from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all

We've some fascinating stories for you this week but first the good news and the bad news. The good news is that Monsanto's suffering financial problems. The bad news is... so are we!

First, Monsanto. The company's suffering depressed earnings, losses to its share price, and a troubled horizon. Many stock analysts say the company is overvalued by Wall Street, and that its long-term outlook is bleak. All agree its future will be critically determined by its success or otherwise in building its GM seeds and traits business. (see COMPANY NEWS)

And that's where we come in! Like you, we're determined to deny Monsanto a future that involves the contamination of our food supply, the control of our farming, the devastation of our environment, the suppression of dissent in science and society, and the shameless misdirection of policy and attention from sustainable means of increasing food security and of improving the lot of the world's poor.

But we are currently broke and faced with unpaid bills, so this is a request to you, our subscribers, for help. If you like what we do and want us to be able to continue doing it, please make a donation by either:
*donating online to GM WATCH (aka NGIN): http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp
*or sending a check or money order, **made out to 'NGIN'**, to: GM Watch, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK.

For more on the reasons for the appeal: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4618

Many thanks for your support and for working with us to finish off Monsanto!

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONBIOT ON GM WATCH
FOOD SAFETY
NUTRIENT-ENRICHED FOODS
LOBBYWATCH
PHARMING
COMPANY NEWS / SOY LATEST
ASIA
THE AMERICAS
AUSTRALASIA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONBIOT ON GM WATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Monbiot is an internationally respected journalist, author and broadcaster. A columnist for The Guardian newspaper, he's held visiting professorships or fellowships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), East London (environmental science) and Oxford Brookes (Planning). He's received a UN Global 500 Award, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the OneWorld National Press Award.

This is what he has to say about GM Watch:

"I have been following and making use of GM Watch's work since 1998. Over the past 20 years, I have worked with scores of NGOs and individual whistleblowers, who have provided much of the information I've used as an investigative journalist. But I have never come across any as well-organised, effective and hard working as GM Watch.

I have now written four major investigative pieces on the back of their findings, each of which has caused a storm in the media. I have yet to find fault with any of the factual information they have supplied.

Here are a few of the other things they have achieved.

Their work has been a constant inspiration and a primary source of information for the movements opposing GM crops. It is hard to see how these campaigns could have sustained their effectiveness without the information GM Watch has provided.

They have assembled the world's most comprehensive database on the impacts and the politics of genetically engineered crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org

Their documentation of the corruption of science and the means by which corporations have manipulated public opinion and government policy has transformed the environment movement's understanding of the world in which it operates.

Their investigative work is second to none. They have uncovered an extraordinary network of fake citizens and fake citizens' movements established by the PR companies working for the biotech, pharmaceuticals and tobacco industries.

They have shown how almost the entire infrastructure of communication between science and the public in Britain has been captured by a bizarre ultra-rightwing cult. It's one of the oddest and most alarming stories I've ever come across.

As a result of these exposures, they have forced the scientific establishment to begin to question some of its funding arrangements and political compromises.

They turn out an extraordinary volume of web pages, articles, letters and bulletins. Very seldom does a day go by without a new update or commentary. They are highly readable, irreverent and accurate. Please examine their site www.gmwatch.org and the new one, www.lobbywatch.org .

As they have done all this in their free time, I really have no idea how they manage it. But it reveals an unwavering dedication."

For more comments on GM Watch from campaigners, journalists, scientists and others around the world:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=33&page=1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ SPIN OF THE WEEK: "GMOS SAFE FOR ENVIRONMENT, HUMAN USE, STUDY SAYS"
A revealing piece of spin from America: researchers at Southern Illinois University Carbondale detected bits of corn transgene in the stomach contents of 50 piglets they studied, and also found GM gene DNA in one of the samples screened from the small intestine, suggesting that GM gene DNA can at times survive the digestive process in pigs. This news is released as, "GMOs safe for environment, human use, study says"!

This curiously illogical leap is presumably, at best, supposed to imply that the low incidence of GM DNA survival into the small intestine in pigs suggests transgenes do not, in all likelihood, survive the digestive process and end up in the small intestines of humans.

