Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 64621 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 07PARIS515, U.S. BIOTECH COMPANIES CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY AND OUTLOOK

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07PARIS515.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
07PARIS515 2007-02-09 05:58 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Paris
VZCZCXRO2699
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #0515/01 0400558
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 090558Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4807
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHMRE/AMCONSUL MARSEILLE 1520
RUEHSR/AMCONSUL STRASBOURG 0319
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2597
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000515 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA AND EB(SPIRNAK); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY; 
USDA/OS/JOHANNS/TERPSTRA; 
USDA/FAS FOR OA/YOST; 
OCRA/CURTIS 
STA/SIMMONS/JONES/HENNEY 
FAA/YOUNG; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EU FR
SUBJECT: U.S. BIOTECH COMPANIES CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY AND OUTLOOK 
FOR PENDING DOSSIERS 
 
REF: 2006 PARIS 7327 
 
PARIS 00000515  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  On February 1, 2007, Embassy FAS, Econ, Science 
and Regional Security Officers met with representatives of three 
U.S. companies involved in agricultural biotechnology in France: 
Monsanto, Dupont/Pioneer, Dow Agro-Sciences. The companies raised 
concerns about security conditions, i.e., increasing acts of 
vandalism, particularly in light of an expected regulation which 
could require French farmers to make public the location of their 
biotech plots.  They expressed concern about the slowness of the EU 
biotech approval process, and possible politicization of French 
regulatory decisions in the months leading up to the presidential 
election.  End Summary. 
 
Security 
-------- 
 
2. (SBU) The three companies emphasized their concerns about the 
security of their information, property and staff, due to the annual 
destruction of two thirds of biotech test plots in France, 
demonstrations and attacks on their buildings and on a silo 
containing GM corn harvested in 2006 (Reftel).  Consequently, the 
companies loose money and data, while staff morale suffers. 
Monsanto and Pioneer said they systematically file complaints when 
their properties are destroyed. 
 
3.  (SBU) The companies asked for Embassy support via communication 
with the French police services to make sure they treat announced 
acts of violence seriously, and via help in finding scientists 
willing to testify at trials.  Post Regional Security Officer (RSO) 
offered to help them bolster their prevention efforts, individually 
and/or collectively. RSO discussed OSAC (Overseas Security Advisory 
Council), encouraged the companies to participate in the France 
chapter and indicated a desire to include biotech-specific concerns 
in the next country council meeting. 
 
Potential New Requirement for Transparency on Biotech Crops Location 
 
-------------------------------------- 
 
4. (SBU) Monsanto, Pioneer and Dow Agro Sciences expressed their 
concerns about a decree the GOF is expected to publish very shortly 
making available to the public the location of biotech crops.  The 
level of disclosure could be a municipality, but it is feared that 
names of individual farmers may be publicized. (Note:  While the EU 
Directive 2001/18 requires transparency, its level is up to each EU 
Member State. End Note.) While expectations were for a continuing 
increase in biotech plantings (from 500 hectares of GM corn in 2005, 
to 5,000 ha in 2006 and up to 50,000 ha in 2007), this new 
regulation is expected to slow down the adoption of biotech crops by 
French farmers if disclosure is at the farm level due to security 
fears. (Note : Emboffs have made representations on this issue, 
trying to discourage transparency at the farm level. End note) 
 
EC Approvals Process 
------------------- 
 
5. (SBU) The companies expressed frustration with the slow approvals 
process in Brussels, noting that despite EFSA approvals, DG 
Environment and SANCO kept presenting obstacles.  They inquired 
about USG followup in light of the WTO decision on EC biotech 
process. 
 
6. (SBU) With regard to France's influence on the process, the 
company reps felt that France's recent abstention on a BASF biotech 
potato event signaled a new reluctance by the GOF to vote in favor 
of new biotech varieties, particularly since France has had a fairly 
positive voting record and technical contacts had signaled that they 
didn't have any problems with the BASF dossier.  The U.S. companies 
are concerned about politicization of France's position in the 
months leading up to the French presidential election, particularly 
in view of the number and importance of products (currently 4 
Monsanto products and 1 Pioneer-Dow product) in the approval 
 
PARIS 00000515  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
pipeline.  The companies also fear that France's vote could 
influence other MS such as Portugal, and those which recently joined 
the EU. 
 
7. (SBU) The companies concluded that an interesting angle to argue 
for EU approval of their new products is that without these new 
approvals, increased quantities of agricultural commodities will 
enter Europe with the risk of containing GM products unauthorized in 
the EU, although authorized in the U.S. and other countries. 
 
8. (SBU) Comment:  With the presidential and parliamentary elections 
scheduled for the spring, the highly-charged political atmosphere in 
France does not bode well for either continuing adoption of approved 
varieties by farmers or French support for approval of new 
varieties.  End Comment. 
 
WHITE