Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09BRUSSELS1394
2009-10-16 15:26:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USEU Brussels
Cable title:
EPC GMO DEBATE : RISK OR OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPE ?
how-toVZCZCXRO4265 PP RUEHIK DE RUEHBS #1394/01 2891526 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 161526Z OCT 09 ZDK FM USEU BRUSSELS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001394
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/ERA FOR KESSLER, EWILLIAMS
STATE PASS TO NSC KVIEN
STATE PASS TO USTR JMURPHY, CWILSON, MCLARKSON, DWEINER
AGRICULTURE PASS TO RMACKE/FAS/USDA, MCHEESLEY/FAS/USDA,
CMCKINNELL/FAS/USDA LJONES/FAS/USDA, SNENON/FAS/USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV EFIN ETRD ELAB EAGR PGOV OPIC BE
SUBJECT: EPC GMO DEBATE : RISK OR OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPE ?
REF: STATE 86566
BRUSSELS 00001394 001.4 OF 003
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001394
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/ERA FOR KESSLER, EWILLIAMS
STATE PASS TO NSC KVIEN
STATE PASS TO USTR JMURPHY, CWILSON, MCLARKSON, DWEINER
AGRICULTURE PASS TO RMACKE/FAS/USDA, MCHEESLEY/FAS/USDA,
CMCKINNELL/FAS/USDA LJONES/FAS/USDA, SNENON/FAS/USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV EFIN ETRD ELAB EAGR PGOV OPIC BE
SUBJECT: EPC GMO DEBATE : RISK OR OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPE ?
REF: STATE 86566
BRUSSELS 00001394 001.4 OF 003
1. SUMMARY: On October 15 in Brussels, the European Policy Center
(EPC) hosted a lively debate on the role of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in European agriculture. Following largely pro-GMO
remarks by European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural
Development Mariann Fischer Boel, speakers from both camps opined on
coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, science-based policy making
in the context of politics, U.S. GMO influence and regulations, and
Commission President Barroso's policy statement to the European
Parliament. END SUMMARY
--------------
BACKGROUND
--------------
2. The theme of the October 15 policy dialogue was "Risk or
Opportunity? Has Europe Got the Balance Right on GMOs?" Serving on
the panel were Julien Mousnier, Member of the Fischer Boel Cabinet,
Per Bergman, Head of the GMO Unit at the European Food Safety Agency
(EFSA),Willy De Greef, Secretary General of EuropaBio (a
pro-biotechnology think tank),Helen Holder, Senior Campaigner for
Friends of the Earth and a prominent critic of GMOs in Europe, and
Roberto Pagni, Head of the Sustainable Agriculture Unit in the
Region of Tuscany. EPC Chief Executive Hans Martens served as
moderator.
-------------- --------------
FISCHER BOEL: GMO PROCESS A "SLOW MOTION TENNIS MATCH"
-------------- --------------
3. In her keynote address, Commissioner Fischer Boel focused
largely on the issue of low level presence (LLP) of unapproved GMOs
in U.S. soy exports to Europe, which has prevented sale and delivery
of U.S. soy to European farmers (REFTEL). She said asynchronous
approvals of GMOs in the U.S. ahead of Europe represented "a clear
and present financial threat" to EU farmers and expressed her
interest in the introduction of a "technical zero" solution to allow
the exports to move forward.
4. Fischer Boel also commented on the increasing politicization of
the GMO issue in the face of "sound, science-based risk
assessments." She stressed that assessing risk "is the task of
science, and science is the right foundation" for approval of GMOs.
She said "the rules were black and white"-if a GMO is determined by
EFSA to safe for human health, animal health, and the environment,
"it will be authorized." She likened the political process on
allowing GMOs into Europe as a "slow motion tennis match" in which
"the European farmer will be the loser."
5. On the issue of cultivation, she reached out to member states
and, reiterating views on GMOs expressed by Commission President
Barroso in his recent policy statement to Parliament, suggested an
approach that accelerated the authorization and imports of GMOs into
Europe while at the same time allowing member states to decide
"whether or not to cultivate on their own territory." She closed by
advising Europeans to "be courageous and sensible" on the GMO issue
and "let the voice of science speak, and act accordingly."