If so, the joke is, this is already known to be a misplaced assumption. Intact GM DNA was found in the small intestine of humans in the Newcastle human feeding trial. Interestingly, the subjects in the Newcastle study were tested after only ONE meal containing GM soy content and yet the tests showed transgenes transfer out of GM food into gut bacteria at detectable levels.

Despite this, the new pig research, we are told, confirms that GMOs "are safe for human consumption", not to mention the environment!

The Council for Food and Agricultural Research and the Illinois Corn Marketing Board paid for the research.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4612

Also see "Updated comments on the Newcastle Feeding Trial", by Dr Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular genetics at a London teaching hospital
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1517

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUTRIENT-ENRICHED FOODS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ NON-GM IRON-ENRICHED RICE A SUCCESS
Worldwide, the biggest micronutrient deficiency is iron. It affects 1.4 billion women, 24% of the world population. The deficiency is especially severe in developing countries where the major staple food is rice.

The lessening of such deficiencies has been one of the major selling points for GM, as reflected in innumerable headlines:
Genetically Enhanced Rice to Help Fight Malnutrition ...
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/282/16/1508
Genetically Modified Rice Could Save Hundreds of Millions of Lives
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.overpopulation.com/811&e=7207
etc.

However, isolated-nutrient-enriched crops often bring more questions than answers, and the story below about iron-enriched rice is no exception:
* those who need extra iron also need a balance of other nutrients to make use of the iron
* while some benefit from extra iron, others can suffer harm from it - some cancers have been linked to excess iron
* the 'solution' of iron-enriched rice ignores the question of why iron deficient populations have become so. Is it because they have ceased to grow traditional leafy green vegetables in favour of monoculture cash crops? Is it because of the micronutrient deficiency so common among Green Revolution crops? Or is the soil badly deficient in iron, and if so, what measures can be taken to replenish it?

However, if we assume for a moment that isolated-nutrient-enriched food crops are A Good Thing, the story below provides yet more evidence that they can be produced without GM - and hence without all its accompanying uncertainties - and, as the article says, "without fanfare".

The fanfares have, of course been at their very loudest for so-called "golden rice" - a genetically engineered rice that is Vitamin A enriched and iron enriched.

In the case of Vitamin A, according to a BBC report, a scientist from the biotech company Syngenta which owns the rice, "All the genes are present in rice. One could make a non-GM vitamin-A rice simply by studying those genes in a more focused way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3122923.stm

In other words, the real driving force behind GM nutrient-enrichment is a hunger for a poster child for GM.
.......
Without fanfare, 300 Catholic nuns in 11 convents worked with international researchers, led by a Filipino scientist, in experiments lasting over four years to produce a new rice variety that could curb the region's "serial mom killer": iron-deficiency anemia.

After screening over 1,600 varieties, scientists developed IR681440. It has approximately four to five times more iron than most varieties currently consumed in the Philippines.

"The new experimental rice variety (is) high in both iron and zinc," says Chemical Weekly. "Both are normally deficient in a rice rich diet."

Preliminary tests showed that the serum ferritin levels in the blood [indicates how much iron is stored in tissues] of those who ate IR68144 leaped two or three times higher. The positive results led to 300 nuns in 11 convents participating in the second phase. Sisters who consumed high-iron rice "ingested about 20 percent more iron than those who consumed regular rice," the ADB noted. "On average, they increased their body iron by 10 percent."

"Those consuming control rice actually lost 6 percent of their body iron," it added. "The greatest increases in body iron were in the women who consumed the most iron from bio-fortified rice."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4607

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBBYWATCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ LIES AND SMEARS FROM GM LOBBY IN ORGANIC/PESTO ATTACK
An attack on organic food in general, and pesto in particular has, according to The Independent newspaper, been launched by the pro-GM lobby in Italy: "This week's claims about pesto came as part of a last-minute offensive by pro-GM scientists to prevent a government ban on the growing of GM crops."

The charges of a problem with foods which, like pesto, contain methyl eugenol, originally arose some 5 years ago, "The reiteration of the charges this week came as the Umberto Veronesi Foundation published a pro-GM manifesto entitled Food Safety and GM Organisms".

According to the article, "The argument of the scientists is that while GM foods can be eaten with absolute confidence, given the amount of research that has been done on them, the "natural", "organic" foods vaunted by Italy's army of foodies may contain hidden hazards."

