VZCZCXRO5295
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHTC #0387/01 1831601
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021601Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2969
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
INFO RUEHAT/AMCONSUL AMSTERDAM 4233
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 000387 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT - JBOBO 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA - JKESSLER 
STATE PASS TO USTR FOR A/USTR JAMES MURPHY, MCLARKSON 
 
USDA FOR FAS - LJONES, JKOWALSKI, MDWYER 
USDOC FOR 4212/USFCS/MAC/EURA/OWE - DCALVERT 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EAGR ETRD PREL NL
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/BIOTECH: DUTCH PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS IN GMO CULTIVATION APPLICATIONS 
 
Ref: BRUSSELS 860 
 
THE HAGUE 00000387  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶1. (U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified; please handle 
accordingly. 
 
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY:  On June 22 and 23, Embassy officers met with 
representatives of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and 
Food Quality and the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial 
Planning to discuss the Dutch proposal to formally consider 
socio-economic factors when reviewing applications for the 
cultivation (not/not importation) of genetically modified 
organisms(GMOs).  This proposal would not change the EU's current 
application process; rather, it would add a step at the end -- after 
a cultivation application had been approved at the EU level -- 
whereby individual Member States (MS) could evaluate socio-economic 
factors and decide whether to approve the product for cultivation in 
that country.  The Dutch assert that this additional step would 
enable the EU approval process to remain focused on scientific 
criteria and risk analysis, while giving MS an opportunity to 
consider socio-economic criteria separately; ideally, this would 
result in a more transparent discussion and allow the EU to achieve 
a qualified majority for approvals.  While Post has some concerns 
about the viability of this proposal, it could be in USG interests 
to give it our qualified support, since some of the alternatives 
floated (such as renegotiating the SPS Agreement) would definitely 
work to our disadvantage.  End summary. 
 
---------- 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) In 2008, the French EU Presidency instituted a process of 
formal consultation with civil society on key environmental issues, 
mainly GMOs and nuclear power.  The French Presidency asked MS to 
prepare lists of the socio-economic factors they considered relevant 
to GMO applications by January 2010, with the goal of creating a 
consolidated EU list by summer 2010. (Note:  The Dutch doubt that 
the process will be completed by this time.  End note.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) When the French Presidency presented its proposal to the 
European Commission, the Dutch volunteered to take the lead on 
compiling the master list of socio-economic factors.  According to 
the Dutch, they did so because they are well aware that the EU's GMO 
approval process, which is supposed to consider only scientific data 
and risk factors, has been sidetracked by MS who have no other 
recourse for considering socio-economic factors.  The Dutch consider 
compliance with EU legislation essential to the success of the EU; 
ignoring or abusing EU processes weakens the union.  The Dutch 
believe that they have an impartial perspective that can help 
resolve the divide between individual MS and the EU's often 
differing positions on GMOs. 
 
¶5. (U) The GMO approval process involves several steps.  The first 
is the application for approval of the GMO, either for the 
importation of the product for food/feed use, or for its cultivation 
within the EU.  Next, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
evaluates whether the GMO is safe for the environment and human 
health.  Once EFSA submits its report, the European Science 
Committee votes; approval or rejection requires a qualified 
majority.  If there is no qualified majority, then the decision 
devolves to the European Council.  If the European Council cannot 
Qdevolves to the European Council.  If the European Council cannot 
obtain a qualified majority, then the issue moves to the European 
Commission (EC) for a final decision. 
 
¶6. (U) The reality of the process is that there is never a qualified 
majority for or against approving a GMO cultivation application; as 
a result, the decision devolves to the EC, which consistently votes 
in favor of approval (32 approvals so far for GMOs for feed/food, 1 
for cultivation).  To get around the EC's decision, many MS which 
oppose the cultivation of GMOs obfuscate the problem by challenging 
the EC decision using environmental arguments that mask the MS' 
underlying socio-economic concerns. 
 
