EMBASSYENGAGES GREENPEACE ON GMOS

UNCLAS VIENNA 000520

C O R R E C T E D COPY (CAPTION REMOVED)

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON SENV KSCA PGOV AU
SUBJECT: EMBASSYENGAGES GREENPEACE ON GMOS


Summary
--------------

1. Emboffs and AgCounselor met on April 10 with reenpeace
representatives to respond to a letter,which the organization had
addressed to the Chare regarding the U.S.-EU WTO biotech dispute.
Twomain points emerged from the meeting: Greenpeace amitted they
must focus more on the environmentalaspects of the use of biotech
seeds, rather than n alleged health concerns; and that there is
real concern of retaliation against Austrian companies because of
the WTO case. End Summary.


2. In a March 13 letter to the Charge, the Central European office
of Greenpeace raised concerns that the U.S. would impose duties on
Austrian goods as a consequence of the EU's non-compliance with the
WTO panel's decision in the U.S.-EU agricultural biotech case.
Greenpeace subsequently organized a small, but well publicized,
demonstration in front of the Embassy on March 20 to protest against
USG GMO policies. In response to the letter and to clarify USG
positions, Emboffs and AgCounselor met on April 10 with Greenpeace
representatives.


3. Steffen Nichtenberger, biotech expert for the regional
Greenpeace office, claimed that, while the EU's agricultural biotech
approval process is strict, it is not carried out "properly."
According to Nichtenberger, 97% of the information that the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) uses is funded by companies with an
interest in bringing biotech products to market. The studies of
"independent scientists" are ignored, as are concerns about the
long-term affects of GMOs. Greenpeace argued for the adoption of
the "precautionary principle" in the approval process, even if the
observation period takes years. When Emboffs noted that Americans
had consumed biotech products for many years now without any food
safety or health problems, Nichtenberger admitted that it would be
increasingly difficult for Greenpeace to oppose GMOs solely based on
health concerns. Greenpeace, according to Nichtenberger, would
rather focus more on alleged environmental problems associated with
the cultivation of GMOs, e.g., persistence of pests, pollen flow.


4. With regard to the U.S.-EU WTO dispute, Greenpeace reiterated
its concern that Austrian companies could be specifically targeted
by USG retaliatory measures. In Greenpeace's view, the USG should
simply accept Austrian opposition to GMO foods. Nichtenberger added
that Greenpeace did not oppose the authority of WTO a priori.
Rather, the ability of WTO to impose legally binding sanctions
should be a model for other international agreements, such as the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety or the Kyoto Protocol. This, in
Greenpeace's view, would ensure that environmental issues receive
the same attention as trade rules.


5. Emboffs responded that, while the USG would reserve its rights
to seek WTO authorization to retaliate, our goal was to settle the
dispute without retaliation. As to specific targeting of Austrian
goods for retaliation, Emboffs said that they were unaware of any
specific discussions within the USG.


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


6. While Greenpeace's public stance towards U.S. policies,
particularly on biotechnology, is very often quite aggressive, the
non-public dialogue was, in our opinion, more productive. We
continue to disagree on the substance of the issue, but we believe
that our Greenpeace interlocutors understand now that we have based
our policy on science, not on influence from corporate interests.

KILNER#