to rethat it wants to reconsider its two- spond to OSHA's request on the cotyear-old standard protecting some ton-dust standard, although its an800,000 industrial workers from the swer may come this week. Unlike the dangers of lead exposure to determine situation with the lead standard, the whether the costs of compliance court already has heard arguments in overshadow the health benefits to the cotton-dust case, and may not be workers in some 120 different occu- willing to vacate a lower court's ruling pations. and return that standard to the In its petition to the Supreme agency for further review. Court, the Justice Department on Until the Supreme Court responds behalf of OSHA asked that a lower to OSHA's latest petition, and even court's decision affirming most pro- during the review process itself visions of the lead standard be va- should the court accede to OSHA's cated and the rule-making record be requests, the lead standard issued on remanded to the agency for "further Nov. 14, 1978, and set at 50 microconsideration and development." grams per eu m of air will remain in This is the second time in less than effect. Employers are required to a month that OSHA has asked the supply their workers with respirators Supreme Court to return a major and to control exposure to lead. However, contested regulation for review. On the more stringent, controversial, and March 27, OSHA asked for permis- . costly engineering controls set to go sion to review the cotton-dust stan- into effect were earlier frozen indefidard designed to protect workers in nitely by the Supreme Court. Comthe textile industry. Both the cot- panies also are required to remove ton-dust and lead standards have workers with high blood-lead levels to thus become test cases for the Ad- cleaner job sites with no loss of pay ministration's announced cost-ben- until their health improves. efit policy. OSHA is asking for comments by OSHA head Thorne G. Auchter June 1 on the economic and technosays that reviews of these two stan- logical feasibility of meeting current dards would permit the agency "to provisions of the lead standard: on explore the utility of cost-benefit data whether different lead exposure levels as an additional decision-making tool should be set for different industries: to use in setting worker health regu- and on whether the so-called "medilations." The Carter Administration cal removal trigger levels" are feasible took the position that cost-benefit or should be set at different levels. D
