VZCZCXRO6825
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0074/01 0131326
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 131326Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0872
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 2031
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 7496
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 9852
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 1562

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 000074 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/ABT - JBOBO, JFINN, GCLEMENTS, AND MSZYMANKSI 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB/EPORTER AND ARUDE 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA TMACLAUGHLIN 
USDA FAS FOR OCBD KSKUPNIK 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD KPAO PREL SENV SF TBIO
SUBJECT:  READOUT OF SOUTH AFRICAN BIOTECHNOLOGY OUTREACH EVENTS 
 
REF: A) STATE 160639 B) PRET 000004 
 
¶1. SUMMARY From October 2 - 6, Paul Green, an agricultural economist 
consultant based in Washington, D.C., visited South Africa on behalf 
of the International Grain Trade Coalition to discuss with the South 
African food and feed industries ways to encourage a broader view of 
sustainable food systems and the ramifications of low level presence 
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in relation to trade. 
 
 
¶2. Green's trip included a press event and meetings in Cape Town. 
He also was the keynote speaker, and expert panelist, at a workshop 
on adventitious presence (AP), hosted by AfricaBio, in Pretoria on 
October 5. 
 
¶3.  Mr. Green is well known and respected in the South African 
biotechnology sector.  He is held in high esteem among the public 
and private sector and his advice and experience were very well 
received.  Overall, this trip addressed the informational needs of 
the different parties; however, more outreach and interaction are 
needed as the labeling and AP debate deepens and presents new 
challenges and questions. 
 
Cape Town 
--------- 
¶4. On October 2, 2009, AfricaBio, a biotechnology stakeholder's 
organization held a press conference on food security with 
presentations by Mr. Paul Green and Prof. Jocelyn Webster, executive 
director of AfricaBio. 
 
¶5. During the press conference, Mr. Green noted that to encourage a 
broader view of sustainable food systems, there needs to be 
unfettered global markets and regulatory coordination to assure 
access to global supplies of grains and oilseeds.   He also 
challenged media, farmers, traders, food-marketers, regulators, and 
activists to re-define 'food security and sustainability' to include 
increases in technology from production and through processing, 
packaging and marketing.   Current definitions focus more on 
assuring adequate food supplies through the adoption of 
agricultural-related methods that maintain soil, water, and air 
quality for future generations. 
 
¶6. The adoption of new production technologies, such as GMOs, and 
accepting the import of such products, should be included in 
strategies aimed at increasing food security and sustainability. 
However, those same technologies face hurdles from active opposition 
to well-meaning, but unintentional barriers to trade in products of 
modern biotechnology or genetically modified. 
 
¶7. Mr. Green pointed to the example of dozens of individual events 
(specific traits) of modern biotechnology in production worldwide 
and the number of events and area under cultivation is growing 
dramatically every year.  However, many regulatory systems are 
behind in the risk assessments for food and environmental safety 
that will permit them to import grains and oilseeds without concern 
for their use as food or feed.  He noted that simultaneous approvals 
in all markets for all GM events is not feasible and that the 
'Asynchronous Approval' issue poses a threat to food supply chains 
since exporters from South Africa or any other country will not be 
willing to make sales into a country where acceptance is not 
assured. 
 
¶8. He encouraged the SAG to adopt the Codex Alimentarius methodology 
for managing the presence of such events that have been through a 
thorough food safety risk assessment process in at least one 
Qthorough food safety risk assessment process in at least one 
country. He stated that the Low Level Presence (LLP) process 
provides a basic toolbox for countries to formulate policies that 
prevent avoidable trade disruptions, while staying on a 
science-based risk-assessment and risk-management basis. 
 
¶9. He concluded by stating that the International Grain Trade 
Coalition (IGTC) advises governments and encourages exporters and 
importers from throughout the world to address the inherent 
asynchronous approvals through pro-trade regulatory processes such 
as the LLP framework.  He noted that these are the policies that 
will permit global consumers to obtain Food Security and 
Sustainability in an affordable manner. 
 