--------------
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: PROMISE OF GMOS UNMET
--------------
6. Holder set forth a number of arguments against GMOs. She said
pesticide and herbicide use in GMO producing countries such as the
U.S., Brazil, and Argentina had actually risen despite the claims of
GMO producers that their use would result in a reduction in biocide
application and that other promises of GMOs in terms of scope and
utility had been mostly unmet. Holder countered pro-GMO supporters
who said Europe would be isolated by not allowing increased GMO
imports and said "it is the U.S. that is isolated as they are
producing a product that no one wants". She added that even
developing countries such as China, India, and South Africa had
stricter controls over GMOs, particularly in the area of market
export criteria, than in the U.S.
-------------- --------------
EFSA: NEITHER PRO NOR ANTI GMOS; JUST PRO SCIENCE
-------------- --------------
7. EFSA's role as the primary and neutral assessor of risks in the
EU was underscored by Bergman, who said his agency looked at safety
and risks first, but was not mandated to appraise benefits and
opportunities. He said it was clear that, even once approved by
EFSA, GMOs had to be handled very carefully and that "careful
BRUSSELS 00001394 002.10 OF 003
stewardship" by EFSA, the Commission, and member states was
important. Bergman said EFSA scientists were aware of the
divergence of attitudes towards GMOs within the EU, but said that
policy is for the politicians; the science that advises that policy
is sound.
--------------
EUROPABIO: GMOS ARE A EUROPEAN INVENTION
--------------
8. De Greef stressed Europe's role as a pioneer in the GMO and
biotech movement but said "we are quickly losing our advantage
here". He said that more than 50% of the GMOs that will be
introduced in future will come from developing countries such as
China, India, and South Africa, not from major American biotech
companies. Regarding safety, De Greef cited a Joint Research Centre
(JRC) study presented to EFSA in September that examined GMO use in
Spain and pointed out there had been no safety issues in the 10
years GMO crops have been grown there. He also predicted "enormous
demand" for drought resistant GM crops now coming through the
pipeline and seen by many as a way for countries, particularly in
Africa, to adapt to climate change.
--------------
TUSCANY: GMO FREE, SORT OF
--------------
9. Pagni briefed on Tuscany's regional approach to GMOs, which
prohibited cultivation based on the precautionary principle and a
determination that "growing GMOs is not consistent with our model,
which favors small farms over mass production and quality derived
from organic farming over anything that may be artificial". But he
acknowledged the import of GMOs in feed was permitted "as a
pragmatic measure." Pagni said he saw a need for more research on
GMOs conducted by public institutions without funding by big
business and suggested Italian farmers would trust those results.
He closed and said the EU's Committee of Regions will host a
conference on GMO-free foodstuffs February 3-4 in Brussels.
--------------
DISCUSSION: MUST KEEP AN OPEN MIND
--------------
10. For the Qs and As, the panel returned to the issue of LLPs on a
question of moving controls and testing for LLPs to the source
country. Holder disagreed and said Europe had to be responsible for
testing. Bergman noted that source testing "is already done to some
extent" but there needed to be a stronger agreement on common
protocols and sampling methods before it could be employed more
widely.
11. Holder and De Greef had a testy exchange on drought-resistant
GMOs. Holder returned to her view that as only two traits and four
crops represent the sum total of GMO activity at present, GMOs had
yet to live up to their promise. De Greef reiterated a GMO solution
to climate change and said that a number of drought-tolerant crops
were in the approval pipeline. Holder responded that even
Monsanto's application, now before EFSA, for its own
drought-tolerant maize says Monsanto "is not even sure it's actually
going to work" and suggested the application was "strategic ahead of
Copenhagen," a fact that "has not escaped notice of a number of
member states."
12. Mousnier emphasized the need to "keep an open mind on GMOs" as
there were "interesting products down the road." He suggested a
ess, which usually works quite
well, was "creating problems with GMOs.
