VZCZCXRO1313
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #0614/01 0931509
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021509Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2444
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAUSA/HHS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2834
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000614 
 
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:  FRENCH TV FILM ATTACKS US BIOTECH REGIME 
 
 
¶1.  Summary:  On March 11, French public TV channel ARTE broadcasted 
a film entitled "The World According to Monsanto," by freelance 
journalist Marie-Monique Robin.  A book by the same name was 
released soon thereafter.  Given the wide publicity generated by 
this film (for sale on line on ARTE's website at 
http://www.arte.tv/monsanto, which, to date, has received over 
100,000 "hits"), it has generated much attention particularly by 
biotech stakeholders.  The film and book not only demonize Monsanto, 
but also characterize U.S. Government actions as lacking ethical and 
scientific integrity.  Allegations include questioning of the 
concept of substantial equivalence; the assertion that political 
rather than scientific decisions have been made to authorize biotech 
products in the United States; and, that a "revolving door" between 
Monsanto and the U.S. Government has influenced the U.S. biotech 
regulatory system.  The book and film are to be translated into 
English and other languages.  Country team requests that Washington 
agencies provide talking points for use with a range of 
interlocutors on an "if asked" basis. End Summary. 
 
Questioning the Concept of Substantial equivalence: 
 
¶2.  The film presents substantial equivalence as the basis of "one 
of the largest conspiracies in the history of the food industry." 
It says that FDA decided that transgenes belonged to the GRAS 
category (Generally Recognized As Safe) i.e., are not food 
additives, exempting them from toxicological tests before market 
release.  Jeremy Rifkin, Director, Foundation for Economic Trends, 
who is interviewed, asserts that this was a way for biotech 
companies to rapidly commercialize their products with the least 
governmental interference.  Michael Hansen, Consumer Union, comments 
that the substantial equivalence principle had no scientific 
background and was created to avoid treating GMOs as food additives, 
allowing biotech companies to proceed without toxicological tests 
regulated by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, and without labeling. 
 
 
Alleging that U.S. Biotech Authorizations are Political, not 
Scientific: 
 
¶3.  According to the film, U.S. biotech regulation was initiated in 
1992 when the FDA published in the Federal Register a statement of 
policy regarding foods derived from new plant varieties, stipulating 
that the same regulations apply to food products derived from GM and 
conventional plants.  Based on an interview of James Maryanski, 
formerly of the FDA, the author concludes that this was based on 
political expedience rather than scientific justification, in the 
context of a tendency towards deregulation by the USG. 
 
Accusing the USG to be Under Pressure from the Industry: 
 
¶4.  The film argues that Monsanto exerted undue influence on the 
USG.  Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman is interviewed 
saying he had felt that he was under pressure and that more tests 
should have been conducted on biotech products before they were 
approved.  Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible 
Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush 
Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having 
obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked 
directly for it: John Ashcroft, Secretary of Justice, received 
contributions from Monsanto when he was reelected, as did Tommy 
Thompson, Secretary of Health; Ann Veneman, Secretary of 
Agriculture, was director of Calgene which belonged to Monsanto; and 
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle, a Monsanto 
subsidiary; and Justice Clarence Thomas was a former lawyer for 
Monsanto.  Several other examples are provided, by the same source, 
including Michael Kantor, President Clinton's Secretary for Commerce 
and later on the board of Directors of Monsanto. 
 
¶5.  Comment:  The allegations made in this film directly attack the 
integrity of the U.S. Government, particularly with regard to 
biotech regulation, and a number of key players, including biotech 
allies who have seen the film, have questioned Emboffs about how 
much of this is true. 
 
¶6.  Action requested:  While Country Team is not inclined to 
directly rebut the film thereby giving it credence, we believe there 
is a role for public diplomacy, mainly focusing on the rigor of the 
U.S. regulatory system and the positive role ag biotech can play in 
meeting world food needs, particularly in the developing world.  At 
the same time, it would be useful for Emboffs to have talking points 
 
PARIS 00000614  002 OF 002 
 
 
available to enable effective responses to questions raised by our 
contacts particularly on the U.S. regulatory system and the concept 
of substantial equivalence. Country team requests that Washington 
agencies provide clear succinct talking points on these topics for 
use with a range of interlocutors, strictly on an "if asked" basis. 
End Comment. 
 
STAPLETON