VZCZCXRO2356
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVI #0312/01 0770602
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 180602Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2165
INFO RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1242
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1435
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 VIENNA 000312 
 
SIPDIS, SENSITIVE 
 
GENEVA FOR USTR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD TBIO EUN AU
SUBJECT: Europe's AgBiotech Nemesis on a Roll: Austria Follows 
Up EU Council Vote to Uphold Cultivation Bans on Biotech Corn 
 
Sensitive But Unclassified - Entire Cable. 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  The Austrian government sees itself "on a roll" 
in its long-standing campaign against agricultural biotech 
following the EU Environment Council's March 2 decision 
allowing Austria (and Hungary) to maintain national bans on 
cultivation of two EU-approved genetically-modified corn 
varieties.  Agriculture/ Environment Minister Niki Berlakovich 
called the vote an "acknowledgement" of Member State 
"sovereignty" to prohibit biotech cultivation.  The GoA will 
follow up by providing "scientific arguments" to the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) backing up its safety concerns, 
and the GoA will continue to demand the "right of self- 
determination" for European regions to either ban biotech 
cultivation or ensure "coexistence" (which would have the same 
result in many areas).  Domestically, Austria will expand its 
"Polluter Pays" liability regime on cross-pollination as a 
further deterrent to cultivation.  Post continues to work 
behind the scenes with moderate voices.  END SUMMARY. 
 
Biotech Ban Victory "Like Winning the Soccer Championship" 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶2. Before the March 2 vote, MinAgEnvir Berlakovich and GoA 
Health Minister Alois Stoeger had written letters and "worked 
the phones" with other member states to lay out Austria's case 
against biotech corn (alleging insufficient risk assessments 
and that "sensitive ecological regions" weren't taken into 
account).  Austria actively lobbied other Member States.  The 
strong qualified majority in favor of the two bans (in the 
case of MON810, the ban drew support from 22 of 27 
countries/282 of 345 votes) seemed to surprise even 
Berlakovich, who called the result "a historic success for 
Austria, as if we had become European soccer champion" 
(COMMENT: truly a Cinderella story).  Berlakovich publicly 
praised the EU: "we can trust in a unified Europe ... Europe 
is able to act when it counts."  Asked about potential U.S. 
trade sanctions, he replied that the USG "must respect that 
Austria and its population want to remain biotech-free" and 
echoed German MinEnvir Sigmar Gabriel as saying that "the EU 
Council is not the extension of the U.S. seed mafia." 
 
¶3. On March 6, Berlakovich briefed the Austrian parliament's 
agriculture committee.  In a rare spectacle, all five 
political factions (including the three opposition parties) 
congratulated the conservative minister for his "achievement" 
in upholding the cultivation ban.  The committee then 
unanimously agreed on a motion (adopted in the parliamentary 
session on March 11) that set forth further the steps the GoA 
should take to "retain the Austrian cultivation ban for 
agricultural biotechnology", as the headline reads.  The 
parliament asks the GoA: 
-- to vote against approvals of genetically modified organisms 
and to defend the cultivation bans vehemently, backing this 
position up through "scientific arguments"; 
- to "exhaust all judicial remedies against forced cultivation 
of biotech crops, including lodging a complaint before the 
European Court of Justice", if needed; 
-- put pressure on the European Food Safety Agency to take 
into account the "precautionary principle" when it decides on 
the approval of new biotech varieties, and to "equally 
recognize" Member State findings; 
-- to promote independent "risk research" in the area of 
agricultural biotechnology to protect biotech-free farming; 
-- and to speak up at the EU level for recognition of the 
"right of self-determination" of European regions that choose 
biotech-free agriculture and food production. 
 
Austrian Study: Does Biotech Corn Reduce Fertility In Mice? 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶4. In recent years, the GoA has regularly sent Austrian 
university institute studies to EFSA as evidence that current 
risk assessments are lacking and to defend its application of 
the "precautionary principle."  In a recent workshop, the 
Austrian Agency for Health and Consumer Safety's head for 
Consumer Protection, Ulrich Herzog, said the GoA wants to 
promote scientific results which substantiate its concerns 
about the long-term effects of agricultural biotechnology. 
 
¶5. The latest GoA effort (November 2008) is a feeding study by 
the Veterinary Institute of Vienna on the effects of the 
stacked biotech corn variety NK603 x MON810 on long-term mouse 
health and reproduction.  The study concluded:  mice fed with 
biotech corn had significantly less offspring in the third and 
fourth generation, whereas reproduction of conventionally fed 
 
VIENNA 00000312  002 OF 003 
 
 
mice was "more efficient."  The Chairman of the European Plant 
Science Organization and other scientists, however, called the 
study "unqualified" and an "example of hasty interpretation of 
a feeding experiment."  The study's authors also pointed out 
that the results needed support from follow-up studies.  The 
European Commission has apparently requested that EFSA study 
the issue further. 
 