So what is all this safety research on GM foods?

The article quotes Prof Veronesi, a former Italian health minister, as saying "in the light of studies on populations that for years have been living on GM foods, the US above all, it [concern about GM food] has become an opposition that must be eliminated because it is dangerous for our country."

Needless to say, Veronesi's claim is a total lie. Not a single study on "populations that for years have been living on GM foods" has ever taken place!

Here are the comments of Prof Joe Cummins on the pesto/organic food smear:
"The article below is the most current of a series of loony attacks on organic foods by GM public relations 'scientists'. Certainly methyl eugenol does cause cancer in rats and mice and it is found in basil. Even though 'organic' basil was not identified in the article the GM supporter claims that GM corn is safer than pesto which contains basil, and organic foods have 'hidden' toxins that are 'not present' in GM foods (which have nice synthetic genes). However no 'organic' food was identified in the article and the consensus of food scientists is that methyl eugenol is not a tangible threat at the levels found in spiced food [for source, see http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4608]. It seems to me the newspaper writer should have balanced the article with a comment from a food additive expert from FAO/WHO."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4608

For more on the organic attacks made by the pro-GM lobby: http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=7&page=1&op=1

+ ITALY'S LEADING BULLSH*TOLOGIST STEPS INTO GM DEBATE
Prof Umberto Veronesi, who lied about the existence of safety research on GM foods (see item above), has accused critics of GM of failing to base their convictions on a sound scientific basis - unlike Veronesi!

According to an article on AgBioView, "Italy's leading oncologist Umberto Veronesi has said that attempts to defend traditional Italian agriculture from the encroachment of GMOs were unscientific. The former health minister said that if given a choice he 'would always opt to eat GMO maize' rather than traditionally-grown varieties which may contain potentially-risky toxins. Activists against GMOs are taking an 'ideological' and 'demonising' stance without basing their convictions on sound scientific basis."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4617

+ AFRICA CAN'T AFFORD TO MISS OUT ON GM FOODS - SAYS WHO?
The author of a pro-GM letter in the Kenyan press advises Africans to forget any doubts about the benefits of GM crops for Africa's farmers: "Wherever GM crops have been commercialised, they have brought benefits and enhanced farmers' income, and improved farm productivity". (Compare and contrast this claim with 'Broken promises: GM crops fail developing countries' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrokenPromises.php )

Nor does he think African governments should worry over much about placating the critics, "Africa would do well not to waste too much of its precious resources on this "democratisation" of technology."

So who is "Shantu Shantaram, MD, USA", the author of this letter? Could it be that well-known Indian GM supporter, Shantu Shantaram, formerly employed by Syngenta? While there, he developed PR strategies for biotech projects in the developing world. Now Shantaram has his own "consulting firm", Biologistics International Corporation, advising on "biotechnology risk assessment, biosafety capacity building, and biotechnology policy development and analysis".

He couldn't be touting for business in Africa, could he? Surely not.

For more on Asia and Africa's pro-GM lobbyists, see http://www.gmwatch.org/africa.asp and http://www.gmwatch.org/asia.asp
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4599

+ CONFERENCE PUSHES GMOS FOR AFRICA
The first US-Africa Agribusiness Conference in Monterey in November touted GM crops as the answer to Africa's poverty problems. The conference was organized by the Corporate Council on Africa, of which Monsanto is a member.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4616

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHARMING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ ROW OVER DRUGS IN CROPS CONTINUES
Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience recently sparked a controversy with its plan to cultivate rice engineered to synthesize pharmaceutical proteins.

In July, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, and Environment California sent a 22-page report, "Pharmaceutical Rice in California," to California's Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Health Services, and Environmental Protection Agency. After describing concerns about the GM rice, the groups urged a moratorium on pharmacrops until state agencies have investigated potential impacts on human health and the environment.

A few weeks after the release of the report, representatives of the International Academy of Life Sciences (IALS) published its views. In a letter to the same three Californian agencies, Drs Hilmar Stolte (Hannover Medical School, Germany) and Robert Rich (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) countered that the report does not present an objective or accurate perspective of the risks. Stolte and Rich also claimed that "the authors of this report have intentionally confused 'risk' with 'hazard,' presenting the hazards as if they were risk."

