VZCZCXRO3216
OO RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHFR #0281 0571208
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 261208Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5611
RUEHRC/DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS PARIS 000281 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; 
USDA/FAS FOR OA/HALE/ 
OCRA/NENON; 
OSTA/PORTER/JONES; 
OFSO/YOUNG; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD EAGR PREL EUN TBIO FR
SUBJECT: FRANCE'S "NO" VOTE ON BIOTECH CORN 
 
REF: STATE 14566 
 
¶1. (U) In separate meetings emboffs delivered reftel points on DG 
Environment's proposal to approve two biotech corn varieties to the 
Trade Minister's Chief of Staff and the biotech advisors to the 
Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Environment.  The latter 
indicated France would vote against the approval of Bt11 and 1507 
biotech corn products on February 25.  (The Trade Ministry demurred, 
saying the Environment Ministry had the lead on the issue.)  With 
regard to Syngenta's Bt 11 corn, our interlocutors justified the 
French position by saying the Bt11 protein is the same as the MON810 
protein, which is currently undergoing its 10-year reevaluation 
process at the European level.  (Note: MON-810 is subject to a 
cultivation ban in France, which the French are defending despite an 
EFSA finding that invocation of the safeguard clause was unjustified 
since no new threats to health or the environment had been 
presented.  End note.) 
 
¶2. (SBU)  The advisors indicated that France's position on Pioneer 
1507 corn is based on issues reportedly raised by the European Food 
Safety Agency (EFSA) relative to the corn's impact on non-target 
species.  In 2005 the French competent authority had raised 
questions with EFSA, including on non-target species, and, according 
to both interlocutors, had not received satisfactory answers. 
 
¶3. (SBU) More generally, the advisor to the Minister of Environment 
emphasized that the current European biotech evaluation system does 
not address member states' citizens' concerns.   She noted a gap 
between the EC's technical regulatory process and regulatory and 
political processes in the member states.  Examples of citizens' 
concerns include the impact of biotech crop production on non-target 
species, and pest resistance to Bt, she said.  She underscored the 
importance of the December 4 EU Environmental Council meeting, where 
proposals of an ad hoc group convened under the French Presidency 
were unanimously adopted.  These included strengthening 
environmental assessment and monitoring arrangements, and soliciting 
member state input. Impacts on non-target species, long-term effects 
and ecological impacts of genetically-engineered (GE) products were 
identified as areas where more member state involvement was needed. 
In addition, she said, the Council emphasized the importance of 
unifying member state monitoring of GE crop production. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Comment: France likely will push for recommendations from 
the December 4 Environmental Council meeting to be taken into 
account during consideration of subsequent biotech dossiers, 
including the MON 810 10-year review.  Post has heard (and MinAg 
advisor confirmed) that France has undertaken a lobbying effort 
regarding the MON-810 reauthorization with EU partners.  The effort 
likely emphasizes France's desire to see the December 4 conclusions 
integrated into the review process.  Since France has promised to 
condition its national ban on the conclusion of this review process, 
a delay or "no" vote by the standing committee would allow the 
French to keep its cultivation ban in place. 
PEKALA