VZCZCXRO4265
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHBS #1394/01 2891526
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161526Z OCT 09 ZDK
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001394 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA FOR KESSLER, EWILLIAMS 
STATE PASS TO NSC KVIEN 
STATE PASS TO USTR JMURPHY, CWILSON, MCLARKSON, DWEINER 
AGRICULTURE PASS TO RMACKE/FAS/USDA, MCHEESLEY/FAS/USDA, 
CMCKINNELL/FAS/USDA LJONES/FAS/USDA, SNENON/FAS/USDA 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EINV EFIN ETRD ELAB EAGR PGOV OPIC BE
SUBJECT: EPC GMO DEBATE : RISK OR OPPORTUNITY FOR EUROPE ? 
 
REF: STATE 86566 
 
BRUSSELS 00001394  001.4 OF 003 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: On October 15 in Brussels, the European Policy Center 
(EPC) hosted a lively debate on the role of genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs) in European agriculture.  Following largely pro-GMO 
remarks by European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural 
Development Mariann Fischer Boel, speakers from both camps opined on 
coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, science-based policy making 
in the context of politics, U.S. GMO influence and regulations, and 
Commission President Barroso's policy statement to the European 
Parliament. END SUMMARY 
 
---------- 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
¶2.  The theme of the October 15 policy dialogue was "Risk or 
Opportunity?  Has Europe Got the Balance Right on GMOs?"  Serving on 
the panel were Julien Mousnier, Member of the Fischer Boel Cabinet, 
Per Bergman, Head of the GMO Unit at the European Food Safety Agency 
(EFSA), Willy De Greef, Secretary General of EuropaBio (a 
pro-biotechnology think tank), Helen Holder, Senior Campaigner for 
Friends of the Earth and a prominent critic of GMOs in Europe, and 
Roberto Pagni, Head of the Sustainable Agriculture Unit in the 
Region of Tuscany.  EPC Chief Executive Hans Martens served as 
moderator. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
FISCHER BOEL: GMO PROCESS A "SLOW MOTION TENNIS MATCH" 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶3.  In her keynote address, Commissioner Fischer Boel focused 
largely on the issue of low level presence (LLP) of unapproved GMOs 
in U.S. soy exports to Europe, which has prevented sale and delivery 
of U.S. soy to European farmers (REFTEL).  She said asynchronous 
approvals of GMOs in the U.S. ahead of Europe represented "a clear 
and present financial threat" to EU farmers and expressed her 
interest in the introduction of a "technical zero" solution to allow 
the exports to move forward. 
 
¶4.  Fischer Boel also commented on the increasing politicization of 
the GMO issue in the face of "sound, science-based risk 
assessments."  She stressed that assessing risk "is the task of 
science, and science is the right foundation" for approval of GMOs. 
She said "the rules were black and white"-if a GMO is determined by 
EFSA to safe for human health, animal health, and the environment, 
"it will be authorized."  She likened the political process on 
allowing GMOs into Europe as a "slow motion tennis match" in which 
"the European farmer will be the loser." 
 
¶5.  On the issue of cultivation, she reached out to member states 
and, reiterating views on GMOs expressed by Commission President 
Barroso in his recent policy statement to Parliament, suggested an 
approach that accelerated the authorization and imports of GMOs into 
Europe while at the same time allowing member states to decide 
"whether or not to cultivate on their own territory."  She closed by 
advising Europeans to "be courageous and sensible" on the GMO issue 
and "let the voice of science speak, and act accordingly." 
 