Eh?? Perhaps it is IALS that is causing confusion, since the Center for Food Safety (CFS) report appears to have stated some very reasonable demands in plain English. CFS responded to the IALS allegations in a letter sent to the Californian health, agriculture, and environment agencies. Their report, they stressed, highlights potential risks, or hazards that might occur. They explained that the groups called for the state's agencies to perform an independent risk assessment to cure a deficiency in federal regulation. "Federal regulatory agencies," they asserted, "have not performed risk assessments to determine either how serious the identified hazards are, the levels of exposure that may cause harm, or the likelihood that they may occur." In their view, a responsible risk assessment process must find that a hazard does not exist, or, if the hazard does exist, that exposure to the hazard either does not occur or is too low to cause significant harm.

CFS also countered the IALS claim that the "academic community" supports the idea of producing pharmaceuticals in food crops. They pointed to recent studies from the National Research Council as evidence that pharmacrops do not benefit from a consensus of the scientific community.

CFS's view is backed by an editorial from earlier this year from the normally aggressively pro-GM science journal Nature Biotechnology: "... we should be concerned about the presence of a potentially toxic substance in food plants. After all, is this really so different from a conventional pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical manufacturer packaging its pills in candy wrappers or flour bags or storing its compounds or production batches untended outside the perimeter fence?"
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4605

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY NEWS / SOY LATEST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ MONSANTO GOES AFTER PEER REVIEWERS
More than 20 chemical companies, including Monsanto and Dow Chemical, have taken the unusual step of issuing subpoenas to five peer reviewers of a scholarly book. The book, Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution, presents evidence that in the late 1960s and early '70s, chemical-industry leaders failed to inform the government about a link that had been found in experiments with rats between exposure to a chemical called vinyl chloride monomer and cancer. The director of the University of California Press, which published the book, called the companies' actions "really pretty sleazy. ... They're trying to discredit the peer-review process."
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 5, 2004
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4615

+ AGENT ORANGE VICTIMS SUE MONSANTO
Vietnamese Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) filed a class action lawsuit in a New York court against Monsanto and 36 other manufacturers of Agent Orange. Today in Vietnam, there are 150,000 other children, whose parents allege their birth defects are the result of exposure to Agent Orange during the war, or the consumption of
dioxin-contaminated food and water since 1975.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4615

+ CONTINUED LOSSES PUT PRESSURE ON MONSANTO PRODUCT LAUNCH
On 6 Oct 2004, Monsanto posted a net loss of USD 42m for the fourth quarter, spurring a 3.2% single day drop in share price. Continued erosion of sales, down 3% from a year earlier, has increased expectations for the agrochemical giant's newest product: low linolenic acid VISTIVE(tm) soybeans.

Monsanto is suffering depressed earnings, losses to share price, and a troubled horizon. Stock analysts give mixed reviews of the firm's prospects, many citing concerns that the company is overvalued by Wall Street, and that long-term growth will be below average. Monsanto's future will be critically dependent on the success of developing its GM seeds and traits business.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4604

+ MORE ON THOSE NEW SOYBEANS
Since Monsanto is pinning its hopes for recovery on its new VISTIVE soybeans, it's worth taking a closer look at this product.

The first point to note is that the VISTIVE soybeans were developed through conventional breeding, not GM - which must be a tacit admission by Monsanto that there is no future in gene-tinkering.

The beans were designed to reduce the need for partial hydrogenation when processing soybean oil. VISTIVE soybeans contain less than half the amount of linolenic acid normally present - 3% as opposed to 8% - yielding a more stable oil with less need for hydrogenation.

Hydrogenated vegetable fat is favored by food processors because it is solid at room temperature and has a longer shelf life. However, the trans fatty acids produced by the hydrogenation process have prompted increased scrutiny as health concerns mount - research has suggested that trans fatty acids clog up arteries and raise LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, leading to heart disease.
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2004/news04.nov.html#nov0405

Are we impressed? Well no, actually. Researchers at Iowa State University claim to have produced a soybean - also by conventional breeding, not GM - that has only 1% linolenic acid, trumping the 3% in Monsanto's bean. Iowa State's press release trumpets, "... a new soybean oil developed by conventional breeding methods at Iowa State University outperforms traditional hydrogenated soybean oil for preparation of fried foods. The exceptional performance of the 1% linolenic (lin) oil has the food industry asking for more. To meet the demand, farmers planted about 30,000 acres of the new soybeans in 2004 and plans are being developed to increase production to 1 million acres in 2005."

