BIOTECH OUTREACH TO HUNGARY: VISIT OF JACK BOBO,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BUDAPEST 000210

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT FOR JACK BOBO
EUR/CE FOR JAMIE LAMORE
GENEVA FOR USTR

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TBIO BTIO ECON ETRD SENV EAGR ENRG KGHG HU
SUBJECT: BIOTECH OUTREACH TO HUNGARY: VISIT OF JACK BOBO,
MARCH 12-13, 2009


1. (SBU) Summary: DOS Senior Biotech Advisor Jack Bobo
conducted biotech outreach to Hungary during his March 9-13
visit. Bobo attended the CODEX Alimentarius Meeting in
Balatonalmadi March 9-11. He then proceeded to Budapest for
briefings with FCS and American biotech firms Monsanto and
Pioneer, followed by outreach meetings with the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Parliament,s Agricultural Committee.
Although the Hungarians show no signs of changing their minds
anytime soon about the ban on biotech corn variety MON810 in
Hungary, Bobo did have the opportunity to respond to the
Hungarian arguments with U.S. views. The Ministry of
Agriculture in particular appeared interested in future
biotech crops for biofuels and drought resistance. A local
business daily with a history of balanced reporting on
agricultural biotechnology interviewed Bobo, and we expect
the story will come out later this week. Although Post
expects the Hungarian five-party consensus on the biotech
corn ban will likely hold for the near term, we welcome
continued measured outreach along the lines of the Bobo visit
which we hope over the long term will wear away Hungarian
resistance to biotechnology. End Summary.

USG AND U.S. PRIVATE SECTOR STRATEGY IN HUNGARY
-------------- --


2. (SBU) On March 12, Senior Commercial Officer Patricia
Gonzalez and the Hungarian representatives of American
biotech firms Monsanto (Mihaly Czepo) and Pioneer (Jozsef
Mate) briefed Bobo on the coordinated FCS-private sector
strategy on agricultural biotech in Hungary. FCS, Monsanto
and Pioneer explained that Hungary had banned biotech corn
variety MON810 in 2005. Although the original basis for the
ban was economic, Hungary subsequently has justified the ban
based on assertions that the crops pose a risk to human
health and biodiversity. The European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) has twice found that there is no scientific basis for
the ban. However, the Hungarians have been very good at
ignoring science that doesn,t support their view, and will
only accept research conducted by the Hungarian Academy of
Science,s Plant Production Institute. Monsanto and Pioneer
indicated that this institute is politically biased, and its
findings invariably reflect the Hungarian government,s
negative view of biotechnology. Monsanto and Pioneer also
lamented their inability to conduct field trials in Hungary.
Gonzalez described recent FAS efforts to persuade Hungarian
Parliamentarians to change their view on biotech through a
visit to the U.S. to see our biotech facilities and farms
using biotech crops. FAS Berlin also organized a
farmer-to-farmer outreach trip to Hungary March 4-8, to
conduct low-key, low-level outreach to potential GMO
customers (FAS Berlin will report on this). So far, these
outreach efforts have not persuaded Hungary to change its
policy. Monsanto, Pioneer and FCS concurred that the ban
remains in place for political reasons, and, although they do
not expect the ban to be lifted in the short term, they are
continuing a sustained, modulated outreach plan in hopes of
changing the policy over the long term. The two companies
hope to ally with the Hungarian farmers, association which
they hope will appreciate that, although MON810 corn targets
the European corn-borer, which is not a significant plant
pest in Hungary, future biotech varieties combating
corn-rootworm, which has caused significant damage in recent
years, could be extremely useful in Hungary.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE: SOFTENING STANCE?
--------------


3. (SBU) On March 12, Bobo met State Secretary Zoltan Gogos
and EU GMO Counselor Time Vertes of the Ministry of
Agriculture. Although Gogos held to the usual Hungarian
arguments in support of the biotech ban, he showed some
openness to considering future crops that might benefit
Hungary. Gogos said that a consensus of all five parties in
the Hungarian parliament supports Hungary,s ban on
production of biotech crops in Hungary. According to Gogos,
this is one of the few issues on which there is a five-party
consensus, and the Government has no intention of giving this
up. Gogos cited Hungary,s economic interests and the lack
of a significant corn-borer threat in the country as the
reasons for the ban. He indicated that the Ministry is aware
of biotech production trends, and that "GMOs are the future."
He showed particular interest in potential biotech
developments to improve drought resistance, heat tolerance,

BUDAPEST 00000210 002 OF 003


and biofuel potential. Vertes told Bobo that the Ministry
keeps up with the latest biotech research, and Hungarian
scientists are active in this field in order to be well
prepared "when the time comes."

