BIOTECH: OVER PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS PARLIAMENT PASSES LAW

UNCLAS NICOSIA 000593

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

DEPT PLS PASS USTR

USDA FOR FAS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR TBIO ECON ETRD SENV EUN CY
SUBJECT: BIOTECH: OVER PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS PARLIAMENT PASSES LAW
REQUIRING STORES TO SEGREGATE BIOTECH PRODUCTS

REFS: (A) NICOSIA 490 (B) NICOSIA 478 (C) NICOSIA 400

(U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Please protect
accordingly.


1. (SBU) Summary. On July 12, the Cypriot parliament ignored
President Papadopoulos's opposition and passed 42-0 a law requiring
all stores to place products with biotech content on separate
shelves. The President had earlier refused to sign the bill and
returned it to the parliament for a second reading, arguing that it
was probably incompatible with the EU acquis. The President now has
fifteen days to sign the bill into law or send it to the Supreme
Court for a ruling on its constitutionality. Like Cyprus's ban of
biotech biofuels (ref B),the law's immediate effects are likely to
be more symbolic than actual, should it go into force. Cyprus does
not keep figures on the import or production of biotech products,
but it does not appear to be a great deal, and most biotech products
seem to be used for animal feed rather than human consumption.
There is no pro-biotech lobby in Cyprus, and Cypriot politicians see
support of anti-biotech measures as a cost-free way of winning
votes. Barring a strong response from the European Commission, the
bill is likely to encourage further anti-biotech measures in Cyprus
and possibly inspire other larger, more significant EU markets to
take similar actions. End summary.

Legislation for Separate Shelving of Biotech products
-------------- --------------

2. (SBU) On July 12, the House of Representatives passed a new law
requiring the in-store separation of foodstuffs containing
"genetically modified organisms" (GMOs) from conventional
foodstuffs. The legislation, the first of its kind in a European
Union member state, mandates that any food product with greater than
0.9 percent GMO content must be placed on separate shelves clearly
labeled in Greek, Turkish and English. The legislation covers the
sale of food with biotech content at all stores, from kiosks to
supermarkets. The law allows a maximum fine of CYP 3,000 (USD
6,900) and up to six months imprisonment for repeat offenders. (For
excerpts from the bill, please see paragraph 9.) Despite opposition
from the president, the bill passed 42-0, with all parties voting in
favor except for the President's Party, DIKO, which reportedly chose
to abstain. In putting forward the bill, the Green Party argued
that current EU labeling requirements were inadequate and confusing
to customers and that only segregation would ensure consumers were
truly being given a choice.


3. (SBU) The Green Party had introduced an earlier version of the
bill to parliament in 2005. Although the parliamentary Environment
Committee had unanimously supported the bill, it was withdrawn
before a full plenary vote, after we raised concerns that it might
be incompatible with Cyprus's obligations as a member of the WTO and
EU. The parliament subsequently sent the text to the European
Commission, asking for its advice and a derogation if necessary.
Although the Commission rejected this request on procedural grounds
and avoided any comment on the law's compatibility with the acquis,
the Cypriot press reported this as EU opposition.


4. (SBU) The Green Party resurrected the draft bill, with several
significant changes (including using the EU definition of GMO
products) after current Agricultural Minister Photiou publicly
backed the bill on June 4. Photiou, who has significant political
ambitions, also publicly pledged (ref A) to:

-- find ways to further restrict biotech in Cyprus compatible with
the acquis;

-- introduce stricter implementation of existing EU and national
biotech legislation;

-- work with other like-minded EU countries to make EU biotech
policy even more restrictive; and

-- prepare a report on coexistence in Cyprus designed to
"scientifically" justify a total ban on cultivation of biotech

plants.


5. (SBU) Photiou's comments came just two weeks after the Minister
had told the Ambassador that Cyprus would respect EU biotech policy
and appeared to promise to tone down his anti-biotech rhetoric.