Are we impressed now? Hardly. To read such stories, you could be forgiven for concluding that linolenic acid is a pesky toxin that is best avoided. But, outside the inverted values of the food industry, the contrary is true. Linoleic acid is an essential fatty acid (EFA) that has been credited with preventing and treating many serious illnesses, including heart disease, behavioural problems, arthritis etc. Modern diets are notoriously deficient in essential fatty acids and people who have caught onto the connection between EFA shortage and their illnesses have to take supplements. In short, Monsanto's and Iowa State's low linolenic acid beans were bred to suit the food industry, NOT the consumer.

The following paragraph from Iowa State's blurb lays out the gruesome truth about who benefits from this product (anyone who values fresh food or has gagged at the state of the cooking oil in some student pads or restaurants should prepare for a strong Yuk factor):

Financial benefits
The extended frying life of 1% lin soybean oil compared with hydrogenated soybean oil provides financial benefits to food services and restaurants. Food managers commonly have reported that the 1% lin oil can be used at least 25% longer than hydrogenated soybean oil before it has to be changed. Jason Wheelock, kitchen manager of the popular Hickory Park restaurant in Ames, Iowa, tested the 1% lin oil. He routinely changed the hydrogenated oil in his fryers once a week. After a week of using the 1% lin oil, it looked so good that he used it another week. He said the oil still looked good after two weeks of use. Although 1% lin oil costs more to produce, its extended frying life offsets the higher purchase price.
http://www.notrans.iastate.edu/

+ SOYA MAY BE BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH
Diets rich in soy could impair the ability of men's sperm to fertilise an egg, according to recent research. Specialist in reproductive medicine at Belfast's Royal Maternity Hospital Dr Lorraine Anderson found that sperm moves more sluggishly in the presence of isoflavones, so-called 'plant oestrogens' or 'phyto-oestrogens' present in soy.

Isoflavones mimic the effects of real oestrogen. They have been touted by the soy lobby as a miracle nutrient that can help lower cholesterol, lessen menopausal systems, ward off osteoporosis and even reduce the risk of some cancers. These highly active compounds are found in such large concentrations in soya that a woman drinking two glasses of soya milk a day over the course of a month will see the timing of her menstrual cycle alter. It has been estimated that infants who are fed soya formula exclusively receive an amount of oestrogen equivalent to five birth control pills every day.

Aside from research linking soya to reduced male fertility, studies now link the phyto-oestrogens found in the plant to an increased risk of other types of cancer. It has also been claimed that it damages brain function in men and causes hidden developmental abnormalities in infants. Some even attribute the early onset of puberty in western women to the spread of soya in diets.

Certainly, Dr Anderson has no doubt about the conclusions of her own research: the more soya a man eats, she believes, the more difficulty he will have in fertilising an egg. Anderson's head of department, Prof Neil McClure, one of Britain's leading fertility experts, says, "If a couple were having trouble conceiving and the man's sperm was a borderline case, then I have seen enough evidence from these studies to advise a change in his diet to minimise soya."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4610

NOTE: The industry points to centuries of soy consumption by some healthy Asian populations as 'proof' that soya is safe. However, Asian peoples have always fermented soy - a process that extracts or neutralizes many of the anti-nutrients - before eating it in the form of tofu or tempeh. Also, they use it in modest amounts as a supplement to animal proteins rather than a replacement.

------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ ILLEGAL SEEDS OVERTAKE INDIA'S COTTON FIELDS
Indian agricultural minister Sharad Pawar admitted in parliament on August 16 that there is a flourishing illegal market in GM cotton seeds, strengthening allegations by the industry that more than half of all the GM cotton now growing in the country is from unapproved varieties. Pawar, Indian scientists and seed companies want state governments to take action against the seed producers and traders to protect the industry and to prevent an impending 'biodisaster.'

India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the country's main agbiotech regulatory body, opened the door to GM products in 2002 and now allows the sale of four varieties of insect-resistant GM cotton, all of which carry Monsanto's Bt cry1Ac gene.