------------------ 
THE DUTCH PROPOSAL 
------------------ 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Dutch cabinet is generally supportive of GMO 
applications; it fully supports a science-based review of GMO 
applications and MS adherence to EU regulations and decisions.  The 
 
THE HAGUE 00000387  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
Netherlands has voted "yes" on most GMO applications submitted in 
recent years.  However, the Dutch public and some factions in 
parliament remain unsupportive of GMOs, particularly their 
cultivation.  For example, the Christian Union party, one of the 
three parties in the current coalition government, opposes GMOs on 
the religious grounds that science should not attempt to alter 
genetics. 
 
¶8. (SBU) In an effort to bridge the divide between the cabinet and 
public/parliamentary opinion, and to address the broken EU approval 
process, the Dutch developed a proposal with respect to GMO 
cultivation applications.  The proposal does not concern 
applications for the import of genetically modified (GM) food or 
feed and thus would not directly impact U.S. food and agricultural 
exports.  Its main purpose it to enable MS to formally consider 
socio-economic factors when reviewing cultivation applications.  The 
proposal would not change the EU's current application process; 
rather, it would add a step at the end -- after a cultivation 
application had been approved at the EU level -- whereby individual 
MS could evaluate socio-economic factors and decide whether to 
approve the product for cultivation in that country.  The Dutch 
argue that MS are already using socio-economic criteria to evaluate 
cultivation applications, resulting in continued deadlock, refusals 
to accept EC rulings, and, most importantly, the undermining of the 
EU's authority.  Their proposal would enable the EU approval process 
to remain focused on scientific criteria and risk analysis, while 
giving MS an opportunity to consider socio-economic criteria 
separately; ideally, this would result in a more transparent 
discussion and allow the EU to achieve a qualified majority for 
approvals. 
 
¶9. (U) EU regulations dictate that the discussions in the Science 
Committee and the European Council should consider scientific and 
risk factors only.  However, socio-economic factors such as 
maintaining small farms, providing for farmer returns, and 
addressing consumer concerns about GMOs are important to many MS, 
and the present system does not provide for consideration of those 
factors.  By providing MS the opportunity to weigh the 
socio-economic costs and benefits at the end of the process - after 
the scientific review is complete - the Dutch hope that the Science 
Committee and European Council discussions will be more transparent 
and focused on health and environmental risk assessments, thus 
speeding the process. 
 
------------------- 
THE JUNE 9 WORKSHOP 
------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) The Dutch organized a workshop in The Hague on June 9 for 
Dutch stakeholders in the GMO debate, including government, 
industry, NGOs, and academia.  According to our Dutch interlocutors, 
the idea for the workshop grew out of earlier discussions between 
the Dutch cabinet and parliament on the role of socio-economic 
factors in the GMO approval process.  The Dutch ministries of 
agriculture and environment took the lead in organizing the event, 
but only after close coordination with the Prime Minister's office 
and others in the cabinet.  Its purpose was to develop stakeholder 
consensus on what socio-economic, environmental, and health criteria 
Qconsensus on what socio-economic, environmental, and health criteria 
should be considered in reviewing cultivation applications. 
 
¶11. (U) Our interlocutors reported "mixed reactions" to the 
workshop.  Many parties reacted favorably, and the conference did 
raise local awareness of the issue.  Some expressed concern, 
however, that the Minister of Agriculture Gerda Verburg might use 
the workshop to claim she had consulted fully with all parties and 
not seek further input.  One afternoon was not enough time to allow 
parties to express their views and develop stakeholder consensus. 
The first half of the event consisted of a series of speeches by 
government officials.  The second half consisted of working groups 
to consider 4 case studies.  One contact said the size of the 
working groups was too large, and the groups never really considered 
the socio-economic factors.  However, the ministries learned some 
lessons about improving the process which they hope to apply to the 
Netherlands' next planned conference on November 25-26 (see below). 
 
¶12. (U) Interlocutors also noted that this workshop was not the 
Netherlands' first attempt to define the socio-economic factors that 
should be associated with GMO applications.  In September 2008, the 
GONL hosted a conference on GMOs and sustainability.  The GONL also 
charged the EU's Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM) to draft 
 
THE HAGUE 00000387  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
socio-economic indicators to be used in assessing GMO applications. 
A first draft of those indicators has been prepared, but much work 
remains. 
 