PARLIAMENT FIRM IN THE FIVE-PARTY CONSENSUS
--------------


4. (SBU) On March 13, Bobo met with representatives of the
Parliament,s Agricultural Committee, representing three of
the five parties in the Parliament, including Istvan Jakab
(Fidesz),Jozsef Angyan (Fidesz),Imre Herbaly (Socialist),
and Andor Nagy (KDNDP, Christian Democrat). Angyan said
Hungary saw research as a separate issue from trade and
distribution, favoring government spending on the former but
not the latter. He indicated that Hungary wants to consider
each new biotech variety on a case-by-case basis. This would
include consideration of health and environmental impacts,
which Hungary feels have not yet been adequately examined.
MON810, for example, is designed for resistance to the
European corn-borer, which is not a significant problem in
Hungary, and which Hungarians can address with other
technology. Angyan asserted that the ban created an economic
advantage for Hungary, since it allowed Hungary to market all
of its grain as "GMO free" without a costly certificate
process, to meet European consumers, demand for non-biotech
products. Nagy, who had participated in a USG-sponsored
biotech outreach trip to the U.S. for parliamentarians in the
summer of 2008, indicated that, although the trip was very
interesting and useful, it did not weaken the five-party
consensus on the ban. Herbaly said that, as a former manger
of a large farm, he believed biotech crops would inevitably
come to Hungary, but that if the European public wanted
"GMO-free" food, then Europe would benefit from a "GMO-free"
region in the Carpathian basin, including Hungary and
neighboring areas. Several of the parliamentarians said that
Hungary would not debate the findings of research and
science, and they envisioned the Ministry of Agriculture,s
National Food Safety Office (MEBIH) conducting long-term
studies to reach these conclusions.


5. (SBU) Although the group remained firm that Hungary would
not budge on the five-party consensus against biotech anytime
soon, the meeting did give Bobo the opportunity to provide
them with the USG responses to the Hungarian arguments. Bobo
supported the view that biotech decisions be based on sound
science, and agreed the matter would eventually be resolved
in favor of biotech, although it might take many years. He
noted that while economic factors are part of the case for
biotechnology, food security, energy, and environmental
issues are also part of the equation. Biotech is one avenue
to address the need to find ways to produce more food on the
current amount of arable land for the expected global
population of 9 billion in 2050. Biotech crops can also help
to address environmental issues like water shortages and
droughts caused by climate changes. Bobo cautioned that, by
maintaining the ban, Hungary risks losing out on the benefits
from an entire generation of biotech crops. The ban on
growing biotech crops of any kind in Hungary prevents
researchers from conducting field trials and, therefore,
discourages multinational research in Hungary that might
otherwise lead to development of later- generation biotech
crops which would be valuable to Hungarian farmers. Although
the corn-borer, which MON810 was designed to combat, is not a
significant problem in Hungary, corn-rootworm is, and crops
that protect against this pest are already available in the
U.S. Bobo also commented on the secondary impact
disagreements between the U.S. and European countries have on
developing countries that might benefit from biotechnology:
seeing the U.S. and Europe unable to agree, they are unable
to make a decision on biotechnology, and risk missing out on
what could be important food sources for their people. On
food safety, Bobo remarked that new crops developed through
radiation or chemical mutagenesis are more different from
their forebears than biotech crops, and scientists may not
even know how the mutant crops differ genetically from the
original, yet the mutant crops can be sold to European
consumers without any food safety evaluation. He also noted
that even MON810 can be sold legally in Hungary for food and
feed uses - it is only the Hungarian farmers who cannot grow
it.

PRESS COVERAGE

BUDAPEST 00000210 003 OF 003


--------------


6. (U) Melinda Kiss, staff writer for important Hungarian
business daily Napi Gazdasag, interviewed Bobo on March 13.
Napi Gazdasag has published balanced articles on
biotechnology, especially the MON810 corn that the Hungarian
public is concerned about. The article should come out on
March 20.

COMMENT
--------------


7. (SBU) Although we don,t expect any dramatic changes in
the Hungarian position in the short term, we are hopeful that
a steady stream of carefully orchestrated outreach of this
type will eventually wear down Hungary,s resistance to
lifting the biotech ban. End comment.


8. (U) Jack Bobo cleared this cable.
Foley