CLONES AND CLONE PRODUCTS DENOUNCED BY FRENCH ADVISORY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 001894 SIPDIS BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR, USTR STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; OCRA/SALMON/ALEXANDER; ONA/RIEMENSCHNEIDER/YOUNG; OFSO/LEE/YOUNG; STA/JONES/HENNEY/WETZEL/CHESLEY; EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR SENV ECON ETRD EU FR SUBJECT: CLONES AND CLONE PRODUCTS DENOUNCED BY FRENCH ADVISORY BODY Ref: PARIS 001412 ¶1. Summary: The release on the market of products sourced from cloned animals and their offspring should be prohibited according to the October 14 conclusions of the French Advisory Committee on Food (Conseil national de l'Alimentation.) The CNA is an official advisory body. Its conclusions were based mainly on ethical considerations and targeted the importation of cloned animals, their progeny and any product (meat, milk, embryos and semen) sourced from these animals. End Summary. ¶2. The CNA working group on animal cloning included representatives of the livestock industry, researchers, farmers, the animal genetics industry, consumer groups, the agro-food industry, journalists, and lawyers. The working group conducted a number of hearings (Reftel) as well as an intensive literature review. ¶3. The CNA gave several reasons for its recommendation. According to CNA, the health risk evaluation is not adequate with a low percentage of full-term gestations and a high frequency of clones suffering from morphological and metabolic anomalies. CNA also concluded that the economic benefits for producers and consumers were not demonstrated and that release onto the market would result in heightened consumer concerns about food production processes. ¶4. On the other hand, CNA recognized that there was no significant difference in meat and milk composition, digestibility or toxicity, according to the current state of science. CNA recommended that in-depth research be continued as long as "it does not hurt human dignity, and as long as a valuable public debate is organized." ¶5. In its conclusions, the CNA mentioned that meat sourced from cloned animals is already present on the U.S. market citing a Wall Street Journal dated September 3, 2008, and added that in Japan, meat from clones had been on the market for a long time. (Comment: Post would appreciate guidance on how to respond to the allegation purportedly made in the WSJ. End comment.) ¶6. Contacts at both the French Ministry of Agriculture and the European Commission mentioned the risk of severe trade disruption should France and the EU implement any import prohibition from countries where cloned animals, their offspring and their products are not traced, explicitly mentioning the United States. ¶7. Comment: The timeframe for an official GOF decision on the CNA recommendation is unclear as is the timeframe for an EU decision, (with which France would be required to comply). Private conversations with high-level French officials indicate that the GOF is likely to accept the CNA recommendation. In 2007, France imported USD 2.7 million of bovine semen, USD 1 million of embryos, USD 12.6 million of milk and milk products, and a significant volume of processed food, which could contain milk. End Comment. BEGIN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF CNA OPINION (SUMMARY) OPINION ABOUT THE CONSUMPTION OF PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM CLONED ANIMALS AND THEIR OFFSPRING At a time when there is a great emphasis on supporting biodiversity which comes about notably through genetic variability expressed by sexual reproduction, the technical possibility of animal cloning - which indeed seeks to avoid producing variability - is a kind of successful accomplishment of the modern project of controlling animal reproduction. It should be noted however that contrary to a fairly widespread belief, a clone and its parent do not strictly have the same genetic identity. Moreover, epigenetic modifications may appear when an incomplete reprogramming of the genomes occurs, modifications which might explain the high embryonic and perinatal mortality now observed in all the countries developing this technique. Ultimately, and although this appears capable of improvement, the current success rate of the transfer of cloned embryos is only around 10%. Although experts remain divided as to the source and importance of the pathologies linked to this technique, they are PARIS 00001894 002 OF 003 nevertheless in agreement over the need to continue the analysis of genetic and epigenetic risks before any decision regarding its use by the animal reproduction industry. It is this same pathological weight which also invalidates this technique in regard to the consideration given to the health and well-being of the cloned animals. As far as the aspects relative to the quality and the safety for the health of products from cloned animals are concerned (especially milk and meat),it should be noted that the studies undertaken so far do not call for reservations about their innocuousness. This conclusion however, even in the opinion of scientists remains to be confirmed. Although the technical feasibility of cloning has led to a body knowledge about developmental biology, its economic interest is currently still very limited in the short to medium term, at least in so far as its application to breeding animals. Moreover, the hope of saving endangered species using this single technique seems illusory, even if it may become an