BIOTECH CONFERENCE HITS THE MARK

UNCLAS MONTEVIDEO 000980

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR WHA/BSC AND EB/TPP/ABT/BTT (TLERSTEN)
DEPT ALSO FOR IIP/T/ES (JSHAFFER) AND OES
BUENOS AIRES FOR USDA AND ESTH (ASCHANDLBAUER)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO UY
SUBJECT: BIOTECH CONFERENCE HITS THE MARK

REF: A. STATE 233448


B. MONTEVIDEO 206


1. (U) Summary: Post thanks EB and IIP for their assistance
(ref A),which allowed Post to present a timely and
well-targeted biotechnology seminar in Uruguay. A broad
cross-section of key biotech decision makers attended the
seminar October 12, and the conference achieved positive
results. Speakers' presentations precisely met Uruguay's
needs for information and addressed key issues which hinder
additional legislation favorable to biotechnology in Uruguay.
In addition to targeting decision makers whom we believe
were positively influenced, the conference enjoyed
considerable media coverage. End Summary.

RIGHT MESSAGE FOR THE RIGHT AUDIENCE
--------------


2. (U) Uruguay has traditionally supported the use of
biotechnology, but this policy has been called into question
under the new left-leaning Frente Amplio government (ref B).
The new government created a committee to review all biotech
activities and submit its recommendations to the GOU. These
decision makers and the constituencies they represent were
the target of this conference. Twenty five key decision
makers attended. The most significant objections to the use
of biotechnology in Uruguay arise from its affinity for
arguments presented by European consumer organizations.
Uruguayans are very concerned about food safety, especially
for children, and express a strong attraction for "natural"
products. Uruguay proudly labels many of its products as
"Uruguay Natural," well-known slogan designed to suggest
quality. Uruguayans generally do not trust government
regulation of biotechnology, and may perceive Americans to be
too trusting of our regulatory agencies.


3. (U) The speakers, Dr. Wayne Parrott of the University of
Georgia and Susan Bond of the International Food Information
Council, gave decision makers key information and rebutted
these significant objections. Parrott scientifically
demonstrated that plant-cross breeding has produced
significantly greater diversity between plants than genetic
manipulation and argued that biotechnology is a natural
process. Bond addressed the advantages and perceived
disadvantages of biotechnology. She listed benefits such as
the reduction of pesticide use, reduction in micro-toxins
left in foods by pests, and biotechnology's potential to
alleviate world hunger. Finally, Parrott explained U.S.
agencies' thorough processes of transparent testing and
regulation of new biotech crops and pointed out the
difficulties and several inconsistencies in the European
regulatory process.

RESULTS
--------------


4. (SBU) No one expects Uruguay's Committee on Biotechnology
to produce it recommendations in the near future, so we will
not know the concrete effect of the seminar for some time.
However, there are some indication that the seminar was quite
effective. A meat-producers' representative expressed his
doubts before the conference that Uruguayan "natural" beef
could still be designated as such if the cows were fed
genetically modified plants, but after the conference, he
invited Dr. Parrott to speak to his association. The
conference directly but respectfully addressed key Uruguayan
concerns, and as the seminar progressed, the tone of the
questions became more friendly. Half of the decision-making
bodies on the Committee had representatives present at the
conference.


5. (U) Three television stations covered the event, one of
which covers the rural areas. One radio station ran an
extended interview with Dr. Parrott. The coverage was
neutral to positive. Two magazines that interviewed the
speakers are working toward publication of the articles.

COMMENT--BEST PRACTICES
--------------


6. (SBU) Post was pleasantly surprised by the level of
interest in the conference. In the past, we have been
extremely cautious to keep USG fingerprints off conferences
of this type, fearing that we would scare away participants
who do not already agree with the USG position. This
excessive caution interfered with our first attempt to stage
this conference. While we did not overtly display USG
sponsorship of the event, expediency required that the
Embassy directly invite all participants. Participants were
drawn by the quality of the speakers and the expectation of
learning something new. We made it easy to ignore USG
sponsorship; we held the event in a hotel not frequently used
for Embassy activities and had no obvious symbols of
sponsorship at the event. Finally, we believe the audience
was attracted to the message in part because speakers
presented both sides of the controversy. One participant
told Ms. Bond that he appreciated her presentation because
"so often U.S. speakers present only their side (of the
argument.)" Both Parrott and Bond compellingly presented the
case for using biotechnology, but participants were also
engaged by the speakers' demonstrated understanding of both
sides of the question. END COMMENT.

Gonzalez