FRENCH TV FILM ATTACKS US BIOTECH REGIME

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000614 SIPDIS SIPDIS BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; OCRA/CURTIS; STA/SIMMONS/JONES/HENNEY/SISSON; 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: FRENCH TV FILM ATTACKS US BIOTECH REGIME ¶1. Summary: On March 11, French public TV channel ARTE broadcasted a film entitled "The World According to Monsanto," by freelance journalist Marie-Monique Robin. A book by the same name was released soon thereafter. Given the wide publicity generated by this film (for sale on line on ARTE's website at http://www.arte.tv/monsanto, which, to date, has received over 100,000 "hits"),it has generated much attention particularly by biotech stakeholders. The film and book not only demonize Monsanto, but also characterize U.S. Government actions as lacking ethical and scientific integrity. Allegations include questioning of the concept of substantial equivalence; the assertion that political rather than scientific decisions have been made to authorize biotech products in the United States; and, that a "revolving door" between Monsanto and the U.S. Government has influenced the U.S. biotech regulatory system. The book and film are to be translated into English and other languages. Country team requests that Washington agencies provide talking points for use with a range of interlocutors on an "if asked" basis. End Summary. Questioning the Concept of Substantial equivalence: ¶2. The film presents substantial equivalence as the basis of "one of the largest conspiracies in the history of the food industry." It says that FDA decided that transgenes belonged to the GRAS category (Generally Recognized As Safe) i.e., are not food additives, exempting them from toxicological tests before market release. Jeremy Rifkin, Director, Foundation for Economic Trends, who is interviewed, asserts that this was a way for biotech companies to rapidly commercialize their products with the least governmental interference. Michael Hansen, Consumer Union, comments that the substantial equivalence principle had no scientific background and was created to avoid treating GMOs as food additives, allowing biotech companies to proceed without toxicological tests regulated by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, and without labeling. Alleging that U.S. Biotech Authorizations are Political, not Scientific: ¶3. According to the film, U.S. biotech regulation was initiated in 1992 when the FDA published in the Federal Register a statement of policy regarding foods derived from new plant varieties, stipulating that the same regulations apply to food products derived from GM and conventional plants. Based on an interview of James Maryanski, formerly of the FDA, the author concludes that this was based on political expedience rather than scientific justification, in the context of a tendency towards deregulation by the USG. Accusing the USG to be Under Pressure from the Industry: ¶4. The film argues that Monsanto exerted undue influence on the USG. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is interviewed saying he had felt that he was under pressure and that more tests should have been conducted on biotech products before they were approved. Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked directly for it: John Ashcroft, Secretary of Justice, received contributions from Monsanto when he was reelected, as did Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health; Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was director of Calgene which belonged to Monsanto; and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary; and Justice Clarence Thomas was a former lawyer for Monsanto. Several other examples are provided, by the same source, including Michael Kantor, President Clinton's Secretary for Commerce and later on the board of Directors of Monsanto. ¶5. Comment: The allegations made in this film directly attack the integrity of the U.S. Government, particularly with regard to biotech regulation, and a number of key players, including biotech allies who have seen the film, have questioned Emboffs about how much of this is true. ¶6. Action requested: While Country Team is not inclined to directly rebut the film thereby giving it credence, we believe there is a role for public diplomacy, mainly focusing on the rigor of the U.S. regulatory system and the positive role ag biotech can play in meeting world food needs, particularly in the developing world. At the same time, it would be useful for Emboffs to have talking points PARIS 00000614 002 OF 002 available to enable effective responses to questions raised by our contacts particularly on the U.S. regulatory system and the concept of substantial equivalence. Country team requests that Washington agencies provide clear succinct talking points on these topics for use with a range of interlocutors, strictly on an "if asked" basis. End Comment. STAPLETON