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