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

Dear all

The campaign of protest over UC Berkeley's sacking of Ignacio Chapela, the chief critic of the University's $25m tie-up with GM giant Novartis (now Syngenta), is certainly having an impact. One subscriber told us, "Have faxed and telephoned Chancellor Birgeneau's office to leave message. Spoke to one clerk. Chancellor is swamped. Even at 2am it took me almost an hour (3 tries) to fax connect."

A rally in support of Chapela at Berkeley climaxed in a cascading chorus of protest outside Chancellor Birgeneau's office demanding, "Justice Now! Justice Now! Justice Now!"

Joe Nielands, emeritus professor of biochemistry, who first came to Berkeley in 1952, told the crowd at the rally, "the chancellor wants to get his hands on that corporate loot. . . Chapela is exactly the kind of person we need around here. He has wisdom, and above all he has courage and integrity."
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=12-10-04&storyID=20257

WEEKLY WATCH SAYS - PLEASE TAKE ACTION!

Dr Chapela's contract has only days to run:

*Please add your voice to the protests being made to UC Berkeley's Chancellor. Just click this link: http://www.gmwatch.org/proemail1.asp?id=7 It only takes a minute.

*Please circulate this message as widely as possible to friends, colleagues, relevant lists and any contacts in the media.

The attacks on Dr Chapela began with a virulent industry-led dirty tricks campaign on the Internet. It would be great if the Net could now be used to protest the treatment Dr Chapela has suffered at the hands of those self-same interests.

OTHER NEWS

Here's a science question: when is a significant finding not significant? Answer: when it's a Monsanto finding. This is the latest revelation from France, where brouhaha continues over Monsanto's MON 863 corn, approved in the EU in spite of the company's own findings that it damaged the health of rats.

Our FOOD SAFETY section also features Dr Arpad Pusztai's incisive comments on recent industry-generated lists of so-called safety studies on GM foods. Monsanto and co. are claiming there are lots of studies demonstrating GM food safety, but it turns out they've stuffed these lists full of commercial studies with very little scientific value when it comes to the likely biological consequences of long term exposure to GM foods.

Dr Pusztai is, of course, among a series of scientists who have been attacked for raising questions about GM crops - see SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK for a major workshop on this, and more.

And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, if you haven't already, express your support for Dr Ignacio Chapela. And if you have sent your protest already, why not ask your colleagues, family and friends to do the same? (CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK)

If we can't stand up and be counted over this, what can we do?

Claire [email protected]
www.gmwatch.org / www.lobbywatch.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALASIA
ASIA
THE AMERICAS
AFRICA
FOOD SAFETY
LOBBYWATCH
PHARMING
CHRISTIAN AID LATEST
SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK
'MEDICAL' BIOTECH
CAMPAIGN OF THE WEEK

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

+ COEXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE, COURT CASE SHOWS
Australian farmer Julie Newman of the Network for Concerned Farmers in Australia has drawn our attention to a report about a New Zealand vegetarian food manufacturer who has been fined for "positively promoting the absence of GM content" in a non-GM product that was found to be GM contaminated.

"Non-GM" or "GM free" must mean what they say, the court said. The judge during sentencing also noted that "many consumers only bought goods they understood contained no genetically modified products".

Julie points out, "This is a critical bit of news, as coexistence is based around definitions that claim that 0.9% is accepted in non-GM produce (for the EU) when the reality is that 0.9% is merely what triggers a GM label in the EU.

"In order to legally sell something as GM-free or as non-GM, the produce can not have any trace of GM contamination. Coexistence is proven to be impossible to maintain at a zero tolerance level, therefore coexistence plans are worthless".

And zero tolerance, Julie points out, is exactly what the market wants. For instance, the Grainpool of Western Australia, the Australian Barley Board, and the Australian Wheat Board have all indicated a zero tolerance requirement is essential for their markets. In other words, there will be problems if any material from GM contaminated canola (oilseed rape), which has been given federal approval in Australia, contaminates their grain shipments.

The Australian dairy industry similarly requires a guarantee that stock have not been fed any GM grain. While some dairies have tolerance levels for GM contamination, others do not. Producers of pork, lamb, and beef have also indicated there is no tolerance for their stock being fed GM contaminated grain and contracts will need to be signed to verify this.

In Australia markets for hay, clover, wine and honey have also requested a zero tolerance of GM in their produce or in any process used to produce their products. The AUSD 300 million organic industry also require a zero tolerance of GM in any of its produce.
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1761

Julie also points out that while farmers are increasingly being asked to sign guarantees of the non-GM status of their produce, they will not in fact know if their products have been contaminated if there are nearby GM trials or there's a commercial release of a GM crop. They do not have to be notified by their GM growing neighbour.

Yet if there is a market rejection of their non-GM product, it is the non-GM farmers who may find themselves liable because liability will rest with the person who signed the contractual agreement to declare their product had no GM present in it. On top of this, it is looking increasingly unlikely that farmers will be able to obtain insurance to cover this risk.

Julie says that as farmers are already having to sign such non-GM guarantees, it would make far more sense to have a strict liability regime that ensured the GM industry was liable for compensation for any losses. The GM industry, however, while claiming coexistence is easily achievable, refuses to put its money where its mouth is - it opposes bearing any liability for GM contamination and resultant economic loss.
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1870
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4724

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

+ JAPAN: GM CORN AND SOY GROWING AT SHIMIZU PORT
GM corn and soybeans have been growing wild at Shimizu port in Shizuoka Prefecture, citizen groups opposing GM foods report. They also said GM rapeseed (canola) has been found growing wild near Hakata port in Fukuoka Prefecture. The discovery of the GM rapeseed follows its detection at ports in six other prefectures - Ibaraki, Chiba, Kanagawa, Aichi, Mie and Hyogo.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4719

+ PHILIPPINES: GROUPS CLAIM BT CORN HAS BAD EFFECTS ON HEALTH
GM Bt corn, which is widely used by farmers, causes adverse health effects to consumers and planters, according to a science group. "Considering that Bt is a toxin injected to the corn seed to fight certain pests and