--------------
COMMENT
--------------
1Q. While most presenters stuck to their long-established, and
unsurprising, positions on GOs, what was quite striking, and
potentially problematic, was the Commission's public embrace f the
Barroso II approach to GMOs at least twQce in the session. Should
it go down this roQd, the Commission will likely find pressure Qo
extend its proposed deference to member states on cultivation to
ceding competence on impots, providing official backing for the
currenurope has not got the balance right on GMOs.
BRUSSELS 00001394 003.10 OF 003
MURRAY
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/ERA FOR KESSLER, EWILLIAMS
STATE PASS TO NSC KVIEN
STATE PASS TO USTR JMURPHY, CWILSON, MCLARKSON, DWEINER
AGRICULTURE PASS TO RMACKE/FAS/USDA, MCHEESLEY/FAS/USDA,
CMCKINNELL/FAS/USDA LJONES/FAS/USDA, SNENON/FAS/USDA
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV EFIN ETRD ELAB EAGR PGOV OPIC BE
SUBJECT: EPC GMO DEBATE : RISK OR OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPE ?
REF: STATE 86566
BRUSSELS 00001394 001.4 OF 003
1. SUMMARY: On October 15 in Brussels, the European Policy Center
(EPC) hosted a lively debate on the role of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) in European agriculture. Following largely pro-GMO
remarks by European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural
Development Mariann Fischer Boel, speakers from both camps opined on
coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, science-based policy making
in the context of politics, U.S. GMO influence and regulations, and
Commission President Barroso's policy statement to the European
Parliament. END SUMMARY
--------------
BACKGROUND
--------------
2. The theme of the October 15 policy dialogue was "Risk or
Opportunity? Has Europe Got the Balance Right on GMOs?" Serving on
the panel were Julien Mousnier, Member of the Fischer Boel Cabinet,
Per Bergman, Head of the GMO Unit at the European Food Safety Agency
(EFSA),Willy De Greef, Secretary General of EuropaBio (a
pro-biotechnology think tank),Helen Holder, Senior Campaigner for
Friends of the Earth and a prominent critic of GMOs in Europe, and
Roberto Pagni, Head of the Sustainable Agriculture Unit in the
Region of Tuscany. EPC Chief Executive Hans Martens served as
moderator.
-------------- --------------
FISCHER BOEL: GMO PROCESS A "SLOW MOTION TENNIS MATCH"
-------------- --------------
3. In her keynote address, Commissioner Fischer Boel focused
largely on the issue of low level presence (LLP) of unapproved GMOs
in U.S. soy exports to Europe, which has prevented sale and delivery
of U.S. soy to European farmers (REFTEL). She said asynchronous
approvals of GMOs in the U.S. ahead of Europe represented "a clear
and present financial threat" to EU farmers and expressed her
interest in the introduction of a "technical zero" solution to allow
the exports to move forward.
4. Fischer Boel also commented on the increasing politicization of
the GMO issue in the face of "sound, science-based risk
assessments." She stressed that assessing risk "is the task of
science, and science is the right foundation" for approval of GMOs.
She said "the rules were black and white"-if a GMO is determined by
EFSA to safe for human health, animal health, and the environment,
"it will be authorized." She likened the political process on
allowing GMOs into Europe as a "slow motion tennis match" in which
"the European farmer will be the loser."
5. On the issue of cultivation, she reached out to member states
and, reiterating views on GMOs expressed by Commission President
Barroso in his recent policy statement to Parliament, suggested an
approach that accelerated the authorization and imports of GMOs into
Europe while at the same time allowing member states to decide
"whether or not to cultivate on their own territory." She closed by
advising Europeans to "be courageous and sensible" on the GMO issue
and "let the voice of science speak, and act accordingly."
--------------
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: PROMISE OF GMOS UNMET
--------------
6. Holder set forth a number of arguments against GMOs. She said
pesticide and herbicide use in GMO producing countries such as the
U.S., Brazil, and Argentina had actually risen despite the claims of
GMO producers that their use would result in a reduction in biocide
application and that other promises of GMOs in terms of scope and
utility had been mostly unmet. Holder countered pro-GMO supporters
who said Europe would be isolated by not allowing increased GMO
imports and said "it is the U.S. that is isolated as they are
producing a product that no one wants". She added that even
developing countries such as China, India, and South Africa had
stricter controls over GMOs, particularly in the area of market
export criteria, than in the U.S.