----------------------------- 
THE NOVEMBER 25-26 CONFERENCE 
----------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) The next major step will be an international conference 
hosted by the Dutch government at the World Forum in The Hague on 
November 25-26, 2009.  (Meanwhile, the government will continue 
consulting with stakeholders on its proposal and their views on 
which socio-economic factors are important, taking into account 
lessons learned from the June 9 workshop.)  At the November 
conference, the Dutch hope to inspire other MS to develop an EU 
consensus on socio-economic criteria for the January 2010 deadline 
set by the French Presidency.  (According to one contact, MS have 
expressed a lot of interest in developing a master list of 
socio-economic criteria, but precious little work has actually been 
done.)  The Dutch expect 300-400 participants from the EU and other 
countries to attend.  Invitees will include experts from a broad 
spectrum of stakeholder groups.  For example, the Dutch will invite 
experts on GMOs from China and Latin America to talk about their 
experiences with GMO cultivation.  AgCouns offered that USDA has a 
large cadre of specialists in all areas of GM technology and 
application, and that USDA would likely be willing to share 
expertise and experience if the Dutch wished.  AgCouns asked for an 
invitation for the U.S., which the Dutch said they would gladly 
provide. 
 
---------------- 
A HIDDEN AGENDA? 
---------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) At Post's July 4 reception, Frans Claasen, Director of the 
Margarine, Fats, and Oils Product Board, discussed the Dutch 
proposal with AgCouns.  Claasen said the proposal is only part of 
the plan by Minister of Agriculture Verburg to reform the EU's GMO 
approval process.  He said that Verburg is strongly in favor of 
GMOs, and she is tired of the current roadblocks in the approval 
process.  Verburg hopes to amend the process so that imported GMOs 
for food/feed may be used immediately once EFSA has declared them 
safe, thus eliminating the political process of Science Committee 
and Council votes.  Her plan is to first gain MS support for the 
Dutch proposal to allow MS to consider socio-economic factors in 
cultivation applications.  According to Claasen, once enough MS are 
on board, Verburg will propose that imported food/feed GMOs be 
granted immediate entry into the EU once EFSA has approved them. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
 
¶15. (SBU) The Dutch are concerned about the ongoing problems with 
the GMO approval process for several reasons.  They see MS attempts 
to manipulate or disrupt the process as a threat to the unity and 
success of the EU.  Anti-GMO MS positions also grate against the 
pragmatic, consensus-oriented Dutch character.  Moreover, continued 
uncertainty regarding GMOs is a barrier to international trade -- an 
anathema to the anti-protectionist, trade-dependent, open Dutch 
economy.  It also limits access to low-cost feeds for the 
Netherlands' important livestock sector. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Post sees two problems with the Dutch proposal.  One, it 
essentially legitimizes the present dysfunctional reality.  Instead 
Qessentially legitimizes the present dysfunctional reality.  Instead 
of prodding MS to abide by EU legislation, it would change the 
legislation so that it conforms to MS behavior.  Two, the Dutch 
proposal, if enacted, would create a legal means for opponents of 
GMOs to thwart the will of the EU as a whole.  Considering the 
success that anti-GMO forces are having with the present practice, 
we see only more mischief ahead by giving them yet another tool to 
block GMOs.  (One of our Dutch interlocutors admitted as much, but 
said one must make a start.) 
 
¶17. (SBU) Despite these concerns, the fact remains that MS are 
blocking GMO cultivation for socio-economic reasons regardless of 
U.S. or other pressure and even EU legislation.  The Dutch proposal 
could be a way to separate those MS that want to cultivate GMO crops 
from those that do not, thus creating at least some opportunities 
 
THE HAGUE 00000387  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
for cultivation within the EU.  Further, it would create a separate 
process by which MS could evaluate socio-economic, environmental, 
and health factors -- all of which most MS insist upon considering 
-- rather than the current distorted process in which MS bring these 
non-scientific criteria into the Scientific Committee and the 
European Council votes. 
 
¶18. (SBU) The USG might benefit from offering our guarded support to 
the Dutch.  Given that MS are already using socio-economic criteria 
in the approval process, we gain little by disavowing the Dutch 
proposal.  On the contrary, by staying at the table, we maintain 
some amount of leverage to protect our interests.  End comment. 
 
GALLAGHER