VZCZCXRO2918
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0004/01 0020803
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 020803Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3069
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1976
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 5188
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 7806
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 9469

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 000004 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/ABT - JMENARD, TLERSTEN, AND MKOCH 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB/MICHAEL HENNEY AND ANTHONY GILBERT 
USDA APHIS FOR THOMAS C. NESBITT 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD SENV SF
SUBJECT:  BIOTECH OUTREACH ACTIVITY REPORT 
 
REF: A) STATE 202514 B) PRET 000357 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary: From September 15-28, 2007, FAS/Pretoria hosted 
Thomas C. Nesbitt, Outreach and Communications 
Specialist/Biotechnology Regulatory Service(BRS)/ Animal Plant 
Health Inspection Service(APHIS)/USDA to undertake biotechnology 
outreach activities funded by the Department of State's Bureau for 
Economic, Energy, and Business (EEB).  Dr. Nesbitt participated in 
several meetings related to agricultural biotechnology regulatory 
policy with government officials, researchers, and industry 
representatives in Pretoria, South Africa.  He gave presentations 
and discussed U.S. regulatory policy with staff at the Council for 
Scientific and Industrial Research, the Department of Environment 
and Tourism, the GMO Act Executive Council, the Department of Trade 
and Industry, and the Department of Agriculture. He also gave a 
lecture hosted by the Public Understanding of Biotechnology Project 
(PUB) and presentations at two events organized by AfricaBio. End 
Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) Funding for this activity was provided by EEB's biotech 
outreach funds to improve the understanding of the U.S. regulatory 
system and risk assessment methodologies.  Representatives from the 
Department of Environment and Tourism had requested to discuss risk 
assessment methodologies with APHIS regulators - a significant 
invitation from South African officials who have been reticent to 
engage with U.S. officials, and whose role in the South African 
regulatory system has been recently elevated. 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Commercial production of genetically engineered (GE) crop 
varieties has been authorized in South Africa since 1997.  In 2006, 
acreages of GE varieties accounted for approximately 44% of corn, 
79% of soybean, and 92% of cotton.  The approval process for both 
field releases and commercial commodity imports, first defined in 
the 1997 Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Act is as follows:  An 
application is first submitted to the GMO Registrar in the National 
Department of Agriculture.  The Registrar reviews the application 
for compliance with the Act, and then submits the package to an 
independent scientific advisory committee for scientific review and 
risk assessment.  This committee makes recommendations to the 
Registrar to either approve or to seek additional information.  Once 
the committee makes a recommendation, the Registrar forwards the 
recommendation to an Executive Council that administers the GMO Act 
and makes the final decision regarding the approval.  The Executive 
Council is composed of representatives from eight national-level 
government ministries: Department of Agriculture (DoA),  Department 
of Science and Technology (DST), Department of Environment and 
Tourism (DEAT), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department 
of Health (DoH), Department of Labor (DoL), Department of Water 
Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), and Department of Arts and Culture 
(DAC) 
 
¶4. (SBU) Several factors are reported to have contributed to a 
slowdown in field release and commercialization approvals in recent 
years, including: significant personnel change in some agencies with 
accompanying loss of institutional memory; amendment of the National 
Environmental Management and Biodiversity Act in 2004, giving new 
responsibilities to DEAT; addition of DWAF and DAC to the Executive 
Qresponsibilities to DEAT; addition of DWAF and DAC to the Executive 
Council following revisions of the GMO Act in 2007; and an economic 
impact analysis on commodity clearance being conducted by DTI. 
 
 
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Sept. 17) 
-------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) In a two-hour meeting, Dr. Nesbitt gave presentations on the 
U.S. Coordinated Framework, an overview of other Federal acts 
affecting biotech (e.g., NEPA, TES), and an in-depth review of 
notification, permit, and petition procedures.  CSIR is an R&D 
organization funded through the Department of Science and 
Technology.  Meeting participants included research scientists and 
breeders developing transgenic sorghum varieties (for which release 
permits had recently been denied by the Executive Council), 
researchers developing vaccine-producing crops, and ecologists 
conducting biotechnology-related risk research.  Several staff from 
DEAT were also present. 
 
