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 ANKARA 005425 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR, EB, SPIRNIAK 
FAS FOR BIOTECH GROUP, FAA/DEVER 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD EAGR KSTH
SUBJECT:  Biotech Speaker in Turkey 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified. Not for Internet 
Distribution. 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  Most Turks, including government 
officials, journalists and academics, continue to 
express concern with transgenic crops and food.  Despite 
the available scientific evidence, most people continue 
to believe that food products made from transgenic crops 
are unsafe and should withheld from the market in order 
to determine the health risks associated with this 
technology, despite the fact that most supposed risks 
have been dismissed in the past 10 years.  The 
possibility of EU membership and a lack of understanding 
of the situation in the European Union also add to the 
public perception of biotechnology.  In an attempt to 
balance the debate, particularly in the press as well as 
addressing public concerns, post arranged for Dr. Bruce 
Chassy, a food microbiologist from Illinois University 
in Champagne, to visit Turkey.  End Summary. 
 
------------- 
State of Play 
------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Turkey is a signatory of the Biosafety 
Protocol and is currently developing regulations to 
govern the introduction of transgenic crops.  At the 
same time, Turkey imports large amounts of bulk 
commodities, with the United States supplying over $600 
million of corn, soybeans, soybean meal, vegetable oil 
and cotton in 2004.  Most of these commodities are 
either transgenic crops or produced from transgenic 
crops. Biotechnology is a concept that is not well 
understood in Turkey.  Unfounded food scares related to 
the alleged use of hormones in tomatoes and carrots (yes 
hormones in tomatoes and carrots!) have heightened 
consumer concern in Turkey over food safety and exposed 
a complete lack of confidence in Turkish regulators. 
The government's failure to respond quickly and 
decisively to these issues has only vindicated alarmists 
intent on influencing public opinion regarding 
biotechnology. 
 
-------------- 
Just the Facts 
-------------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  In order to respond to public concerns and 
balance the mostly negative press, post arranged 
speaking engagements in four Turkish cities hoping to 
reach academics, government officials, students and 
business representatives.  Dr. Chassy focused primarily 
on the development of transgenic crops compared with 
traditional plant breeding while also emphasizing the 
regulatory framework, the economic and environmental 
benefits and misconceptions about the technology.  In 
addition, Dr. Chassy provided information on the 
development and use of the technology in developing 
countries such as China, India and Iran as well the 
health, economic and environmental benefits of 
transgenic crops. 
 
----------------- 
Audience Response 
----------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The audience response in each of the venues 
was similar.  The majority of those attending the events 
who had scientific backgrounds seemed to understand the 
science and supported the technology.  Others, 
particularly social scientists and economists, remained 
skeptical, insisting at times that Dr. Chassy was hiding 
information about the dangers associated with transgenic 
crops and, in particular, the food produced from these 
crops.  Among the most frequent misconceptions mentioned 
during the visit were: 
 
--The head of the Union of Turkish Agricultural 
Engineers claimed (apparently on television) that 
transgenic crops and food had lead to higher incidents 
of birth defects in the United States. 
 
--GMOs have lead to higher incidents of cancer and food 
allergies in the United States. 
 
--the United States was sending transgenic products to 
developing countries to test them on poor populations 
before using them in the United States. 
--that the United States prohibited any GMOs in baby 
food. 
 
--that the European prohibited all imports and planting 
of transgenic crops and food; 
 
--somehow global warming and GMOs should be included in 
the same debate. 
 
--denial that the amount of arable land is in decline 
and that world food production will have to increase to 
meet world population growth; 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
--------- 
Typical Reaction:  Don't understand it, but absolutely 
against it 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
--------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Typical of the reaction by officials were the 
opening remarks at Sabanci University by a visiting 
Canadian professor who while acknowledging her lack of 
information or understanding of the subject nevertheless 
stated that she was against the technology because 
Mother Nature has done a good job on her own.  We would 
note that despite her lack of understanding she decided 
not to attend 90% of the conference. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) During the visit, we met with a number of 
Turkish officials in responsible positions who had a 
role in approving this new technology.  Despite 
acknowledging little understanding of the issue they 
nevertheless expressed a willingness to comment 
negatively on proposed legislation and express their 
opposition to the technology for extremely spurious 
reasons. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Potential for Agriculture Production 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶7.  (SBU) However, several arguments did seem to 
resonate with some officials.  The development of 
transgenic cotton in both China and India that require 
less fertilizer and pesticides drew signs of approval 
from the audience.  Turkey has significant problems with 
cotton production and witnessing the advances in 
production in two these countries seemed to bear fruit. 
The second issue was the evidence that the European 
Union both imports and grows transgenic crops, albeit 
only a small amount for agricultural products.  Still, 
Turks seem to view Europe as their only viable market 
and believe strongly that, given European concerns, 
Turkey should not accept transgenic crops.  The Coca 
Cola, for example, demands gmo-free isoglucose for soft 
drink production despite the fact that the EU does not 
require the same. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Comment:  Science versus Ideology 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) It would appear that the issue of transgenic 
crops and food derived from these commodities has turned 
into a debate between science and ideology in Turkey. 
While the scientific evidence continues to mount on the 
benefits (health, economic, environmental) of this 
technology and its application in greater numbers of 
countries, Turks seem more inclined to rely on urban 
myths and ideology to frame the debate.  At the same 
time, while questioning advocates of the technology, 
there is little or no questioning of those opposed to 
the technology.  While the public might be forgiven for 
their lack of understanding, Turkish officials directly 
involved in discussing and legislating the future of the 
technology show little desire to understand it. 
 
MCELDOWNEY