VZCZCXRO5517
RR RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHNEH RUEHPW
DE RUEHCG #0226 1940421
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 130421Z JUL 09
FM AMCONSUL CHENNAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2378
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 3770
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0060
RUEHFT/AMCONSUL FRANKFURT 0364

UNCLAS CHENNAI 000226 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON SENV PGOV EINV IN GM
SUBJECT: GREENPEACE DISRUPTS BIOTECH RICE TRIALS IN ANDHRA PRADESH 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: Activists from the environmental group Greenpeace 
on June 22 raided a field in Andhra Pradesh's Medak district (45 km 
north of Hyderabad) to protest against crop trials involving biotech 
rice conducted by Bayer CropScience (headquartered in Germany). The 
activists scaled the fence surrounding the field and displayed 
posters and other paraphernalia criticizing biotech products, 
intending to draw press and public attention to the trials.  A local 
Bayer representative told us that the company had received all 
necessary permissions for the trials, but local government officials 
told us that they were unaware of them.  It appears that Bayer 
received approval at the national level, but that there is no 
mechanism in place to transfer awareness of such approvals to the 
state level.  End Summary. 
 
Greenpeace raids biotech crop trials 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Greenpeace activists on June 22 raided a field in 
Chinnakanjarla village (Andhra Pradesh) owned by Bayer Cropscience, 
scaling the wall surrounding the field and displaying posters and 
other paraphernalia condemning biotech products and suggested the 
alleged dangers they bring.  A local Greenpeace official told us 
that the event was "an effort to raise awareness among the local 
farming community on the dangers posed by agricultural biotech 
companies."  He also said that trials of biotech products could 
"shut Indian rice out of the international market."  Bayer 
Cropscience's private security guards escorted the activists off the 
premises and the company filed a formal trespass complaint at the 
local police station. 
 
Bayer says it did nothing wrong 
------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) A top Bayer CropScience official told us that the company 
had received the necessary clearance for the trial of biotech rice 
at the site from the Government of India's Genetic Engineering 
Approval Committee (GEAC).  He added that the company had taken 
steps (like building the wall around the site) to ensure that the 
trial would not contaminate other crops in the area.  Another Bayer 
official speculated that Greenpeace was perturbed by the company's 
outreach efforts to local farmers.  He explained that Bayer had 
brought several groups of farmers on educational tours of the site, 
and that Greenpeace activists believed that such tours were a form 
of manipulation intended to create a more favorable political/social 
climate for the introduction of biotech crops. 
 
Andhra Pradesh government caught unaware 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) One of the more curious twists to this episode is that 
local officials were caught completely off-guard, unaware that 
Bayer's trial was taking place.  Dr. Raghava Reddy, a member of 
Andhra Pradesh's Biotechnology Coordination Committee (and Vice 
Chancellor of Hyderabad's Ranga Agricultural University) told us 
that GEAC had not informed his committee about Bayer's trials.  Our 
contacts within the state's Agriculture Department were similarly 
unaware, and told us that they -- prompted by press reports of the 
Greenpeace raid -- were checking with national authorities to 
determine whether or not Bayer had actually received GEAC approval. 
He added that his department was "drafting a report" on the 
situation, presumably in an effort to examine why local officials 
were unaware of Bayer's trial. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) We have no reason to doubt Bayer's claims that it received 
all appropriate approvals from GEAC.  We find it somewhat surprising 
that a company of Bayer's international reputation apparently did 
not think it advantageous to communicate its plans to local 
authorities.  Environmental activists have staged protests against 
biotech products -- and the companies researching them -- before, 
and we would have thought that Bayer would have been sensitive to 
potential security issues, requiring the cooperation of local 
government.  It is also instructive, but perhaps less surprising, 
that the GEAC appears to have no mechanism in place for notifying 
state or local governments about crop trials it has approved.  End 
Comment. 
 
SIMKIN