VZCZCXYZ0015
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVI #0520 1061017
ZNR UUUUU ZZH (CCY ADX8CO7E1 MSI9418)
R 151017Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0009
INFO RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1229
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC

UNCLAS VIENNA 000520 
 
C O R R E C T E D COPY (CAPTION REMOVED) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON SENV KSCA PGOV AU
SUBJECT: EMBASSYENGAGES GREENPEACE ON GMOS 
 
 
Summary 
------- 
¶1.  Emboffs and AgCounselor met on April 10 with reenpeace 
representatives to respond to a letter,which the organization had 
addressed to the Chare regarding the U.S.-EU WTO biotech dispute. 
Twomain points emerged from the meeting: Greenpeace amitted they 
must focus more on the environmentalaspects of the use of biotech 
seeds, rather than n alleged health concerns; and that there is 
real concern of retaliation against Austrian companies because of 
the WTO case.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  In a March 13 letter to the Charge, the Central European office 
of Greenpeace raised concerns that the U.S. would impose duties on 
Austrian goods as a consequence of the EU's non-compliance with the 
WTO panel's decision in the U.S.-EU agricultural biotech case. 
Greenpeace subsequently organized a small, but well publicized, 
demonstration in front of the Embassy on March 20 to protest against 
USG GMO policies.  In response to the letter and to clarify USG 
positions, Emboffs and AgCounselor met on April 10 with Greenpeace 
representatives. 
 
¶3.  Steffen Nichtenberger, biotech expert for the regional 
Greenpeace office, claimed that, while the EU's agricultural biotech 
approval process is strict, it is not carried out "properly." 
According to Nichtenberger, 97% of the information that the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) uses is funded by companies with an 
interest in bringing biotech products to market.  The studies of 
"independent scientists" are ignored, as are concerns about the 
long-term affects of GMOs.  Greenpeace argued for the adoption of 
the "precautionary principle" in the approval process, even if the 
observation period takes years.  When Emboffs noted that Americans 
had consumed biotech products for many years now without any food 
safety or health problems, Nichtenberger admitted that it would be 
increasingly difficult for Greenpeace to oppose GMOs solely based on 
health concerns.  Greenpeace, according to Nichtenberger, would 
rather focus more on alleged environmental problems associated with 
the cultivation of GMOs, e.g., persistence of pests, pollen flow. 
 
¶4.  With regard to the U.S.-EU WTO dispute, Greenpeace reiterated 
its concern that Austrian companies could be specifically targeted 
by USG retaliatory measures. In Greenpeace's view, the USG should 
simply accept Austrian opposition to GMO foods.  Nichtenberger added 
that Greenpeace did not oppose the authority of WTO a priori. 
Rather, the ability of WTO to impose legally binding sanctions 
should be a model for other international agreements, such as the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety or the Kyoto Protocol.  This, in 
Greenpeace's view, would ensure that environmental issues receive 
the same attention as trade rules. 
 
¶5.  Emboffs responded that, while the USG would reserve its rights 
to seek WTO authorization to retaliate, our goal was to settle the 
dispute without retaliation.  As to specific targeting of Austrian 
goods for retaliation, Emboffs said that they were unaware of any 
specific discussions within the USG. 
 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶6.  While Greenpeace's public stance towards U.S. policies, 
particularly on biotechnology, is very often quite aggressive, the 
non-public dialogue was, in our opinion, more productive.  We 
continue to disagree on the substance of the issue, but we believe 
that our Greenpeace interlocutors understand now that we have based 
our policy on science, not on influence from corporate interests. 
 
KILNER#