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

151137Z Feb 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 000862 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, IIP/T/ES, EUR/SE 
USTR FOR LERRION/BPECK 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/DDEFALCO 
USDA FOR FAS/OA/BIG BSIMMONS, PSPENCER, JPPASSINO 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD TBIO KPAO TU
SUBJECT:  SENIOR BIOTECH ADVISOR'S MEETINGS WITH 
TURKISH OFFICIALS AND AGRIBUSINESS 
 
Ref: 2004 Ankara 6772 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.   (SBU) In meetings with GOT officials and private 
sector organizations, State's Senior Agricultural 
Biotech Advisor raised U.S. concerns about the 
potential of Turkey's draft biosafety law to hinder 
trade and development, and provided an overview of 
U.S. biotechnology policies, particularly with respect 
to the EU's regulatory approach.  GOT interlocutors 
stressed that the draft law was being developed with 
extensive stakeholder input, and that it would be 
submitted to Parliament by the end of March.  However, 
business representatives believe that in its current 
form the legislation could have disastrous 
consequences not only for trade, but for Turkish 
agribusiness.  Business representatives suggested that 
high-profile USG advocacy on this issue could be 
counterproductive.  USDA/FAS comments were passed to 
key officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Parliament.  Embassy recommends that Washington 
agencies again review the draft law specifically for 
consistency with Turkey's WTO commitments. End 
Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Madelyn Spirnak, State's Senior Advisor for 
Agricultural Biotechnology met with GOT officials, 
parliamentarians, local farm and trade associations, 
academic and industry representatives in Ankara and 
Istanbul January 31 - February 3 to discuss the 
current status of Turkey's biosafety regulations and 
to promote science-based, pro-development policies in 
this area.  Accompanied by FAS and ECON, Spirnak met 
with the Agriculture Undersecretary, three 
parliamentarians on the Agriculture Committee, the 
Head of Department of the Agricultural Research 
General Directorate (TAGEM), the Vice President of the 
Scientific and Technical Research Institute (TUBITAK); 
senior officials of the Treasury U/S responsible for 
investment policy; and officials at the Environment 
Ministry and the State Planning Organization.  She 
also met with former International Visitor Program 
participants, Fulbright alumni and other academics; 
representatives of the poultry, seed, feed 
associations; the farmers' union; U.S. agribusiness; 
the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's 
Association (TUSIAD); and gave an interview to Turkish 
daily Referans, published on February 5. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In these meetings, Spirnak raised USG 
concerns about aspects of Turkey's draft biosafety 
regulation which could hinder trade and development. 
She provided an update on the U.S. case in the WTO 
against the EU biotechnology moratorium, and explained 
U.S. concerns on European traceability and labeling 
regulations.  Emphasizing the important role 
agricultural biotechnology can play in encouraging 
environmentally-friendly economic growth, Spirnak 
provided an overview of global biotechnology trends, 
including increases in cultivation and new studies on 
the benefits of biotechnology to developing country 
farmers. 
 
TURKEY'S BIOTECH LAW NEARING COMPLETION 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) According to GOT officials, Turkish biosafety 
legislation will soon be sent to the Prime Minister's 
Office, and then to the Parliament.  GOT and trade 
sources expect the law to be sent in its current form 
to the Parliament by the end of March.  The 
Agriculture U/S and Vehbi Eser, a Head of Department 
within TAGEM and the Chair of the Interagency Biotech 
Committee, stressed that the GOT was going to great 
lengths to take into account the views of all 
stakeholders by posting the draft law on the Internet 
and holding a series of outreach meetings around 
Turkey to discuss it.  Eser pointed out provisions in 
the draft law which would fast-track biotech 
applications for products approved by foreign 
regulatory authorities, including those in the U.S. 
Note:  FAS has emailed copies of the latest draft of 
the legislation to Washington agencies.  End Note. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Other agencies also shared their views.  An 
expert in the State Planning Office stressed that, in 
drafting the law, the GOT was attempting not only to 
implement the Cartagena Protocol, but also to 
incorporate elements of relevant EU directives and to 
protect biodiversity in Turkey.  Tubitak's Vice 
President hinted that his agency was reluctant to take 
a high profile position on an issue as controversial 
as biotech, although it was supporting some limited 
research.  Treasury's Deputy U/S expressed interest in 
learning more about the developmental benefits of 
adopting biotech and the potential fiscal cost of the 
new law's extensive testing requirements.  They asked 
for copies of USDA/FAS comments on the draft law and 
said they would be more active in interagency 
discussions. 
 