¶6. (SBU)  Much of the discussion following the presentations 
centered on criticism of South Africa's ability to effectively use 
the expert input of its biotech scientific advisory committee. 
Several meeting participants had the perception that the Executive 
 
PRETORIA 00000004  002 OF 004 
 
 
Council disregarded the advice of the advisory committee, and would 
second-guess assessments by requesting additional "safety" 
information from applicants with perhaps dubious scientific 
justification. 
 
Department of Environment and Tourism (Sept. 17) 
----------------------------- 
 
¶7. (U) The afternoon included an informal, two-hour discussion with 
DEAT's Director of Biosafety/GMOs and the Director of Biodiversity 
Management.  Discussion centered on the two different authorities 
used by DEAT to regulate biotech crops: the 1998 National 
Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the more recently-amended 
2004 National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEMBA). 
The latter explicitly gives DEAT the authority to conduct an 
"environmental impact assessment" if the DEAT Minister has reason to 
believe a biotech crop could impact biodiversity and to conduct 
"monitoring"; the former is a broader environmental protection 
authority.  DEAT is attempting to develop internal procedures to 
reconcile how and when it will conduct its risk assessments under 
the two different authorities, and how this may or may not be 
reconciled with the risk evaluations conducted under the GMO Act by 
the Executive Council, of which DEAT is a member.  Participants also 
discussed the similar challenges faced by APHIS regulators in 
conducting risk assessments under the authorities of both NEPA and 
the Plant Protection Act.  Ironically, APHIS is now moving towards 
separating the two assessments; DEAT was considering combining 
theirs.  It should be noted that none of the various assessments to 
be conducted by DEAT would be publicly available (Note: Dr. Nesbitt 
enquired about this directly).  Rather, they seemed to be intended 
as internal advisories for the GMO Act Executive Council. 
 
GMO Act Executive Council (Sept. 18) 
------------------------------------ 
¶8.  (U) Dr. Nesbitt presented on overview of U.S. regulatory policy 
and APHIS' process to this meeting of the Executive Council. 
Participants asked many questions about specific policy issues, 
including stacked genes, LLP/AP, regulation of pharma trials, 
inspection and monitoring, recent rice issues and lawsuits, etc.  He 
also spent a great deal of time discussing the Coordinated 
Framework; in particular, how the three agencies are able to make 
decisions independently and the consequences of working with three 
different agencies (differences in timing, different implications 
for commercialization, different legal weights of reviews (i.e. 
FDA), etc). 
 
Department of Trade and Industry (Sept. 19) 
------------------------- 
¶9. (SBU) Discussion that followed a presentation on the U.S. 
regulatory policy ranged very widely, including: liability and 
redress, identity preservation and labeling, commodity clearance, 
food safety, etc.  Some participants seemed to be very positive 
about biotechnology, but, for example, felt that "labeling is a very 
good thing."  Others seemed very concerned about "unresolved" food 
safety issues, and asked many questions about recent 
quasi-scientific publications (Pusztai, etc.).  In general, DTI 
staff expressed a desire to study the economic impacts of biotech 
commodity imports, but appeared to be grappling with what to analyze 
and how. 
 
Department of Agriculture (Sept. 20) 
------------------------------------ 
Q------------------------------------ 
 
¶10. (U) Dr. Nesbitt gave a short talk on U.S. and APHIS regulation 
of biotechnology to a small group of NDA officials who were 
primarily plant protection specialists from the Agricultural 
Products Inspection Service and the Pest Risk Assessment group 
within the Plant Health program.  There was some discussion of 
biotechnology import permits and inspections (especially BRS' 
collaboration with Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)), but 
participants did not play an active role in regulating biotechnology 
in South Africa. 
 
 
Public Understanding of Biotechnology (Sept. 20) 
----------------------------------- 
 
 
¶11.  (U) In this meeting, Dr. Nesbitt gave a public talk on risk 
perception, risk communication, and public perception of 
biotechnology.  The talk was hosted by the Public Understanding of 
Biotechnology (PUB) Project, an outreach program funded by the South 
African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement (SAASTA, a 
 
PRETORIA 00000004  003 OF 004 
 
 
business unit within the Department of Science and Technology).  PUB 
has a nationwide outreach program with educational materials and 
brochures, grade school education programs, public meetings and 
lectures, etc., and its managers appeared to have well-established 
relationships with biotechnology risk communication experts in the 
United States and internationally.  Talk attendees included PUB 
staff, several interns and staff from DEAT and DST, and a few 
others. 
 
