VZCZCXRO1495
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #0566/01 1061315
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161315Z APR 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000566 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT 
PLEASE PASS TO USTR MURPHY, CHRIS WILSON, MCLARKSON 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD EINV EFIN ELAB PGOV BE
SUBJECT: THE PLIGHT OF MON810: POLITICS TRUMPS SCIENCE IN THE EU 
 
REF: A) RICHEY-WILLIAMS 2/26 email; B) DIXON_WILLIAMS 2/24 email 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: On April 14, the German Ministry of Agriculture 
announced a ban on the cultivation and sale of Monsanto's GMO corn 
MON810, the only GMO varietal currently approved for cultivation in 
the European Union, in Germany.  The German action follows the March 
22 announcement by Luxembourg's Minister of Health that it, too, 
would join Austria, France, Greece and Hungary in banning the 
cultivation of MON810.  These latest in a series of setbacks for 
MON810 suggest a gathering momentum against GMO products in Europe. 
Discussions with NGOs, EU and member state diplomats, and biotech 
industry officials suggest the groundswell is rooted in politics, 
not science, making it all the more difficult for Monsanto to make a 
reason-based case and making future EU approvals potentially 
irrelevant as member states seize de facto competence over the 
issue.  END SUMMARY 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶2.  (U) German Agriculture and Consumer Science Minister Ilse Aigner 
announced April 14 that Germany will ban cultivation and sale of 
genetically modified (GMO) maize, desite European Union rulings 
that the biotech grain is safe.  She said she had come to the 
conclusion "there is a justifiable reason to believe that 
genetically modified maize of the type MON 810 presents a danger to 
the environment," but did not elaborate.  Aigner stressed the 
decision was based on scientific, and not political, factors, and 
added it was an individual case and "not a fundamental decision 
against GMO crops."  Aigner's announcement came just ahead of spring 
planting in Germany, where farmers planted over 3200 hectares of GMO 
maize in 2008. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The European Commission promptly announced it would 
examine the ban, but given increasing momentum against Commission 
proposals to lift similar bans in France, Austria, Greece, and 
Hungary by member states, and with June European Parliamentary 
elections fast approaching, it is unlikely to take up the ban before 
summer.  In addition, the German and Luxembourg decisions come on 
the heels of a delay by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in 
ruling on the renewal of the authorization for cultivation of MON810 
in the European Union, originally expected to come out of the March 
12 EFSA plenary. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The genetically modified corn MON 810 (trade name 
YieldGard) was developed by the Monsanto Corporation to be resistant 
to attack by the European corn borer, a major insect pest of maize 
in agriculture.  The EU approved the cultivation of MON810 in Europe 
in 1998, the only GM crop so approved in Europe.  (Note: MON810 is 
available in a number of countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, 
Canada, Japan, and the U.S. for cultivation. End Note) But, despite 
the approval, Austria banned Mon810 in 1999, and in 2005, Hungary 
followed suit.  Other member states, such as France, Poland, Greece, 
and Romania have invoked the "safeguard clause" which provides that, 
if a Member State has justifiable reasons to consider that a GMO 
which has received consent for placing on the market, constitutes a 
risk to human health or the environment, it may provisionally 
restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of that GMO on its 
territory.  The Commission challenges these member state bans in a 
variety of fora such as standing committees and in Environment and 
Agriculture Councils in which member state reps vote on whether to 
support the Commission challenges or maintain the various bans. 
 
COMMISSION PROPOSALS TO END THE BANS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Commission proposed to end the bans and submitted its 
proposals to the Standing Committee, which met February 16 to 
consider the French and Greek bans on MON810, and to the Environment 
Council, which met March 2 to discuss the Hungarian ban on MON810. 
In addition, the Standing Committee met February 25 to deliberate on 
the authorization of two other GMO products, Bt11 and Herculex. 
Following these crucial votes was the EFSA plenary March 12 at which 
the reauthorization of MON810 was expected to be discussed. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Ahead of this stream of decisions, Monsanto rep Conrad van 
Kameke met with USEU Agriculture, Econ, and USTR officers to lay out 
Monsanto's perceptions of possible outcomes and the company's views 
of member states' positions on GMOs.  He shared with USEU a graph 
depicting expected member states' positions on GMOs.  According to 
the chart, the UK, Sweden, and Finland represented solid pro-GMO 
votes, with the Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, and 
Romania likely to be closer to the pro camp.  On the other side were 
Greece, Hungary, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Cyprus, Poland, 
Portugal, Ireland, Slovenia, Latvia, and Malta.  This left Italy, 
Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Denmark 
 
BRUSSELS 00000566  002 OF 003 
 
 
as all-important swing countries in the weighted vote, with each 
member allotted votes based on population.  When no qualified 
majority for or against a Commission proposal is reached, the 
proposal is referred to the Council of Ministers for a vote. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Van Kameke predicted no qualified majority would be 
reached in the standing committee votes in February, but expected 
qualified majority against the Commission proposal in the March 2 
Environment Council meeting, which would leave the bans in place. 
Van Kameke said he thought it was "bad strategy" on the part of the 
Commission to push to overturn the bans ahead of the EFSA meetings 
and said it could make things worse. 
 