Law's Impact on Trade and Turkish Agriculture 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) Business representatives were very concerned 
about several aspects of the current biosafety draft. 
They maintained that, despite GOT assurances to the 
contrary, the legislation will disrupt trade and all 
agricultural industries.  If strictly implemented, 
industry sources indicated that the feed and poultry 
industry will not be able to operate.  The legislation 
even threatens to disrupt the importation of 
conventional parent seeds due to the excessive 
liability provisions and expected extremely low 
tolerance levels for adventitious presence (industry 
reports a 0.3 percent AP level). 
 
¶7. (SBU) Industry is scrambling to lobby the GOT with 
their concerns and to prevent the creation of an 
autonomous biotechnology agency in the Turkish 
Government.  In the meantime, anti-biotech groups are 
complaining that the law is too lenient and will allow 
GMOs to flood the country.  Optimistic observers hope 
that Parliament may not act on the measure immediately 
or may make significant changes to the law.  Industry 
representatives, speaking through their food 
manufacturers association, thanked Spirnak and the 
Embassy for lobbying to date, but requested that the 
USG refrain from continued intensive activity on the 
issue lest those actions become counterproductive - 
both politically and in terms of public perception. 
 
Background on Legislation 
------------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) The drafting of the biosafety legislation has 
been in progress for over one year, and was initiated 
by Turkey's signing of the Cartagena Biosafety 
Protocol.  Unfortunately, Turkey's official expertise 
in the sector  appears to be limited to one key 
individual - the Head of Dept of the Biotechnology 
Group at TAGEM - who has controlled the direction and 
restrictive nature of the legislation and is expected 
to angle for the position of head of the new 
biotechnology agency  While claiming that the law is 
based on the U.S. risk assessment principles as well 
as EU Directives, there are several elements of the 
law that are intended to satisfy a small yet vocal 
group of anti-GMO NGOs.  For example, liability and 
penalty provisions in the law specify that importers 
and handlers of GMOS are liable for any environmental 
or health claims up to 30 years after the product is 
introduced.  Penalty provisions are likewise quite 
strict and would prevent most businessmen and farmers 
from signing all of the various applications and 
permits required. 
 
¶9. (U) Since the law creates an independent biosafety 
agency, industry is rightly concerned that the 
bureaucratic burden of applications, permits and 
testing will be time consuming and expensive and they 
worry about possibilities for corruption.  The fee 
structure laid out in the law is quite excessive.  In 
addition to the various application and testing fees, 
the law allows for a 0.03 percent fee levied on all 
imports of materials developed through biotechnology. 
 
Comment/Action Recommendation 
----------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Ms. Spirnak's visit, including her outreach to 
the press, business, and parliamentarians, was very 
useful in helping Post broaden the vigorous debate on 
the draft law and educate potential stakeholders about 
how their interests could be advantaged through 
biotechnology or disadvantaged through a restrictive, 
non-science based regulatory process.  The emotional 
public discussion of this subject remains, however, 
deeply distorted by misinformation and disinformation. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Embassy FAS, Economic and Public Affairs 
sections will continue to work with constituents to 
provide updated and accurate information relevant to 
biotechnology. We appreciate the Department's decision 
to fund a U.S. speaker through EB and IIP on the 
developmental and environmental benefits of adopting 
science-based biotech policies, and look forward to 
the Department's suggestions on possible candidates. 
We will also approach TUBITAK's "Bilim ve Teknik" 
popular monthly science magazine about the possibility 
of providing information for an article on some 
positive aspect of agricultural biotechnology. 
Embassy recommends that Washington agencies again 
review Turkey's draft biosafety law specifically for 
compliance with WTO commitments as soon as possible 
and provide talking points for use with GOT and 
parliamentary officials. 
 
¶12. (U) The Senior Agricultural Biotechnology Advisor 
has cleared this cable. 
Edelman