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

131026Z Apr 06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 002439 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA AND EB (SPIRNAK); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY; 
USDA/OS/JOHANNS AND PENN; 
USDA/FAS FOR 
OA/TERPSTRA/ROBERTS/SIMMONS/RICHEY/JONES; 
ITP/SHEIKH/HENKE/MACKE/TOM POMEROY/MIKE 
WOOLSEY/GREG YOUNG; BOB RIEMENSCHNEIDER 
FAA/SEBRANEK/BLEGGI; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD FR EUN
SUBJECT: FRENCH SENATE VOTES BIOTECH BILL 
 
REF: PARIS 506 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  On March 21, 22 and 23, the 
French Senate debated and approved a Biotech Bill 
presented by the Minister of Research, Francois 
Goulard.  Significant outcomes from the debate 
included:  further definition of the new French 
Biotech Council charged with evaluating and 
authorizing biotech products and expansion of its 
communication function; support for proposed 
coexistence measures including no-fault liability 
and a compensation pool; and rejection of 
amendments proposing the creation of GMO free 
regions.  The final text voted by the Senate will 
be sent to the National Assembly in mid May.  If 
the National Assembly adopts the same version a 
final law could be ready before the Parliamentary 
summer recess.  Any changes made by the National 
Assembly would require additional readings which 
could delay the final law until fall.  End 
Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) As indicated in reftel, the Biotech Bill 
is France's transposition of EU Directives 1998/81 
and 2001/18 (regulating the authorization of GMOs 
for confined use and for their release into the 
environment) into French law.  It further 
streamlines the French regulation of GMOs and 
introduces new rules on GM and conventional crop 
coexistence. 
 
¶3.  (U) Opponents to the Bill, including most 
Socialist, Communist and Green Senators, resent 
the way that heavy penalties for failure to enact 
EU directives are driving France to enact biotech 
measures.  Nevertheless, the opposition was open 
to measures allowing research in confined 
environments but were against open field testing 
and commercial production.  By contrast, Senators 
from the majority political party (UMP, 
traditionally considered conservative) were open 
to research in open fields and commercial 
production.  Centrist Senators were more 
hesitating to take firm positions one way or the 
other. 
 
¶4.  (U) In total, legislators presented 221 
amendments to the bill. 
 
------------------- 
General Amendments: 
------------------- 
The general amendments mentioned the precautionary 
principle in the text, requested an increase in 
the budget for public research on plant 
biotechnology, and banned commercial production of 
biotech crops and open-field testing and 
restricted research to confined environments. 
 
¶5.  (U) These amendments were all defeated.  The 
Research Minister insisted that the Bill was under 
the umbrella of the precautionary principle, which 
provided the necessary guarantees to authorize 
open field testing and commercial production of 
biotech crops. 
 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Amendments Relative to Public Information: 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶6.  (U) Some amendments called for the 
Biotechnology Council to increase communication. 
The Senate voted to form a Biotech Committee (in 
French, "Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies"), which 
would include a scientific and a socio-economic 
section. Members of the scientific section would 
have to declare their connections with biotech 
companies or organizations.  The scientific 
section would be charged with evaluating biotech 
products prior to their authorization, while the 
socio-economic section would concentrate on the 
economic and social impacts of adopting a 
biotechnology. 
 
¶7. (U) An amendment to create local committees to 
monitor biotech test plots at the community level 
and provide more public information was defeated. 
Instead, the Senate directed that the Biotech 
Committee should provide information on a national 
and local level to mayors of the communities where 
open field test plots are located. 
 
¶8. (U) The Senate agreed to adopt measures to help 
avoid destructions of open field test plots. 
Note: Although belonging to a political group 
generally hostile to open field testing, the 
Senator who proposed this amendment is elected 
from the region where the leading French planting 
seed company (Limagrain) is located (Puy de Dome). 
 
-------------------------- 
Amendments on Coexistence: 
-------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) Coexistence liability measures passed by 
the Senate included a no-fault liability regime 
and a government-managed compensation pool funded 
by farmers' contributions (to be replaced by a 
private insurance regime after 5 years). 
 
¶10.  (U) Amendments requiring that the seed 
industry contribute to the coexistence liability 
compensation fund passed, however, no specific 
value for such contribution was indicated in the 
text adopted by the Senate. 
 
¶11.  (U) Senators rejected amendments banning GMOs 
from Appellation of Origin (AOC) regions.  Many 
consider GMOs a threat to high quality logos like 
AOC and the European Geographical Indicators.  The 
amendments were finally rejected because the 
Research Minister (1) said they would not comply 
with the European regulation; and (2) explained 
that the Institute in charge of Appellations of 
Origin (INAO) has the authority to recommend or 
require the absence of biotech products in the 
zones where AOC products are produced. 
 
---------- 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) On March 23, the Senate, by a vote of 
166 to 127, adopted a final text (the "Petite 
Loi").  Originally, the GOF had announced that the 
Parliament would use an emergency process to adopt 
the Biotech Bill so that both Chambers of the 
Parliament (Senate and National Assembly) would 
examine the Bill once, instead of twice, under the 
regular process. 
 
¶13. (SBU) However, the French Government (GOF) 
backed down under pressure from anti-biotech 
activists and accepted two readings of the Bill by 
both Chambers.  This means that the text adopted 
by the Senate will be presented to the National 
Assembly in the second half of May for a second 
reading.  If necessary, the Senate will do a third 
reading in June and the National Assembly will 
have a final reading in September or October. 
¶14. (SBU) Senator Jean Bizet, UMP (party of the 
majority, generally considered conservative and 
overall pro-biotech), the Senate rapporterur for 
the Biotech Bill, recently indicated to Ag 
Officials that his party will continue to try to 
accelerate the process.  Their hope is that the 
National Assembly will adopt a version of the Bill 
similar to the Senate's and then no additional 
readings will be needed by the Chambers.   Under 
this scenario, a Law could be adopted before the 
Parliamentary summer recess. 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Senator Bizet, though, admits that the 
vote in the National Assembly will be more 
difficult and controversial than the Senate.  Of 
interest, the rapporteur selected for the Biotech 
Bill in the National Assembly, Patrick Ollier, 
UMP, is not a biotech specialist, but is the 
President of the Economic Affairs Committee in the 
National Assembly.  His nomination indicates that 
the GOF is making the biotech issue a political 
issue supported by the current political majority. 
 
Stapleton