BIOTECH: PRESIDENT REFERS BIOTECH SEGREGATION BILL TO

UNCLAS NICOSIA 000622 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: PRESIDENT REFERS BIOTECH SEGREGATION BILL TO SUPREME COURT REFS: (A) NICOSIA 593, (B) NICOSIA 490, (C) NICOSIA 478, (D) NICOSIA 400 (U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Please protect accordingly. ¶1. (SBU) Summary. On July 25, President Papadopoulos refused to sign the biotech segregation bill (ref A),and, on the advice of the Attorney General, referred it to the Supreme Court on procedural and constitutional grounds. It is unclear how the Supreme Court may rule, and a decision by the Court is not expected for several months. This is the first time the President has referred a bill to the Supreme Court because he believes it may be incompatible with the EU acquis communautaire. There is no pro-biotech lobby in Cyprus, and the President's decision to oppose the bill could lose him some votes in the looming presidential election. Green Party leader Perdikis immediately attacked the President for his decision, accusing him of caving into U.S. pressure and threatening to reexamine his party's support for Papadopoulos's re-election. Leftist AKEL also strongly criticized the President, arguing that his move put ordinary Cypriots' health at risk. The bill, which would be the first of its kind in the EU, would require stores to place any foodstuff with a minimum 0.9 percent biotech content on separate shelves clearly marked "Genetically-Modified Products" in Greek, Turkish and English. End summary. President Sends Bill to Supreme Court -------------- -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On July 25, President Papadopoulos refused to sign into law a bill requiring stores to place foodstuffs with a minimum of 0.9 percent biotech content on specially-marked shelves. On July 12, the parliament had passed this bill (for a second time) over the president's objections (ref. A). Following the advice of the Attorney General, the President referred the bill to the Supreme Court on procedural and constitutional grounds, arguing that the parliament should have sought the European Commission's guidance and that the bill was probably incompatible with the EU acquis communautaire. (Note: According to the Cypriot Constitution, the President can only veto bills concerning national security; he can, however, force a second reading or challenge a bill's constitutionality before the Supreme Court. A bill does not go into effect until it is signed by the President and published in the Official Gazette. End note.) ¶3. (SBU) A source in the Attorney General's Office told us that the key issue was whether placing biotech food stuffs on specially-marked shelves constitutes "additional labeling." The Attorney General's Office thinks that it does and thus believes the bill is incompatible with the acquis, as it goes well beyond the EU's biotech labeling rules. In lobbying for the bill's passage, the Green Party argued that segregating biotech products on separate shelves was needed because the current EU biotech labeling requirement was inadequate and confused buyers who found it difficult to distinguish biotech products from conventional varieties. ¶4. (SBU) A source in the Health Ministry agreed that the main purpose of the bill was to further "demonize" biotech products and that the proposed restrictions were clearly not based on any scientifically-proven need. He noted that Cyprus, like most countries, freely allows the unobstructed sale of many foodstuffs containing chemicals proven to be harmful to human health, and the parliament has not proposed any special rules to regulate their sale. To him, the bottom line was that Cyprus, as an EU member, cannot impose arbitrary restrictions against legitimate imports from other EU member states. ¶5. (SBU) While our contacts in both the AG's Office and Health Ministry expected the Supreme Court to find significant problems with the bill, a contact in the Agricultural Ministry was less certain. According to her, while Cyprus's ban on biofuels using biotech plants (ref. C) clearly violated the acquis, requiring separate shelves for biotech foodstuffs was an issue of consumer choice and thus more debatable. Political Parties Accuse President of Caving to U.S. Pressure -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Reaction to the President's decision was strong and immediate. Green Party Leader Perdikis released a statement questioning whether the government was acting as "an agency for U.S. interests" and charged state officials with "running at the first sign of antagonism from the Americans." He noted that the parliament had passed, and the President had signed, several bills in the past despite concerns that certain provisions might violate EU rules. He also questioned the Green Party's continued support for Papadopoulos's re-election campaign. Leftist AKEL, the largest parliamentary party, also criticized the president, arguing that he was putting the health of ordinary Cypriots at risk. Since Cyprus has no pro-biotech lobby, politicians tend to view support for anti-biotech measures as an easy, no-cost way to win votes. ¶7. (SBU) Our contacts do not expect any decision from the Supreme Court for at least three months. This is the first time the President has sent a bill to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it may be incompatible with the acquis. Consequently, there is no precedent to suggest how the Court might rule. Should the Supreme Court find nothing wrong with the bill, the President will be constitutionally required to sign it into law. Comment -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The President's decision to refer the bill to the Supreme Court could cost him some votes in his re-election campaign. The President needs every vote he can get to make it into the second round of the February presidential election and cannot afford to alienate potential voters. Biotech has few supporters in Cyprus, and many more who truly appear to believe it is dangerous. All political parties supported the segregation bill except for the President's party, DIKO, which abstained. While we regularly champion the safety and benefits of biotech products, our views are generally dismissed as biased and self-serving. The President's decision may simply have been the act of a lawyer following the advice of his legal service. It may also be an attempt to reinforce his image as a strong leader, or part of his recent efforts to improve relations with the U.S. Regardless of his motives, implementation of the bill is now effectively on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision. SCHLICHER