This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L  ZAGREB 001037 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR OES EB/MTA/ATT 
STATE PLEASE PASS USTR 
STATE PLEASE PASS USDA 
VIENNA FOR FAS/SHANSEN 
BUDAPEST FOR KPOSNERMULLEN 
USDA FOR FAS/OAA/SPENSER, RUDE AND JONES 
USEU BRUSSELS FOR AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/20/2014 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD SENV TBIO TSPL PGOV HR
SUBJECT: POLITICS AND PORK OVERTAKE SCIENCE IN CROATIA'S 
GMO POLICY 
 
REF: (A) ZAGREB 578 (B) 03 ZAGREB 2224 
 
Classified By: Econoff Joshua Harris for reasons 1.5(b,d). 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) After initial tests in February first raised the 
prospect of unlabeled GMOs in the Croatian food market 
(reftel A), the GoC has thoroughly politicized the GMO debate 
and shown an eagerness to cash in on populist anti-GMO 
sentiment to drum up support.   A move in GMO policy away 
from science could potentially limit markets for US soy and 
corn exports to Croatia.  The establishment of a previously 
mandated agency charged with coordinating food safety 
analysis in line with EU standards has been accelerated and 
politicized.  Even before the testing scandal broke, the 
HDZ-led coalition shifted lead responsibility for GMOs from 
the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Culture.  As 
responsibility for GMO policy within the GoC becomes 
increasingly diffuse and GoC officials responsible for food 
policy show an unnerving disinterest in scientific arguments, 
prospects for government involvement in countering anti-GMO 
propaganda are slim.  END SUMMARY. 
 
Fanning the flames 
------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Following February's report that a now-discredited 
biotech lab in Osijek had identified 14 domestically 
available food samples that contained GMO components (reftel 
A), the possible presence of GMOs in Croatian food has 
featured prominently in the media and public statements by 
high-level government officials.  On the heels of the first 
tests, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Water 
Management Petar Cobankovic tasked the Institute for Public 
Health (IPH) -- the only internationally certified lab 
capable of detecting GMO material in food products -- with 
following-up and identifying which specific products violate 
strict Croatian laws on licensing and labeling of GMOs.  The 
IPH reports that up to 700 products have been tested so far 
this year (compared with less than 40 last year). 
 
¶3. (U) Minister of Health and Deputy Prime Minister Andrije 
Hebrang drew wide criticism for ignoring calls to identify 
specific products with possible GMO components.  At an April 
30 press conference, Hebrang cited likely undeserved 
financial hardship to businesses and fears over job losses in 
refusing to divulge the product names.  Confirming that there 
was no health risk because all offending products had been 
"destroyed," Hebrang,s refusal to name names prompted 
Croatian Television to accuse him of putting the concern of a 
few hundred food workers above 4.5 million Croatian citizens, 
and several food producers to independently issue statements 
that GMOs are not used in their products. 
 
¶4. (U) After weeks of media speculation and anticipation, 
Cobankovic used a May 13 press conference on changes to farm 
subsidy regulations to announce the final results: of 37 
products tested, 36 contained no GMOs above the 0.9% 
threshold and one borderline case merited further retesting. 
In stark contrast to the frenzy leading up to the 
announcement, Cobankovic,s exculpatory statement received 
scant media attention. 
 
The new food safety agency smells like pork 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) The Ministry of Agriculture has recently politicized 
the establishment of a new food safety agency by relocating 
it outside the capital and apparently favoring patronage over 
expertise in choosing the agency's management.  The new 
agency will have lead responsibility for food analysis while 
the inspection competence will remain with the IPH.  Though 
mandated by law in 2003 and considered an essential step 
towards fulfilling EU consumer protection requirements by 
both pro-GMO scientists and anti-GMO NGOs alike, the manner 
of the agency's creation has sounded alarms that HDZ is using 
the agency more for pork than consumer protection. 
 
¶6. (C) While the setup of the agency has been in the works 
for months, in a surprise move in March the GoC decided to 
locate the agency in Osijek (270km east of Zagreb).  Bozic 
informed us that a managing board of scientists and food 
safety experts from Osijek would run the agency while State 
Secretary for Agriculture Dragan Kovacevic (from Osijek) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
would oversee it.  Though Bozic acknowledged the agency 
seemed to have recently taken a decidedly political turn, he 
assured us that we would be able to "swallow" the managing 
board's membership once it is made public. 
 
¶7. (C) At Bozic's suggestion, we met with Kovacevic on May 28 
to discuss the manner of the food safety agency's 
establishment.  Kovacevic took great pains to assure us the 
agency's managing board would consist exclusively of 
scientists and experts well-trained in food safety issues. 
EU consumer protection legislation rather than politicking 
would dictate the board's membership.  Nevertheless, whereas 
Kovacevic's predecessor was willing to privately acknowledge 
benefits to GMO technology even as he publically echoed the 
GoC's anti-GMO line, Kovacevic himself seems both 
professionally and personally inclined to oppose any GMO 
introduction into Croatia.  Kovacevic unambiguously informed 
us that no GMO crops would be planted in Croatian soil even 
as he stressed that Croatian agricultural policy was all but 
determined by the EU. 
 