------------------------------------------- 
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: PROMISE OF GMOS UNMET 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  Holder set forth a number of arguments against GMOs.  She said 
pesticide and herbicide use in GMO producing countries such as the 
U.S., Brazil, and Argentina had actually risen despite the claims of 
GMO producers that their use would result in a reduction in biocide 
application and that other promises of GMOs in terms of scope and 
utility had been mostly unmet.  Holder countered pro-GMO supporters 
who said Europe would be isolated by not allowing increased GMO 
imports and said "it is the U.S. that is isolated as they are 
producing a product that no one wants".  She added that even 
developing countries such as China, India, and South Africa had 
stricter controls over GMOs, particularly in the area of market 
export criteria, than in the U.S. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
EFSA: NEITHER PRO NOR ANTI GMOS; JUST PRO SCIENCE 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶7.  EFSA's role as the primary and neutral assessor of risks in the 
EU was underscored by Bergman, who said his agency looked at safety 
and risks first, but was not mandated to appraise benefits and 
opportunities.  He said it was clear that, even once approved by 
EFSA, GMOs had to be handled very carefully and that "careful 
 
BRUSSELS 00001394  002.10 OF 003 
 
 
stewardship" by EFSA, the Commission, and member states was 
important.  Bergman said EFSA scientists were aware of the 
divergence of attitudes towards GMOs within the EU, but said that 
policy is for the politicians; the science that advises that policy 
is sound. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
EUROPABIO: GMOS ARE A EUROPEAN INVENTION 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  De Greef stressed Europe's role as a pioneer in the GMO and 
biotech movement but said "we are quickly losing our advantage 
here".  He said that more than 50% of the GMOs that will be 
introduced in future will come from developing countries such as 
China, India, and South Africa, not from major American biotech 
companies.  Regarding safety, De Greef cited a Joint Research Centre 
(JRC) study presented to EFSA in September that examined GMO use in 
Spain and pointed out there had been no safety issues in the 10 
years GMO crops have been grown there.  He also predicted "enormous 
demand" for drought resistant GM crops now coming through the 
pipeline and seen by many as a way for countries, particularly in 
Africa, to adapt to climate change. 
 
-------------------------- 
TUSCANY: GMO FREE, SORT OF 
-------------------------- 
 
¶9.  Pagni briefed on Tuscany's regional approach to GMOs, which 
prohibited cultivation based on the precautionary principle and a 
determination that "growing GMOs is not consistent with our model, 
which favors small farms over mass production and quality derived 
from organic farming over anything that may be artificial".  But he 
acknowledged the import of GMOs in feed was permitted "as a 
pragmatic measure."  Pagni said he saw a need for more research on 
GMOs conducted by public institutions without funding by big 
business and suggested Italian farmers would trust those results. 
He closed and said the EU's Committee of Regions will host a 
conference on GMO-free foodstuffs February 3-4 in Brussels. 
 
---------------------------------- 
DISCUSSION: MUST KEEP AN OPEN MIND 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  For the Qs and As, the panel returned to the issue of LLPs on a 
question of moving controls and testing for LLPs to the source 
country. Holder disagreed and said Europe had to be responsible for 
testing.  Bergman noted that source testing "is already done to some 
extent" but there needed to be a stronger agreement on common 
protocols and sampling methods before it could be employed more 
widely. 
 
¶11.  Holder and De Greef had a testy exchange on drought-resistant 
GMOs.  Holder returned to her view that as only two traits and four 
crops represent the sum total of GMO activity at present, GMOs had 
yet to live up to their promise.  De Greef reiterated a GMO solution 
to climate change and said that a number of drought-tolerant crops 
were in the approval pipeline.  Holder responded that even 
Monsanto's application, now before EFSA, for its own 
drought-tolerant maize says Monsanto "is not even sure it's actually 
going to work" and suggested the application was "strategic ahead of 
Copenhagen," a fact that "has not escaped notice of a number of 
member states." 
 
¶12.  Mousnier emphasized the need to "keep an open mind on GMOs" as 
there were "interesting products down the road."  He suggested a 
ess, which usually works quite 
well, was "creating problems with GMOs. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
1Q.  While most presenters stuck to their long-established, and 
unsurprising, positions on GOs, what was quite striking, and 
potentially problematic, was the Commission's public embrace f the 
Barroso II approach to GMOs at least twQce in the session.  Should 
it go down this roQd, the Commission will likely find pressure Qo 
extend its proposed deference to member states on cultivation to 
ceding competence on impots, providing official backing for the 
currenurope has not got the balance right on GMOs. 
 
 
BRUSSELS 00001394  003.10 OF 003 
 
 
MURRAY