But, because of poor monitoring by the government, "80% of all Bt cotton growing in India is nameless, unlicensed varieties," says Sateesh Kumar of Prabhat Agri-Biotech in Hyderabad. This year, farmers have planted unapproved GM cotton in more than half-a-million acres in the Gujarat state alone, say industry executives. Industry representatives warn that India faces a looming environmental disaster if pests develop widespread resistance to the Bt crop. Such resistance is supposedly combated by planting refugia of non-Bt cotton, which dilutes the presence of Bt-resistant genes in pest populations. But farmers planting illegal seeds are not obliged to provide such refugia.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4609

+ NO END TO WOES OF BT COTTON FARMERS
Complaints are coming in once again from Bt cotton farmers in various parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

According to an unofficial estimate, cotton was cultivated in 30 lakh acres this year as against the normal area of 24 lakhs in the State. Out of this, Bt cotton occupied 10 per cent area. Of the Bt cotton farmers, about 5 per cent bought seed from authorised license-holders of Monsanto, while the remaining 5 per cent used seed produced by small companies. The licensed Bt cottonseed was sold at Rs.1,500 per packet of 400 grams while unauthorised seed price ranged from Rs. 800 to 1,200. The non-Bt hybrid seed is priced around Rs. 400.

The farmers' experience indicates that the recovery rate of Bt cotton from serious moisture stress is poor. Though the plant has recovered from stress, the yield after the shock is very poor when compared to non-Bt types. Also, the performance of Bt cotton hybrids varied from one type to other. The performance was reasonably good where the drought tolerant female was chosen for crossing.

The seed producers who developed unauthorised Bt hybrids without holding proper rights from Monsanto claimed that their Bt hybrids performed better than those of licensed companies as their female varieties were drought resistant.

Bt cottonseed is produced illegally in Kurnool area, where it's known as `Kurnool Bt'. The unauthorised producers said they were willing to buy the rights from Monsanto provided the royalty was reasonable. Now, Monsanto is demanding a royalty of 70 per cent.

Meanwhile, the secretary of Andhra Pradesh Raithu Sangham, S. Malla Reddy, said they would launch an agitation against exploitation by Monsanto and the companies which bought the rights. He said Bt hybrids should not be released onto the market until the agriculture university conducted field trials and approved its commercial cultivation.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4600

+ INDIA'S NEW PATENT REGIME POSES CHALLENGES
India is set to amend its Patent Act, 1970 for the third time with a view to meet its commitments to WTO by January 1, 2005. The amendments are proposed to be consistent to the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS - 1994).

The third amendment is slated to provide patent product regime in pharmaceuticals, food and chemicals. Patent rights over micro-organisms, microbiological and non-biological processes for production of plants and animals are also likely to be covered under the third amendment.

One problem for the farm sector is that the TRIPS agreement has not defined whether the micro-organisms in their natural state are patentable, or whether their isolation renders them patentable, or whether human intervention in creating a level of novelty in the micro-organism is needed for patenting.

Another question is whether a product produced by a micro-organism which is known can be patentable or the process is patentable.

India's food sector will also face new challenges in the new patent regime. Different processes and products will become patentable. There is, therefore, a need to document all traditional processes as well as products with a view to reduce the number of controversies over claims for patent rights.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4609

------------------------------------------------------------
THE AMERICAS
------------------------------------------------------------

+ NAFTA REPORT CALLS GM GRAIN A THREAT TO MEXICO; BUSH GOVT DISPUTES STUDY
A scientific panel of international experts has concluded that the unintended spread of US GM corn in Mexico - where the species originated and modified plants are not allowed - poses a potential threat that should be limited or stopped. But the US has attacked the report and its conclusions as unscientific, and made clear it did not intend to accept the recommendations.

The report, written by a group convened under the North American Free Trade Agreement, rejected the US position that the modified corn is, in effect, no different than conventionally bred corn hybrids. It said that because the Mexican government has never examined or approved the use of transgenic crops, their presence in the country is an inherent problem.

"How would Americans feel if we started getting living transgenic seeds that had been judged to be safe by the Cuban government but not the American government?" asked Norman C. Ellstrand, a University of California at Riverside geneticist and member of the NAFTA-appointed panel. "We would be outraged, and so are many Mexicans. Like us, they have the right to make up their own minds about genetically modified crops."