¶8. (C) Kovacevic saw little role for the Ministry of 
Agriculture or the new food agency in public education on GMO 
safety.  When asked about any programs in the works to 
balance an aggressive NGO-led anti-GMO campaign, Kovacevic 
stated simply, "We're not trying to promote GMOs but rather 
'healthy foods.'" 
 
Making nature protection a cultural issue? "Stupid!" 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) A shift in "nature protection" responsibility -- 
including both national parks and GMO crop regulation -- from 
the Ministry of Environmental Protection to the Ministry of 
Culture earlier this year has left the authority to regulate 
GMO introduction in Croatia in the hands of a disinterested 
ministry and clouded responsibility for GoC response to GMO 
concerns.  The 2003 Law on the Protection of Nature (Reftel 
B) originally tasked the Ministry of Environment (in 
consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture) with 
regulating the importation, transshipment, production, usage, 
or sale of GMO seeds and crops for introduction into nature 
in line with the Cartagena Protocol.  The HDZ-led government 
shifted this nature protection authority to the Ministry of 
Culture -- but provided no additional funding or staff to 
fulfill this broadened mandate. 
 
¶10. (C) During a May 19 meeting on bilateral cultural 
cooperation, the Ambassador raised the GMO issue with 
Minister of Culture Bozo Biskupic.  At the mention of GMOs, 
Biskupic threw up his hands and exclaimed, "This is stupid!" 
According to Biskupic, the Ministry of Culture has no 
interest in the GMO issue and stressed that no one in his 
Ministry knew anything about the topic.  Biskupic is actively 
seeking to push the nature protection portfolio to either the 
Ministry of Health or Ministry of Agriculture.  (NOTE: Based 
on his visceral reaction to the question, Minister Biskupic 
does not seem prepared to coordinate permits for GMO release 
as required by the 2003 law.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶11. (C) Moving responsibility for nature protection from 
Environment to Culture has prompted wide criticism from 
scientists, NGOs, and even the EU.  Krunoslav Capak and 
Marijan Katalenic of the food safety division at the 
Institute for Public Health criticized GoC efforts to divide 
a limited number of experts trained in food safety issues 
among different ministries but expressed optimism that EU 
pressure could prompt change.  NGOs simultaneously view the 
move as a step away from coordinated environmental protection 
and food policy and an assertion of Croatia,s right to 
organize its government however it chooses.  Irena Brnada, 
Director of the Regional Environmental Center office in 
Croatia, singled out Minister of Environment Marina 
Matunkovic-Dropulic as the likely instigator of the 
reorganization, citing her desire to focus on the 
construction portfolio instead of GMOs.  Jagoda Munic, 
director of the influential Green Action NGO, defended 
Matunkovic-Dropulic as a strong proponent of the anti-GMO 
movement. 
 
¶12. (C) Academics, NGOs, and even the Ministry of Environment 
itself all expect the GMO portfolio to eventually revert to 
either the Ministry of Environment or Ministry of 
Agriculture.  While the IPH suggested the move was imminent 
and a direct response to EU pressure, high-level officials in 
the Ministry of Environment claimed they had no more than 
 
 
"rumors" about restructuring and that the Ministry of Culture 
could retain lead authority on GMO crop issues for many 
months. 
 
Comment: All food politics is local 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (C) Though follow-up tests have all but shown early fears 
of GMOs in Croatian food were overblown, the GoC has shown a 
willingness to use the GMO issue to pander to public worries. 
 Scientists active in food safety policy-making expressed 
dismay that by moving responsibility for GMO analysis and 
education away from the technical experts, the GoC has been 
ceding ground to a well-organized NGO-led, anti-GMO campaign. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Public opinion research on GMO attitudes and 
awareness has primarily been done by NGOs with a priori 
conceptions of the results.  GoC officials stress that they 
have no role in public education.  Srecko Jelenic, Director 
of the Croatian Association of Genetic Engineers, offered 
that the government has refused to fund public opinion 
research for fear of alienating an anti-GMO public. 
 
¶15. (C) Scientists, government officials, and NGOs all 
acknowledge that the GMO debate in Croatia is temporary. As 
Croatia moves closer to the EU and harmonizes food regulation 
with EU norms, hopes of making Croatia "GMO-free" (reftel A) 
should fade. Yet in the short-term, the GoC can channel GMO 
fears into political support by sidelining science and 
focusing on emotion.  As long as GMO authority rests with an 
uninterested ministry and multiple agencies with unclear 
mandates vie for control of GoC GMO policy, the government is 
poorly positioned to counter rampant anti-GMO propaganda from 
the media and NGOs. 
FRANK 
 
 
NNNN