VZCZCXRO6463
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #1894/01 2891852
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 151852Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4518
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAUSA/HHS WASHDC
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2958
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 001894 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR, USTR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; 
 
OCRA/SALMON/ALEXANDER; 
ONA/RIEMENSCHNEIDER/YOUNG; 
OFSO/LEE/YOUNG; 
STA/JONES/HENNEY/WETZEL/CHESLEY; 
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:   CLONES AND CLONE PRODUCTS DENOUNCED BY FRENCH ADVISORY 
BODY 
 
Ref: PARIS 001412 
 
¶1. Summary: The release on the market of products sourced from 
cloned animals and their offspring should be prohibited according to 
the October 14 conclusions of the French Advisory Committee on Food 
(Conseil national de l'Alimentation.)  The CNA is an official 
advisory body.  Its conclusions were based mainly on ethical 
considerations and targeted the importation of cloned animals, their 
progeny and any product (meat, milk, embryos and semen) sourced from 
these animals.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. The CNA working group on animal cloning included representatives 
of the livestock industry, researchers, farmers, the animal genetics 
industry, consumer groups, the agro-food industry, journalists, and 
lawyers.  The working group conducted a number of hearings (Reftel) 
as well as an intensive literature review. 
 
 
¶3. The CNA gave several reasons for its recommendation. According to 
CNA, the health risk evaluation is not adequate with a low 
percentage of full-term gestations and a high frequency of clones 
suffering from morphological and metabolic anomalies.  CNA also 
concluded that the economic benefits for producers and consumers 
were not demonstrated and that release onto the market would result 
in heightened consumer concerns about food production processes. 
 
¶4. On the other hand, CNA recognized that there was no significant 
difference in meat and milk composition, digestibility or toxicity, 
according to the current state of science. CNA recommended that 
in-depth research be continued as long as "it does not hurt human 
dignity, and as long as a valuable public debate is organized." 
 
¶5. In its conclusions, the CNA mentioned that meat sourced from 
cloned animals is already present on the U.S. market citing a Wall 
Street Journal dated September 3, 2008, and added that in Japan, 
meat from clones had been on the market for a long time. (Comment: 
Post would appreciate guidance on how to respond to the allegation 
purportedly made in the WSJ. End comment.) 
 
¶6. Contacts at both the French Ministry of Agriculture and the 
European Commission mentioned the risk of severe trade disruption 
should France and the EU implement any import prohibition from 
countries where cloned animals, their offspring and their products 
are not traced, explicitly mentioning the United States. 
 
¶7. Comment:  The timeframe for an official GOF decision on the CNA 
recommendation is unclear as is the timeframe for an EU decision, 
(with which France would be required to comply). Private 
conversations with high-level French officials indicate that the GOF 
is likely to accept the CNA recommendation. In 2007, France imported 
USD 2.7 million of bovine semen, USD 1 million of embryos, USD 12.6 
million of milk and milk products, and a significant volume of 
processed food, which could contain milk. 
End Comment. 
 
BEGIN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF CNA OPINION (SUMMARY) 
 
OPINION ABOUT THE CONSUMPTION OF PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM CLONED 
ANIMALS AND THEIR OFFSPRING 
 
At a time when there is a great emphasis on supporting biodiversity 
which comes about notably through genetic variability expressed by 
sexual reproduction, the technical possibility of animal cloning - 
which indeed seeks to avoid producing variability - is a kind of 
successful accomplishment of the modern project of controlling 
animal reproduction. 
 
It should be noted however that contrary to a fairly widespread 
belief, a clone and its parent do not strictly have the same genetic 
identity. Moreover, epigenetic modifications may appear when an 
incomplete reprogramming of the genomes occurs, modifications which 
might explain the high embryonic and perinatal mortality now 
observed in all the countries developing this technique. 
Ultimately, and although this appears capable of improvement, the 
current success rate of the transfer of cloned embryos is only 
around 10%. Although experts remain divided as to the source and 
importance of the pathologies linked to this technique, they are 
 
PARIS 00001894  002 OF 003 
 
 
nevertheless in agreement over the need to continue the analysis of 
genetic and epigenetic risks before any decision regarding its use 
by the animal reproduction industry. It is this same pathological 
weight which also invalidates this technique in regard to the 
consideration given to the health and well-being of the cloned 
animals. 
 
As far as the aspects relative to the quality and the safety for the 
health of products from cloned animals are concerned (especially 
milk and meat), it should be noted that the studies undertaken so 
far do not call for reservations about their innocuousness.    This 
conclusion however, even in the opinion of scientists remains to be 
confirmed. 
 