The Mexican government embraced the NAFTA report and said it expected to implement many of its recommendations.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4613

+ DECLINING CONSUMER CONFIDENCE FOR GM IN US
Acceptance of GM food is declining in the US according to Carol Tucker Foreman, director of Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. Polls demonstrate the decline in public acceptance, says Tucker Forman.

Carol Tucker Forman cannot be dismissed as some anti-industry radical. Tucker Forman's a former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and at one time was a highly-paid Washington lobbyist for Monsanto, working to promote its controversial GM cattle drug, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

+ LOGIC GOES AWOL IN INDUSTRY DEFENCE OF GMOS
Andrew Christie's grimly hilarious report for CommonDreams on a debate about the recent ballots in several Californian counties to decide whether to ban GM crops is at http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4611 :

Excerpt:
Dr Ignacio Chapela came to San Luis Obispo's Unitarian Fellowship Center on October 10 to speak in support of Measure Q, the ban on growing GE crops in the county... [He said] GE crops were seen from the inception of the technology as a huge cash cow waiting to be milked. In the rush to commercialize the science, "we had to look the other way" in terms of the lack of data or risk studies. Now, 25 years down the road, "the green light and blank check" that was issued to biotech to get the product to market in a hurry means the data we should have been collecting isn't there; only about 10 studies on human health and GMO's have been performed, and half of those have discovered reasons for concern - including malformed organs, tumours, and early death in lab rats. The measures now on the ballots of three counties in California, he said, are needed to buy the time necessary for the research to catch up to GE's runaway engine of commerce.

There were two scientists on the panel from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo's training centre for future farmers and engineers. Speaking after Dr Chapela... they ignored everything he had said and trotted out their arguments opposed to a crop ban.

First, they tried a magic trick. Dr Scott Steinmaus instructed audience members who had each been given two ears of corn upon entering to partially peel back the leaves on the ears marked with a minus sign. All discovered the browned, dishevelled tips that are the hallmark of the corn ear worm. Then... Steinmaus asked the audience to semi-shuck the "+" -marked ears, from the college's GE field, which were all found to be pearly yellow perfection and corn ear worm free. He beamed. (As a kid, when I was assigned the task of shucking and boiling the corn for Sunday dinner, I would flick off the worm, if present, cut off the brown tip with a two-dollar paring knife and drop the corn in the pot. Little did I know that I could one day circumvent this low-tech solution to this vegetable emergency thanks to a $220 billion industry that would also draft me into an experiment that may bequeath to my descendants liver failure or congenital deformities.)

Then Dr Dan Peterson made the "don't stop the march of progress" argument, making the analogy to the early days of the automotive industry: Dangerously unsafe early vehicles gradually improved, their defects eliminated through research. We didn't ban cars; the technology was allowed to advance.

One of the audience members pointed out that a car cannot pass along the characteristics of a bad muffler to other cars. She might well have added that they also can't transfer bad-muffler traits to other species, nor pass along characteristics that go undetected for a generation or two before triggering unforeseen reactions in combination with viruses that have lain dormant for millions of years, nor cause problems that cannot be corrected - say, a legacy of birth defects or an unstoppable plague - even if you recall every defective vehicle you produced.

GE's defenders at the table opined that they're just biologists, not trained in the social sciences, and were having to learn how to deal with the "emotionalities" around the GE debate. But as the questions from the well-behaved audience mounted, the scientists had no opportunity to practice grappling with emotions; rather, they seemed to have problems with the application of logic.

Dr. Peterson said he was sure corporations would never come to patent and own all the seed stock used to grow the world's food crops. When informed that this is, in fact, Monsanto's stated business plan, he said he didn't doubt the reality of a company _intending_ to do so, but doubted they could ever actually achieve it. When pressed as to exactly what would stop a transnational giant with billions of dollars in resources - with which it is rapidly buying up seed companies - from achieving that goal, he said he hoped corporations like Monsanto would also be selling non-GE seed from the companies they purchased, even though the point of that exercise is to alter one characteristic of a seed's DNA, patent it, own it, and thereby charge eternally for its use. He affirmed his faith in the marketplace, as many people clearly prefer to buy organic non-GMOs rather than Big Ag's manipulated product, therefore consumer choice would effectively thwart the corporate plan for 100% penetration of GE foods. When asked what role consumer choice could have in the matter once GE crops had succeeded in cross-pollinating and contaminating non-GE crops, extinguishing the organic option, he held his hands up in front of his chest and said he was not going to get into a discussion of Monsanto's business plan because that wasn't his field.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4611

