VZCZCXRO6266
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #0098/01 0181540
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181540Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1731
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2812
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000098 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; 
OCRA/CURTIS; 
STA/SIMMONS/JONES/HENNEY/SISSON; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR SENV ECON ETRD EU FR
 
SUBJECT: GROWING CRITICISM IN FRANCE ON GM SAFEGUARD 
 
REF: (A) 2008 PARIS 00078 (B) PARIS 4731 
 
Sensitive but unclassified, please protect accordingly. 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary : France's decision to initiate the safeguard clause 
against Mon 810 (Reftel A), has been widely criticized by a growing 
number of scientists, parliamentarians and farm organizations as 
lacking scientific basis. A number of press articles have echoed 
their criticisms that the GOF's decision was politically motivated 
rather than scientifically justified. End summary 
 
¶2.  As reported (Ref A), immediately after the president of the 
interim high authority on GMOs (a senator) announced that there were 
"serious doubts" about MON 810 and that new facts demonstrating 
"negative effects" had been discovered, 12 of the 15 scientists on 
the authority refuted this statement.  These scientists represent a 
wide range of disciplines including genetics, molecular biology, 
toxicology, population genetics, genetic therapy, epidemiology, 
agronomy, entomology, microbiology, veterinary sciences, biomedical 
research, and statistics.  Additionally, an economist and a lawyer 
on the authority's social and ethical committee signed the petition. 
 The petition also lamented the lack of time the authority was given 
to perform its inquiry on MON 810. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In a meeting with EMBoffs, two of the scientists who signed 
the petition complained that while they were not at liberty to 
divulge the details of the proceedings, they were not given adequate 
time to prepare their recommendations or review the final wording of 
the report.  (The authority's first meeting took place in 
mid-December and the report was released on January 9.)  They also 
complained that in communicating to the public, the president of the 
authority selected certain phrases in the report to present an 
unbalanced picture of its contents.  It also became clear that the 
report took some scientific findings out of context.  For example, 
the report cites the work of Dr. Messean (2006) in arguing that it 
is impossible to avoid pollen drift on a local scale (i.e. in a 
region with many small farms). Upon questioning by Emboffs, Dr. 
Messean said that what his report had concluded was that it was 
impossible to ensure a zero threshold for pollen drift (as required 
for organic production in France), but possible to ensure that the 
EC threshold of 0.9 percent could be met. The toxicologist Emboffs 
queried emphasized that new positive evidence had come to light 
regarding mycotoxins.  (This finding did not receive wide 
publicity.) 
 
¶4. (U) The French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS) was 
one of the first organizations to criticize the GOF decision. AFIS 
is an organization of dozens of world-renowned French scientists 
that aims to promote legitimate  scientific discourse (as opposed to 
pseudo-science). After examining the authority's opinion and having 
had contact with several scientists who participated in the meetings 
of the Committee, AFIS publicly announced that it had concluded that 
that none of the arguments brought forward in the report could be 
considered new or severe, thereby justifying the activation of a 
safeguard clause. (AFIS was also behind the petition signed by 300 
scientists supporting biotech and discouraging the GOF from invoking 
the precautionary principle on MON 810 reftel B.) 
 
¶5. (U) Eminent members of the French Academies of Science, 
Technology and Agriculture published an open letter, in the daily Le 
Figaro, on 11 January 2008. Excerpt : "[...] We are astonished to 
see how little the work of scientists in the domain of GMOs is taken 
into account. Let's remember that before any authorization for 
cultivation of a GMO, each product is subject to a thorough 
evaluation on a case by case basis, on a national level as well as 
on a European one. [...] How to explain to the French people, that 
it's now proposed, without adding any new, well- founded and 
reasonable scientific elements, to ban this product today - which 
was initially authorized by all the review bodies appointed by the 
government - and how to convince the people to have confidence, 
tomorrow and in the future, in the arguments brought forward by such 
future authorities?". 
 
¶6. (U) After the public outcry of the President of the National 
Assembly, Bernard Accoyer in the weekly "Le Journal du Dimanche" 
(reftel A), other parliamentarians from both the majority and 
opposition parties openly criticized the GOF decision. Socialist 
depute Jean-Yves le Deaut said that "The potential decision to 
invoke the safeguard clause is not a credit to politics. The 
provisional authority has been exploited to allow the majority party 
to succeed in the municipal elections. In fact, the President of the 
 
PARIS 00000098  002 OF 002 
 
 
Republic was relying on an opinion that was not validated by the 
provisional authority [...] Neither the terms "serious risks" nor 
"negative effects" have been used in the opinion sent to the members 
(of parliament). [...] In fact, the allegedly new scientific 
publications have only confirmed what was already known [...]." 
Senator Jean Bizet, who is the rapporteur for the biotech 
coexistence law in the Senate, also expressed opposition to the use 
of the safeguard clause, saying it was not scientifically founded 
and that it would put France in "a ridiculous position at the EU 
level" . 
 
¶7. (U) According to the press, State Secretary for Ecology Nathalie 
Kosciusko-Morizet had to face a very hostile group of majority party 
parliamentarians. Deputies were worried that such safeguard decision 
could weaken France's competitiveness in agricultural and food 
trade. They were also furious that the executive branch had bypassed 
the legislative branch. 
 
¶8. The French Corn Growers Association (AGPM) denounced the 
arguments of the French interim High authority's report as being 
scientifically unjustified. They specifically provided arguments on 
the following issues 
- Pollen dissemination : corn pollen is one of the heaviest grain 
pollens : 98 percent of corn pollens falls within 4 meters of the 
plant. The remaining 2 percent flows further because dehydratation 
makes the pollen lighter. All but a few of these pollens are non 
viable. All European studies in Spain, Czech Republic, Italy and 
Germany have shown that good cultural practices and buffer zones 
allow neighboring crops to come in below the EU contamination 
threshold of 0.9 percent. 
- resistance in target insects : AGPM highlighted that insects 
gaining resistance to BT mentioned in the studies are not pests 
affecting corn and are not found in mainland France. 
- possible impacts on non-target fauna and flora: even if some 
studies show that the BT molecule can be found in soil and water, 
all studies show that its impact is less harmful than that of 
traditional pesticides. Studies also show that no impact was found 
on pollinating bees fed with BT corn pollen. 
 
¶9.  AGPM also noted that all the studies mentioned in the report had 
been reviewed by experts at both the French Food Safety Authority 
(AFSSA) and by its European counterpart (EFSSA). None of those 
agencies used those reports to revert their positive approval of 
MON810. On the other hand, AGPM noted that the Interim High 
Authority did not expand upon the benefits of cultivation of MON810 
regarding the lower level of mycotoxins, such as fumonisin, which 
are scientifically proven to cause cancer in mammals. 
 
 
STAPLETON