BIPOLARITY 
---------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) On February 12, based on information obtained from a 
leaked document, and ahead of the Standing Committee's February 16 
vote, French daily Le Figaro reported the French food safety agency 
AFSSA (Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Aliments) did not 
see any health risks with MON810.  Sensing the leak was meant to 
compromise France ahead of the meeting, GoF Environment Minister 
Jean-Francois Borloo immediately retorted that the ban was not 
imposed due to any threat on human or animal health, but because the 
maize could create wider environmental problems, such as 
contamination of other crops. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health met 
February 16 to vote on the Commission's proposal to force France and 
Greece to lift the bans on MON810.  Nine countries (the UK, Sweden, 
Finland, Romania, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and 
Estonia) supported the Commission, while 16 opposed (Slovenia, 
Belgium, Ireland, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, and Poland) or abstained (Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Italy, Czech Republic, Germany, Malta).  With no qualified 
majority either way, the bans remain, and the Commission will refer 
the bans to the Agriculture Council meeting May 25. 
 
COMMISSION SUPPORT DROPS . . . 
------------------------------ 
 
¶10. (SBU) At the February 25 meeting of the Regulatory Committee, no 
qualified majority was reached for or against Commission proposals 
to approve two additional GMO maize varieties for cultivation-Bt11 
from Syngenta and Herculex from Pioneer.  Only six members supported 
the Commission (UK, Spain, Estonia, Romania, Finland, and Sweden), 
while 12 opposed (Denmark, Slovenia, Ireland, Greece, France, 
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, and Poland) 
and Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, 
Portugal, and the Netherlands abstained.  Germany and Malta were not 
present. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Embassy Berlin AgOff reported that for the February votes, 
the German interagency was not able to reach a whole of government 
position, with the Agriculture and Environment ministries against 
the EC position and Research and Health ministries supporting; 
unable to vote and unwilling to abstain, the German rep left the 
room. (REF A)  (Note: Procedurally, the German and Maltese votes 
count as abstentions. End note.) Embassy Prague reported that, under 
an agreement with the Green Party, the Czech government would not 
tell other countries what to do in regard to cultivation in return 
for an agreement by the Environment ministry, run by the Greens, to 
not limit the Czech cultivation of GM corn, an arrangement the 
pro-biotech Ag Ministry tried to fight.  For the February 25 vote, 
the Ag Ministry lost; hence the government's abstention. (REF B) 
 
. . . AND DROPS 
--------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) On March 2, the Environment Council voted against the 
Commission proposals to lift the Austrian and Hungarian safeguards 
on MON810 by a comfortable qualified majority.  Only Estonia, 
Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, and Sweden supported the 
Commission.  In its report to the Commission, the Council justified 
its decision principally on the grounds that MON810 had not yet had 
its authorization renewed and reiterated member states' rights to 
restrict the use and/or sale of a GMO if the member state is not 
satisfied the GMO will have no effect on human health or the 
environment. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Finally, at its March 11-12 plenary, EFSA deferred a 
decision on the MON810 renewal and requested "additional 
information" from Monsanto "in order to complete the evaluation". 
EFSA working groups are currently reviewing an updated dossier 
submitted by Monsanto, but have not set a new date for the 
decision. 
 
BRUSSELS 00000566  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶14.  (SBU) With Agriculture Council votes in May on Commission 
proposals to lift the French and Greek bans on MON810, the anti-GMO 
bloc can count on at least six solid members, led by France and 
Germany, to oppose the Commission.  As the June European 
Parliamentary elections draw near, and with this Commission's 
mandate ready to expire this fall, it is difficult to see a way 
forward for MON810 in the near future.  It will be imperative, 
therefore, to find new and more creative ways to work with a new 
Parliament and a new Commission to encourage fact-based policy 
making and to gain not only a renewal of the MON810 authorization 
and a lifting of member state bans, but approval of additional 
products in the GMO pipeline.  More important will be direct 
engagement with member states in order to forestall additional bans, 
to encourage national trials and cultivation, and to work with 
farmers, consumers, and NGOs to portray and demonstrate the 
economic, development, and nutritional benefits of GMO products lest 
the clock, and progress achieved, on GMO be rolled back. 
 
MURRAY