+ CANADA'S FIRST GM FREE ZONE HONOURED
Powell River, British Columbia, has been presented with the provincial agricultural achievement of the year award for being declared the first GE free crop zone in Canada.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4614

+ BEAN DETECTIVES VISIT NEBRASKAN
Nebraska farmer Vernon Gansebom has spent the better part of the last two years talking to people about how to save his biotech soybean seeds to legally use them next year. Gansebom's efforts to speak to trade groups, generate support among other farmers and talk with seed companies finally got someone's attention. Two private detectives from St. Louis drove to Osmond, Neb., last month to talk to Gansebom.

"They didn't exactly say how they got my name, but they said somebody must have turned me in," Gansebom said. Gansebom is one of about 500 farmers Monsanto will investigate this year, as it does every year, for possibly illegally using the company's patented seeds.

Gansebom, 80, said the private detectives who visited his farm asked him to sign a statement authorizing them to pull his acreage records at the Pierce County Farm Service Agency office. "Actually, I laughed at them right off the bat, I thought it was funny," Gansebom said. "Afterward, it was like 'What the heck?' It was kind of like Gestapo tactics."

Earlier this month Monsanto sent private investigators to Vernon Gansebom's house to make him prove he bought all the soybeans he planted this year. "We used to always plant our own seed, but they've taken that away from us," Gansebom said. "I don't feel right about that."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4614

------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
------------------------------------------------------------

+ CONCERNS ABOUT GM COTTONSEED OIL
Concerns have been raised about GM cottonseed oil being included in food products in Australia.

Bans are in place in most Australian states to prevent the growing of GM food crops. But entomology expert Rick Roush, from the University of California, says the fact GM cottonseed oil is used in fast food preparation and sold as vegetable oil makes a mockery of the GM-free claims of some states: "It's really a polite fiction to claim that cotton is not a food crop because roughly 40 per cent of our cooking oil comes from cotton."

It is estimated about 90 per cent of cotton farms in NSW and Queensland cultivate GM cotton, the only GM crop in commercial production.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4603

GM WATCH comment: Anyone who still eats food containing cottonseed oil (sometimes hidden in the catch-all term 'vegetable oil') might bear in mind the following excerpts from an article in Sierra magazine:

First we soak it in pesticides - then we eat it... Chemicals that have been banned for food crops are still being used on cotton... Nearly one-quarter of all pesticides used in the United States are applied to cotton...

The industry view is that pesticide residues are removed from cottonseeds during their chemically intensive processing: the seeds are washed with caustic lye or sodium hydroxide and the oil is extracted with hexane, a highly volatile solvent, and is then filtered through sulfuric-acid-laden clay...

But residues from pesticides such as the defoliant DEF have frequently appeared on California Department of Food and Agriculture scans of cottonseed and other cotton by-products over the past decade. Cottonseed oil, however, is rarely tested for pesticides, according to Young Lee, staff scientist at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. ... "Certainly contamination is a possibility," says Lee. "We don't have the data to say one way or the other."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_3_84/ai_54492553

+ AUSTRALIAN FARMERS FIGHT BACK
The Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), an alliance of Australian conventional and organic farmers, are standing their ground against Bayer Cropscience regarding liability issues surrounding GM crops. Bayer Cropscience have been growing GM trials in both Victoria and South Australia this year and the NCF claim these trials are the start of unfair liability and future economic risk to their industry.

"Farmers are now expected to sign contracts guaranteeing no GM is present but why should we accept liability for contamination with a GM product we and many of our markets don't want?" asked Julie Newman, National Spokesperson and WA farmer. "We are positioning ourselves for a future class action against Bayer Cropscience if economic loss is caused by contamination with their GM product.

"We are encouraging farmers to forward letters to Bayer Cropscience insisting they accept liability for their trespassing GM products."
For a list of points included in the letters, see
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4602