VZCZCXRO7976
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #0714/01 1061444
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 151444Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2618
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAUSA/HHS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2861
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000714 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
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/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:  FOOD FIGHT IN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OVER BIOTECH BILL 
 
REFS: (A) 2007 PARIS 4364; (B) PARIS 78; (C) PARIS 614 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  On April 9 the National Assembly adopted 
a new biotech bill by a vote of 249 to 228 (the narrowest margin 
since President Sarkozy took office) after 36 hours of tense 
debate.  The bill, which will now go to the Senate for a 
second reading, establishes a framework for biotech approval 
and cultivation in France and completes transposition 
of EU biotech legislation.  The draft law provides for a new high 
authority for biotech approval, with both scientific and 
social-economic review panels, and stiffens penalties for 
crop destruction. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The rancourous debate in parliament clearly shows 
the government has lost control of the issue, including within 
its own party.  Prospects for the future of commercial biotech 
cultivation in France are uncertain at best.  Despite passage 
of the biotech bill, the 2008 corn planting season is lost and 
there is little prospect of biotech cultivation before 2009 or 
¶2010.  The French government knows the EU faces retaliation at 
the WTO for the slow pace of biotech approvals and illegal Member 
State bans.  Apparently, the French government understands this 
is the price it may have to pay for maintaining its moratorium on 
biotech cultivation. End Summary. 
 
The Debate 
---------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) A low point was reached when Junior Ecology Minister 
Nathalie 
Kosciusko-Morizet was forced by PM Fillon to apologize for calling 
the debate Qa competition of cowards.Q Kosciusko-Morizet's remarks 
were aimed at Jean-Francois Cope, the majority leader in the 
National 
Assembly, whom she accused of trying to mask differences within the 
ruling UMP party, and Jean-Louis Borloo, Minister of the 
Environment, 
whom she chastised for being content with achieving Qthe minimum 
in 
the new law.  The Senate will now review the National Assembly text 
April 16-18 (it completed its first review in February).  The 
government 
is using emergency powers to accelerate the normal timetable for 
consideration of the legislation.  Following the SenateQs review, 
the 
bill will have a second reading in the National Assembly in May 
before 
going to reconciliation and entering into law, most probably 
before France assumes the EU Presidency on July 1. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The legislation was opposed by almost all members of the 
Socialist and Green parties.  From the governing UMP party, 10 
representatives voted against the bill and 31 abstained, 
including Kosciusko-Morizet.  The UMPQs failure to impose party 
discipline reflects both general popular opposition to GMOs 
in France, and a split in government exacerbated by equivocation 
on the issue at the Elysee. 
 
The Law 
-------- 
 
¶5. (U) The proposed bill transposes EU Directive 2001/18 on the 
release of GMOs into the environment.  France is the last 
member state to complete this process and must do so in order 
to avoid costly fines.  The bill is also an outcome of the 
Grenelle meeting on the Environment (REF A), wherein the 
French government offered environmentalists a QfreezeQ on 
cultivation of MON810 (REF B) pending the development of 
French biotech legislation, and a requirement for reauthorization 
of MON810 at the EU level. 
 
¶6. (U) The legislation is designed to address the core issue of 
consumer concerns about the environmental safety of biotech 
cultivation.  It creates a biotech approval authority, called the 
QHigh 
Committee on Biotechnologies,Q comprised of a scientific committee 
and 
an economic, ethical and social committee. The President of the 
High Authority will forward his recommendation on cultivation, 
based 
 
PARIS 00000714  002 OF 002 
 
 
on input from both committees, to the government.  It is unclear 
how the President of the new High Authority will reconcile likely 
differing opinions and how much weight will be given to the non- 
scientific recommendation in  the governmentQs decision- 
making. 
 
¶7. (U) The bill also requires coexistence measures  to protect 
biodiversity.  It mandates transparency through public 
disclosure of farmersQ biotech fields at the plot level and 
imposes fines of 75,000-150,000 Euros and up to three years in 
prison for biotech crop destruction.  Other key decisions, 
such as cropping distance, will not be mandated legislatively 
but determined by the relevant government ministries. 
 
The Reality 
----------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) French farmers affected by the biotech ban, who should be 
the most vocal supporters of the technology in France, have 
yet to roll their tractors into Paris in protest (although the 
Corn GrowersQ Union is suing the French government for 
economic damage).  It appears that Agricultural Minister Michel 
Barnier is keeping the farmers in check, in part by indicating the 
government will take care of the farm sector in the Common 
Agricultural 
Policy review which begins in 2009. 
 
¶9. (U) Passage of the biotech bill, however, rankled anti-biotech 
and environmental advocates. They had hoped the governmentQs freeze 
on biotech corn cultivation in December, 2007 (following the 
Grenelle 
consultation process) would be a first step toward a ban of all 
biotech 
crops and perhaps biotech imports, in France. In preparation for 
the debate in Parliament anti-biotech activists had organized a 
screening 
at the National Assembly of the film QThe World According to 
Monsanto,Q a disparaging portrait of Monsanto and the U.S. 
government's alleged complicity with the private sector on 
agricultural 
bio-tech (REF C).  Senator Jean Bizet, a biotech supporter and 
sponsor 
of the Senate biotech bill, commented in Le Figaro following 
passage of the bill that he had been the object of 
intimidation and "intellectual terrorism" by anti-biotech groups 
during the debate. 
 
The Cost of Doing (No) Business 
-------------------------------- 
¶10. (SBU) French government representatives tell us they 
understand the importance of increasing domestic agricultural 
production through technology.  However, they are equally 
adamant that ag biotech continues to be hugely unpopular in 
France.  They argue that internal discussion and debate, rather 
than external pressure, is the only way opinions will change. 
However, they also acknowledge in candid moments that France 
has to be prepared to pay compensation via the WTO as they 
recognize the ban on ag biotech approvals is not science- 
based. 
 
Comment 
----------- 
¶11. (SBU) Despite the latest movement on biotech legislation, 
we are not optimistic.  MON810, the only biotech variety used 
in France, remains banned.  The EU approval of MON810 expires 
in 2008 and must undergo a new review by the European Food Safety 
Agency.  French authorities are unwilling to consider lifting the 
moratorium until this process has been completed (likely in 
2009).  Even if the MON810 review is favorable, cultivation 
will not take place until 2009 or 2010, under the most 
favorable circumstances, and probably under strict parameters. 
Retaliation via the WTO against the EU-wide moratorium may not 
move the French on ag biotech, but nor will additional lenience. 
The French expect retaliation and appear resigned to the likelihood 
they will have to pay for the lack of EU compliance with 
international 
obligations.  There is nothing to be gained in France from delaying 
retaliation. 
 
STAPLETON