Although the technical feasibility of cloning has led to a body 
knowledge about developmental biology, its economic interest is 
currently still very limited in the short to medium term, at least 
in so far as its application to breeding animals. Moreover, the hope 
of saving endangered species using this single technique seems 
illusory, even if it may become an additional tool for achieving 
this aim. No potential interest would appear to be had either in 
regard to the various possible ways in which international 
agricultural markets might develop. 
 
The recurring social controversy linked to the use of GM products 
provokes great caution from interested parties possibly concerned by 
the use of animal cloning. In fact, this technique is perceived, not 
only as a prototype, but also appears completely out of step when 
compared to the other existing methods of reproduction. The little 
time and means devoted until now to public discussion means that 
there is a risk that introducing products derived from cloned 
animals into the food chain might lead to a strong and long lasting 
deterioration in the image of the milk and meat sectors. As 
confirmed by the British Food Standards Agency report of June 2008, 
obtaining the confidence of consumers requires clear and categorical 
responses, notably in terms of the health safety of products derived 
from cloned animals and their offspring, of tangible benefits and 
animal well-being. 
 
Although not appearing as part of their responsibilities, public 
bodies for evaluating food and health risks are gradually 
integrating (more or less explicitly) issues of public concern of 
this kind. This development is obvious at the European level, and is 
possibly encouraged by the current absence of a true socio-economic 
expert appraisal mechanism which would be made available to the 
decision-makers. Conversely, both appraiser and risk manager, the 
American Food and Drug Administration is supposed to take into 
consideration socio-economic and ethical considerations prior to its 
decision-making. In fact, these mainly rely on health 
considerations. This approach risks however becoming redundant, 
especially in the light of the strong criticism to which it has been 
subject following the green light given in January 2008 to the 
consumption of products derived from cloned animals and their 
offspring. 
 
As far as regulations are concerned, the current European 
arrangement does not set out any particular provisions in regard to 
the issue of cloning. This gives rise to the issue of moving forward 
the regulations "from the field to the plate", especially by making 
specific provisions for cloning. 
 
As far as the aspects relating to the quality and safety for health 
of products derived from cloned animals are concerned, it should be 
remembered that the analyses undertaken until now do not reveal any 
significant differences in comparison to those of "conventional" 
animals. Because of this, requirements for traceability and labeling 
could therefore be described as being for reasons of society and 
would need an objectified consensus from among the various 
interested parties.  With the prospect of there being a ban on the 
consumption of products derived from cloned animals inside the 
European Union, initiatives at the WTO would need to be taken to 
carry out negotiations with the aim of supplementing the current 
rules governing the SPS and TBT Agreements, especially to enable a 
Member to make a commercial restrictive provision, and especially a 
ban on imports of products derived from cloned animals or their 
descendents. 
 
 
PARIS 00001894  003 OF 003 
 
 
Not being reduced to the single question of animal well-being, the 
ethical discussion on animal cloning however is justified by its 
possible applications and its unknown nature which means that the 
ethical debate is currently surrounded by unknowns. Two ways have 
been explored to try and resolve this ethical indecisiveness. On the 
one hand, "decisionism" which is substituted in place of usual 
ethical standards by an adhesion process combining the perceived 
degree of social acceptability with various forms of technical 
democracy. Ethical legitimacy is thus reduced to a problem of 
empirical validation, or even with a kind of pragmatism for which 
moral good merges with technical efficiency. On the other hand, 
there is the option of a reinterpretation which tries to provide an 
existential signification of animal cloning through its objective 
signification. This option firstly highlights our ethical 
responsibility in regard to nature and biodiversity in particular. 
Separating itself from naturalism, it re-establishes the moral use 
of reason, i.e. its ability to objectify ethical values. Human 
action is not reduced simply to technical power over nature. By 
using the latter, both as a technical and ethical reference points, 
the very idea of genetic progress of breeding animals can be 
reinvestigated from a standpoint of sustainable development. 
 
These diverse ethical considerations underlie the recommendations 
issued by the members of the Council: continue research provided 
this does not infringe human dignity and is for the acquisition of 
fundamental knowledge; as a backdrop to this research, work on 
making the scientific community especially, aware of the major ethic 
effects of their work, i.e. the possibility of a non-desirable 
application to the human species itself; re-evaluate the objectives 
of selection governing genetic progress of breeding animals from the 
standpoint of sustainable development; ban the marketing for food of 
products derived from cloned animals or their offspring, the 
practice of cloning animals for breeding and importing cloned 
animals or their offspring; undertake negotiations at the WTO with 
the aim of supplementing the current rules; implement traceability 
and labeling in spite of the foreseeable problems and time required 
for carrying this out. 
 
End Translation. 
 
 
Stapleton