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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 001256 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR OES/ETC/H.LEE, EB/TPP/ABT/R.SINGH 
STATE FOR OES/STC, AF/S AND AF/EPS 
USDA FOR FAS/BIG/JPPASSINO 
USDA FOR FAS/OA/BIOTECH, FAS/ITP AND APHIS/BRS 
FOR USAID/EGAT/EGAD/AFS 
STATE PASS USTR FOR PCOLEMAN 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV TBIO SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: BIOSAFETY UPDATE 
 
REFS: 04 PRETORIA 5345 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, PROTECT ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Recent biosafety developments and policy 
decisions in South Africa raise the possibility that local 
conditions for the approval and use of agricultural 
biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may 
worsen.  A recent judicial ruling supported greater 
transparency and disclosure of information in GMO decision- 
making, but criticized the petitioner, an anti-GMO lobby 
group, for its overly vague demands for information.  End 
summary. 
 
//Regulatory requirements increasing; some questioned// 
 
¶2. (SBU) Collaborators in a USAID-sponsored project to 
commercialize a genetically modified, pest-resistant ("Bt" - 
- named for the bacterium, "Bacillus thuringiensis" that 
provides the gene that is toxic to certain insects) potato 
variety in South Africa told mission officers on March 18 
that the South African GMO Executive Council's requests for 
supporting data and information had expanded significantly 
in 2004, to include environmental studies on non-target 
organisms, nutrient cycling, microbial diversity, and soil 
micro-organisms.  In response, project researchers from 
South Africa's parastatal Agricultural Research Council and 
Michigan State University have begun field studies in many 
of these areas, but they plan to argue that there is no 
scientific basis for the expensive and time-consuming soil 
microbial studies.  The researchers also plan to gather data 
to show the ecological impact of the Bt potato compared to a 
conventional potato grown with normal applications of 
pesticide.  Prevailing GMO regulations also ask applicants 
to provide an assessment of the socio-economic-cultural 
impact of any proposed GMO use, with no further specifics. 
The Bt potato project researchers intend to carry out 
studies on the compatibility of the crop with the cultural 
heritage and beliefs of farmers, and studies on the impact 
of BT technology on the ethics of farmers.  While it is 
acceptable that key socioeconomic issues related to the 
introduction of any new crop (Bt or otherwise) should be 
reviewed and taken into account, the researchers have 
planned a very extensive analysis, in anticipation of 
increasing demands by the regulators.  A Syngenta 
representative attending the Bt potato project meetings told 
EST Officer that the additional data requests being made of 
all recent applicants for GMO approvals in South Africa were 
a direct result of lobbying by a small group of anti-GMO 
activists, whose main interest was to delay and subvert the 
approval process, rather than promote biodiversity. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Comment: The Bt potato project has the potential 
to introduce the first public sector-supported, locally 
researched and developed genetically modified food crop in 
Africa.  The South African GMO regulator's growing demands 
for additional data and research on environmental impacts 
(and possibly socio-economic impacts, in the future) could 
ultimately raise costs to a point that commercialization of 
the potato will not be feasible.  It is significant that the 
project managers have decided to argue with the GMO 
regulators on certain additional information requests, 
partly because they do not want to "set the bar too high," 
particularly for future public sector-funded projects.  End 
comment. 
 
//Regulatory decision against third country field-test// 
 
¶4.  (U) The GMO Executive Council reportedly turned down a 
request from Dow Agrosciences to test genetically-modified 
maize for purposes of gathering information for use in 
European Union GMO registrations.  According to a February 
press release by the anti-GMO lobby group African Centre for 
Biosafety (ACB), the Department of Environmental Affairs and 
Tourism raised concerns about the potential impact on non- 
target organisms.  The ACB had submitted objections to the 
application, noting Dow's failure "to address the impacts of 
GM maize on non-target organisms, the emergence of 
superweeds and the persistence of Bt toxins in the 
environment."  The ACB also "expressed outrage" at Dow's 
attempts to use South African land for field trials, 
treating South Africa as its "guinea pig." 
 
//Environmental advisors are non-scientific "experts"// 
 
¶5. (SBU) In late February 2005, the Minister of 
Environmental Affairs and Tourism announced the 
establishment of a National Environmental Advisory Forum 
(NEAF) to provide the Minister with strategic advice on 
environmental management issues from a wide range of 
stakeholders.  The NEAF consists of representatives from 
business, non-governmental organizations, community-based 
organizations, labor, and youth.  The Minister also 
appointed four NEAF representatives with "specialized 
skills," including Mariam Mayet of the African Center for 
Biosafety, one of several active anti-GMO lobbying groups in 
South Africa.  Ms. Mayet is not a scientist and used to 
serve as legal advisor to Biowatch (see para 6 below).  The 
Environmental Justice Networking Forum is one of four NGO 
representatives on the NEAF.  EJNF organized a noisy protest 
outside a November 2004 seminar on Food Aid and 
Biotechnology, organized by the NGO AfricaBio for USAID, and 
supported by State/EB.  There are no academic/scientific 
representatives with expertise in agricultural biotechnology 
on the NEAF.  Comment: We anticipate that NEAF 
recommendations to the Environmental Minister on any GMO 
case would be negative or would demand additional field data 
and research on environmental impacts, not always with a 
scientific basis. End comment. 
 
//Court decision favors transparency// 
 
¶6. (SBU) The Pretoria High Court, responding to a petition 
from anti-GMO group Biowatch, on February 24 affirmed the 
group's constitutional right to access some information 
about GMO approvals.  The Court ordered the South African 
government to divulge certain details of all permits and 
authorizations granted for GMO imports, exports, field 
trials and general releases.  Importantly, the Court also 
ruled that proprietary research data contained in the permit 
applications and precise locations of field trials need not 
be publicly released.  U.S.-based Monsanto and two other 
U.S.-based seed companies were also cited as respondents in 
Biowatch's petition, despite Monsanto having volunteered to 
make the information from its GMO applications available to 
Biowatch.  While Biowatch called this ruling a "victory", it 
is noteworthy that the judge censured Biowatch for the 
"inept manner" in which it sought access to information from 
regulators.  Monsanto lawyers termed Biowatch's tactics as a 
"fishing expedition."  The judge noted how Biowatch's 
approach compelled Monsanto and the other two respondent 
firms to come to court to protect their interests, and in 
response to a request made by Monsanto, he ordered Biowatch 
to pay all court costs incurred by Monsanto South Africa. 
Biowatch announced on March 18 that it was planning to 
appeal the ruling on payment of Monsanto's legal costs. 
Comment: The GMO Registrar, Executive Council and Minister 
of Agriculture likely contested Biowatch's petition for 
access because of the added workload the multiple demands 
for information placed on an already overburdened staff. 
The court's decision certainly adds to the workload of the 
GMO regulators, and may slow the entire approval process. 
 
FRAZER