additional tool for achieving this aim. No potential interest would appear to be had either in regard to the various possible ways in which international agricultural markets might develop. The recurring social controversy linked to the use of GM products provokes great caution from interested parties possibly concerned by the use of animal cloning. In fact, this technique is perceived, not only as a prototype, but also appears completely out of step when compared to the other existing methods of reproduction. The little time and means devoted until now to public discussion means that there is a risk that introducing products derived from cloned animals into the food chain might lead to a strong and long lasting deterioration in the image of the milk and meat sectors. As confirmed by the British Food Standards Agency report of June 2008, obtaining the confidence of consumers requires clear and categorical responses, notably in terms of the health safety of products derived from cloned animals and their offspring, of tangible benefits and animal well-being. Although not appearing as part of their responsibilities, public bodies for evaluating food and health risks are gradually integrating (more or less explicitly) issues of public concern of this kind. This development is obvious at the European level, and is possibly encouraged by the current absence of a true socio-economic expert appraisal mechanism which would be made available to the decision-makers. Conversely, both appraiser and risk manager, the American Food and Drug Administration is supposed to take into consideration socio-economic and ethical considerations prior to its decision-making. In fact, these mainly rely on health considerations. This approach risks however becoming redundant, especially in the light of the strong criticism to which it has been subject following the green light given in January 2008 to the consumption of products derived from cloned animals and their offspring. As far as regulations are concerned, the current European arrangement does not set out any particular provisions in regard to the issue of cloning. This gives rise to the issue of moving forward the regulations "from the field to the plate", especially by making specific provisions for cloning. As far as the aspects relating to the quality and safety for health of products derived from cloned animals are concerned, it should be remembered that the analyses undertaken until now do not reveal any significant differences in comparison to those of "conventional" animals. Because of this, requirements for traceability and labeling could therefore be described as being for reasons of society and would need an objectified consensus from among the various interested parties. With the prospect of there being a ban on the consumption of products derived from cloned animals inside the European Union, initiatives at the WTO would need to be taken to carry out negotiations with the aim of supplementing the current rules governing the SPS and TBT Agreements, especially to enable a Member to make a commercial restrictive provision, and especially a ban on imports of products derived from cloned animals or their descendents. PARIS 00001894 003 OF 003 Not being reduced to the single question of animal well-being, the ethical discussion on animal cloning however is justified by its possible applications and its unknown nature which means that the ethical debate is currently surrounded by unknowns. Two ways have been explored to try and resolve this ethical indecisiveness. On the one hand, "decisionism" which is substituted in place of usual ethical standards by an adhesion process combining the perceived degree of social acceptability with various forms of technical democracy. Ethical legitimacy is thus reduced to a problem of empirical validation, or even with a kind of pragmatism for which moral good merges with technical efficiency. On the other hand, there is the option of a reinterpretation which tries to provide an existential signification of animal cloning through its objective signification. This option firstly highlights our ethical responsibility in regard to nature and biodiversity in particular. Separating itself from naturalism, it re-establishes the moral use of reason, i.e. its ability to objectify ethical values. Human action is not reduced simply to technical power over nature. By using the latter, both as a technical and ethical reference points, the very idea of genetic progress of breeding animals can be reinvestigated from a standpoint of sustainable development. These diverse ethical considerations underlie the recommendations issued by the members of the Council: continue research provided this does not infringe human dignity and is for the acquisition of fundamental knowledge; as a backdrop to this research, work on making the scientific community especially, aware of the major ethic effects of their work, i.e. the possibility of a non-desirable application to the human species itself; re-evaluate the objectives of selection governing genetic progress of breeding animals from the standpoint of sustainable development; ban the marketing for food of products derived from cloned animals or their offspring, the practice of cloning animals for breeding and importing cloned animals or their offspring; undertake negotiations at the WTO with the aim of supplementing the current rules; implement traceability and labeling in spite of the foreseeable problems and time required for carrying this out. End Translation. Stapleton