-------------- --------------
EFSA: NEITHER PRO NOR ANTI GMOS; JUST PRO SCIENCE
-------------- --------------
7. EFSA's role as the primary and neutral assessor of risks in the
EU was underscored by Bergman, who said his agency looked at safety
and risks first, but was not mandated to appraise benefits and
opportunities. He said it was clear that, even once approved by
EFSA, GMOs had to be handled very carefully and that "careful
BRUSSELS 00001394 002.10 OF 003
stewardship" by EFSA, the Commission, and member states was
important. Bergman said EFSA scientists were aware of the
divergence of attitudes towards GMOs within the EU, but said that
policy is for the politicians; the science that advises that policy
is sound.
--------------
EUROPABIO: GMOS ARE A EUROPEAN INVENTION
--------------
8. De Greef stressed Europe's role as a pioneer in the GMO and
biotech movement but said "we are quickly losing our advantage
here". He said that more than 50% of the GMOs that will be
introduced in future will come from developing countries such as
China, India, and South Africa, not from major American biotech
companies. Regarding safety, De Greef cited a Joint Research Centre
(JRC) study presented to EFSA in September that examined GMO use in
Spain and pointed out there had been no safety issues in the 10
years GMO crops have been grown there. He also predicted "enormous
demand" for drought resistant GM crops now coming through the
pipeline and seen by many as a way for countries, particularly in
Africa, to adapt to climate change.
--------------
TUSCANY: GMO FREE, SORT OF
--------------
9. Pagni briefed on Tuscany's regional approach to GMOs, which
prohibited cultivation based on the precautionary principle and a
determination that "growing GMOs is not consistent with our model,
which favors small farms over mass production and quality derived
from organic farming over anything that may be artificial". But he
acknowledged the import of GMOs in feed was permitted "as a
pragmatic measure." Pagni said he saw a need for more research on
GMOs conducted by public institutions without funding by big
business and suggested Italian farmers would trust those results.
He closed and said the EU's Committee of Regions will host a
conference on GMO-free foodstuffs February 3-4 in Brussels.
--------------
DISCUSSION: MUST KEEP AN OPEN MIND
--------------
10. For the Qs and As, the panel returned to the issue of LLPs on a
question of moving controls and testing for LLPs to the source
country. Holder disagreed and said Europe had to be responsible for
testing. Bergman noted that source testing "is already done to some
extent" but there needed to be a stronger agreement on common
protocols and sampling methods before it could be employed more
widely.
11. Holder and De Greef had a testy exchange on drought-resistant
GMOs. Holder returned to her view that as only two traits and four
crops represent the sum total of GMO activity at present, GMOs had
yet to live up to their promise. De Greef reiterated a GMO solution
to climate change and said that a number of drought-tolerant crops
were in the approval pipeline. Holder responded that even
Monsanto's application, now before EFSA, for its own
drought-tolerant maize says Monsanto "is not even sure it's actually
going to work" and suggested the application was "strategic ahead of
Copenhagen," a fact that "has not escaped notice of a number of
member states."
12. Mousnier emphasized the need to "keep an open mind on GMOs" as
there were "interesting products down the road." He suggested a
ess, which usually works quite
well, was "creating problems with GMOs.
--------------
COMMENT
--------------
1Q. While most presenters stuck to their long-established, and
unsurprising, positions on GOs, what was quite striking, and
potentially problematic, was the Commission's public embrace f the
Barroso II approach to GMOs at least twQce in the session. Should
it go down this roQd, the Commission will likely find pressure Qo
extend its proposed deference to member states on cultivation to
ceding competence on impots, providing official backing for the
currenurope has not got the balance right on GMOs.
BRUSSELS 00001394 003.10 OF 003
MURRAY