AfricaBio Business Breakfast (Sept. 21) 
------------------------------ 
 
¶12. (U) Dr. Nesbitt presented a talk to AfricaBio's business council 
on U.S. regulation of biotechnology, with some added emphasis on 
upcoming changes to 7CFR340.  As the participants were largely from 
the local research and business community, conversation following 
the talk was similar to discussions with representatives of these 
groups earlier in the week. 
 
AfricaBio Workshop (Sept. 26) 
----------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) AfricaBio organized a week-long workshop entitled "Biosafety 
Course of the Non-Biotechnologist" (Sept. 25-29).  Participants 
included primarily policy makers, regulators, and risk assessors 
from several counties in south and east Africa.  Dr. Nesbitt gave a 
very short overview of the U.S. regulatory system, but time for 
discussion was limited. 
 
Analysis and Recommendations 
---------------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) Explaining the inner workings of the U.S. regulatory system 
to South African regulators and policy makers seemed to have a large 
impact on the South African's perception of U.S. policy. 
Misunderstanding of the U.S. regulatory system (or even of its 
existence at all) was widespread.  Throughout the week, many 
government regulators who initially seemed skeptical of 
presentations expressed pleasant surprise to learn that the U.S. 
"actually thought about risk" and "didn't just say 'yes' to 
everything multinational companies asked for."  Audiences were often 
surprised that U.S. regulators included risk assessors and 
scientists from a wide range of disciplines, and that the United 
States is assessing many of the same kinds of risks and regulatory 
challenges they were.  These meetings have the potential to be the 
early foundations for relationships between U.S. and South African 
regulators as regulators, benefiting from exchange of technical 
expertise and discussion of the similar challenges each faces. 
 
¶15. (SBU) A significant difference between the U.S. and South 
African regulatory systems lies in the role of the GMO Act Executive 
Council (EC) as the final decision-making body in South Africa. 
Unlike in the United States, where each of the three coordinated 
framework agencies makes its decision independently based upon 
distinct expertise and authorities, in South Africa the EC makes a 
single consensus decision.  A scientific advisory council and each 
individual agency submit separate assessments to the EC, but these 
documents are not made public and are all apparently open for 
reconsideration at the EC level.  When applications are made to the 
GMO Registrar, the Registrar formally solicits public comment, but 
individual EC members also independently receive public comment 
through back channels which they take into consideration.  The EC 
also meets infrequently, often requesting new data of applicants 
Qalso meets infrequently, often requesting new data of applicants 
through the Registrar, but not considering the new data until much 
later meeting cycles.  Perhaps most significantly, the consensus 
nature of the EC decision-making means that individual members have 
the ability to request additional data from applicants outside their 
particular areas of expertise or regulatory jurisdiction (as a 
hypothetical example, an economist from the Department of Trade and 
Industry may wish to have additional food safety data).  The ad hoc 
rethinking at the EC level does not appear to be couched within any 
formal risk assessment framework.  Because only the final decision 
document is made public and all of the deliberations occur behind 
closed doors, applicants expressed frustration that the 
decision-making process is not very transparent and it is difficult 
to reconstruct on what basis individual decisions are made. 
 
¶16. (SBU) The decision-making ability of the Executive Council might 
be improved by building the risk-assessment competence and 
confidence of each of the individual member agencies.  In many 
instances, the persons who are responsible for their agency's 
separate risk assessments are also the same individuals who sit on 
the EC.  Improving this confidence might make separate agency risk 
 
PRETORIA 00000004  004 OF 004 
 
 
assessments "pass through" the EC intact, and perhaps be better 
communicated in the final decision documents.  Continuing to foster 
working relationships and technical exchanges between U.S. and South 
African regulators at the risk assessment level is likely to benefit 
both countries. 
 
¶17.  (U) Comment:  Post looks forward to developing this 
relationship further in 2008 and will submit its proposal to EEB in 
January. End comment. 
Bost