6. (SBU) Subsequently, on June 14, the parliament unanimously
passed the draft, only to have the President send it back to
parliament for a second reading on procedural and substantive
grounds. (Note: Under the Cypriot Constitution, the President can
only veto laws directly affecting national security. He can,
however, force the parliament to reconsider a bill by requiring a
second reading. End note.) Specifically, the President raised
concerns that the bill might be incompatible with the EU acquis and
suggested that the parliamentary Health Committee rather than the
Environment Committee should have had jurisdiction over the bill.
Consequently, the President recommended that the Health Committee
send the bill through the Ministry of Health to the European
Commission for its advice. If the Commission failed to respond
within three months, the President promised to sign the bill.


7. (SBU) In May, the President had also sent a biotech-related bill
back to the parliament for a second reading when the parliament
removed text that would have overturned a 2005 ban on biotech
biofuels despite communications from the Commission threatening
possible infringement processing. In this case as well, parliament
stuck to its guns and passed the bill over the President's (and
EC's) objections (Ref. B). While the fear of an EU infringement
proceeding still appears to carry some weight with the GoC, it no
longer seems to have any influence on the parliament, at least not
when it comes to measures further restricting the use of biotech.



8. (SBU) The President now has fifteen days within which to sign the
biotech segregation bill into law or to send it to the Supreme Court
for a ruling on its constitutionality. There is no known precedent
for a bill being sent to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is
unconstitutional because it may be incompatible with the acquis.
Thus, it is unclear how the Supreme Court might respond, if asked.
It is also not yet clear how the President may react. Our working
level contacts at the Ministries of Health and Agriculture seem
convinced that the bill and the acquis are incompatible. Given the
lack of any public support for biotech in Cyprus, however, as well
as the fact that the President is facing reelection in February for
which he is seeking Green Party support, the President appears
likely to sign the bill into law.


9. (SBU) Please see below key excerpts from the biotech segregation
bill passed July 12:

Law Amending the Food (Control and Selling) Legislation

[Excerpt]

The basic Food (Control and Selling) Legislation of 1996-2006 is
hereby amended with the addition of the following article (Article
22):

(1) Handling of GMO Products. In each retail shop, GMO products
available for sale must be placed in a specially-designated area, on
separate shelves from non-GMO products.

(2) (a) Shelves bearing GMO foodstuffs must have a clearly-visible
sign stating clearly in Greek, Turkish and English "Genetically
Modified Products."

(. . .)

(3) Any shop owner failing to comply with the provisions of this
article is guilty of a penal offense, subject to a fine not
exceeding CYP 3,000 or, in the case of repeat offenders, to a fine
not exceeding CYP 3,000, imprisonment not exceeding six months or
both penalties together.


(4) The definition of "genetically modified foodstuff" for the
purposes of this article means a product so described under the
European Parliament and Council's decision on GM food- and
feed-stuffs of September 22, 2003.

"Retail shop" means any shop selling various kinds of products.

"Shop owner" means any physical or legal person who has the
responsibility for the shop or who owns the shop, and includes the
owner or main shareholder, director, general manager or any other
person or persons having the control of the shop and the authority
to take decisions affecting the operation of the shop.

[End Excerpt]

Comment
--------------

10. (SBU) We have been unable to find any domestic support for
biotech on Cyprus - or at least anyone willing to publicly stand up
to the small but vocal anti-biotech campaigners who dominate all
debate on the subject. Our efforts to create a more balanced
discussion and to prevent passage of new anti-biotech measures that
could damage U.S. commercial interests are generally dismissed as
self-interested, outside pressure. While we have made some in-roads
at the government working level and stalled passage of the
segregation bill for two years, Cypriot politicians continue to see
introducing further restrictions on anti-biotech measures as a cost
free way to win votes, partially because it allows them to be seen
standing up to U.S. pressure. Our best potential allies would
appear to be the European Commission and pro-biotech European NGOs
and organizations that have more leverage and may be seen as more
objective. Nevertheless, unless the EC acts swiftly to impose real
penalties on Cyprus for failing to adhere to EU biotech policy, we
are likely to continue to see the Cypriot parliament pass more and
more laws restricting biotech's use. The Green Party has already
announced it plans to table a bill this fall declaring Cyprus a
"GMO-free zone." Cyprus may be a small market with limited imports
of U.S. agricultural products. Nevertheless, it has the potential
to inspire other more significant EU markets to impose similar
biotech restrictions, especially if its anti-biotech measures are
left largely unchallenged. End Comment.

SCHLICHER