"Co-Existence":  A Tool To Block Biotech Cultivation 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶6.  Another area on the forefront of Austria's anti-biotech 
campaign is the call for "co-existence."  Since its EU 
Presidency in 2006, Austria has pushed the Commission to issue 
binding co-existence rules between biotech and non-biotech 
farms and fields.  The concern of the GoA is that conventional 
(particularly organic) crops could be "polluted" through 
biotech pollen flow.  The GoA MinAg alleges that no Austrian 
would buy organic food in which biotech traces are detected. 
The hope of the GoA behind the idea is that regions with 
small-scale farming -- and all of Austria -- could be declared 
"biotech-free" meaning a cultivation ban through the back 
door.  In the meantime, all Austrian state governments have 
declared their territories "biotech-free" and, in coordination 
with a 2004 federal law, introduced strong liability 
legislation that would effectively deter any potential 
"biotech" farmer with or without cultivation bans.  The GoA 
has also drafted a new environmental liability law -- to be 
adopted this spring by the federal parliament -- which would 
establish the "polluter-pays-principle" for biotech farmers 
whose pollen mingles with conventional crops. 
 
Media Landscape:  Loud Critics Drown Out Few Balanced Voices 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- 
 
¶7. Like virtually the entire political spectrum, Austria's 
highest-circulation newspaper "Kronen-Zeitung" supports the 
government's anti-GMO campaign.  A unique political and social 
force, the tabloid Kronen-Zeitung has run intermittent 
editorial campaigns against GM food for the past decade and 
printed a large ad in support of an anti-biotech demonstration 
two days before the EU vote (which however attracted only 
around 300-400 people).  "Balanced" voices are few in Austria 
given the opprobrium facing GM supporters -- though some 
recent reporting has painted agricultural biotech as an 
emotional issue in Austria rather than an objective one, a 
small sign of progress. 
 
¶8. Post continues behind-the-scenes outreach in Austria to 
highlight biotechnology success stories in the areas of food, 
feed, fuel and pharmaceuticals.  Post will report septel on an 
FAS outreach visit by two expert farmers from Iowa (March 2- 
4), who were greeted with polite and genuine interest despite 
the visit starting (coincidentally) on the very day the GoA 
was marshalling votes in Brussels against biotech cultivation. 
In a trade outreach DVC between Austria's top foreign trade 
official (Josef Mayer) and USEU representatives Peter Chase 
and Daniel Mullaney, Mayer hinted that Austria's hard-line 
position on biotech is driven more by media campaigns and 
consumer antipathy 
rather than by a solid edifice of scientific results. 
 
COMMENT:  A Wall of Resistance 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶9. The march of science and increasing adoption by farmers 
elsewhere have done almost nothing to soften Austria's anti- 
biotech front since the issue emerged in the mid-1990s.  Like 
Austria's anti-nuclear policy, it enjoys very broad public 
support:  over 1.2 million Austrians (out of 5.2 million 
adults) signed a petition against biotechnology in food in 
¶1997.  Ten years later, the majority of Austrians opposes 
biotech food when asked by pollsters, but most probably pay 
very little attention to the issue: for instance, Austria has 
always imported GM soybeans for animal feed, something that 
has not become a major public issue. 
 
¶10. The new GoA has had a rocky start in the EU since December 
-- with charges of amateurism in some quarters -- leading it 
to trumpet its "victory" against the Commission over biotech 
corn.  The GoA is now trying to build on any momentum from its 
March 2 vote:  In meetings four days later with Commission 
President Barroso, Chancellor Faymann raised the issue, with 
media speculating that the GoA may not support Barroso's 
reelection unless the Commission backs off on the issue of 
 
VIENNA 00000312  003 OF 003 
 
 
cultivation bans.  The GoA's main focus will remain on 
"deterring" cultivation through strict liability laws and 
persuading the Commission or other EU member states to allow 
"biotech-free" European regions or at least "co-existence" 
rules that effectively exclude biotech grains in regions with 
small-scale agriculture.  To date Austria has not submitted 
convincing scientific studies substantiating health and 
environmental risks (EFSA has not recognized the Austrian 
national studies). 
 
¶11. Despite the broad front against GM food, we see growing 
interest in Austria on green biotechnology research, and some 
experts acknowledge that biotech has real benefits as well as 
(theoretical) risks.  A few media outlets are now slightly 
more balanced and report this as an international trade issue, 
not just a domestic ideological choice for Austria.  Post will 
continue the dialogue with these moderate voices. 
 
YAP