Pretoria 
-------- 
 
¶10. At the beginning of 2009, the South African Bureau of Standards 
(SABS) set up a working committee to look into developing South 
African National Standards for the "Requirements for receiving, 
 
PRETORIA 00000074  002 OF 003 
 
 
handling, transportation and storage of living modified organisms 
(LMO) not approved for general release". 
 
¶11. It was suggested at a recent committee meeting that this 
standard has a direct bearing on GMO commodity imports in RSA.  If 
the standard were adopted in its current draft form, the National 
Chamber of Milling and other stakeholders would be negatively 
affected.  Previous comments by the milling and grain industries on 
the SABS standard were uncoordinated and did not effectively 
influence SABS and the GSA to implement realistic and practical 
conditions. 
 
¶12. To address this, AfricaBio in collaboration with partners, 
hosted a one day adventitious presences workshop, where Paul Green, 
an international expert on the issue, addressed South African 
stakeholders, government regulators, and policy makers on the 
possible implications of national regulations impacting on grain 
trade globally. 
 
¶13. The purpose of this workshop was to provide South African 
agricultural biotech stakeholders with an overview of the procedures 
followed for approval, handling, distribution and trade of 
agricultural biotechnology products around the world. 
 
¶14. The one day workshop on "Adventitious Presence" took place at 
the St George Hotel, Pretoria, South Africa on Monday the 5th of 
October 2009.  The workshop was attended by 32 participants from 
Government departments, seed companies, grain trade organizations, 
Silo Association, public research institutions, agri-business 
chamber, South African Bureau of Standards, Animal and Feed 
Manufacturers Association, SA Chambers of Milling, and media. 
 
¶15. The agenda included an update on the global status of GM crops 
and benefits to developing farmers in South Africa by Dr. Dave 
Keetch, AfricaBio. Paul Green presented on the status of global food 
and feed supply chains, risk assessment of low level presence (LLP), 
impacts of regulatory policy decisions on global food and feed 
supply chains, and ensuring access and creating national enabling 
environments.  Mr. Braam Olivier, the Maize Procurement Manager at 
Tongaat Hulett Starch, gave a presentation on the importance of 
identity preservation in the grain industry in South Africa. He 
highlighted some of his concerns with the way grain separation is 
handled by the silos and the lack of proper directives and standards 
from the department of Agriculture on the procedures for handling 
and separating grains.  He also discussed his concerns about the 
various GMO testing facilities in the country and the fraudulent 
issuing of GM free certificates for export. 
 
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 
---------------------- 
 
¶16. Discussions by the participants highlighted the need for greater 
dialogue between the various government departments and the major 
stakeholders. It was pointed out that only the government could 
alter the legislation and on this point the respective government 
departments need to be vigorously lobbied by the major stakeholders 
to act in the interests of South Africa's trading importers and 
exporters. 
It was agreed that as more and more countries started growing GM 
crops and as the global area under cultivation increased, the 
chances of commingling increased. In the same way the non-GM niche 
market would continue to grow.  People and businesses that required 
Qmarket would continue to grow.  People and businesses that required 
non-GM products would have to pay a premium. 
 
¶17. It was felt that whatever policy or guidelines South Africa 
decided to adopt should be acceptable to other SADC states as there 
was an urgent need for harmonization of policy pertaining to GMOs 
within the SADC community.  In this regard South Africa should play 
a leadership role as the only African country that has had an 
extensive experience of GMOs. 
 
¶18. The audience felt that the recently approved SA Consumer 
Protection Bill that required the mandatory labeling of all GM 
products needed further discussion and this issue also had a bearing 
on the handling of Adventitious Presence.  Both subjects should 
reflect South Africa's overall stance on GMOs and the risk 
associated with their commingling with non-GM products. 
 
¶19. It was also pointed out that Codex Alimentarius had recently 
approved guidelines for the risk assessment of GMOs.  As a member of 
Codex Alimentarius, South Africa should adopt this as a guideline. 
 
¶20. While AfricaBio had participated in the debate on the Draft 
Consumer Protection Bill, more industry members now need to become 
 
PRETORIA 00000074  003 OF 003 
 
 
active and involved. It was suggested that AfricaBio could assist 
future efforts by undertaking a project to estimate the expense as 
well as the political and trade ramifications of labeling all or a 
prescribed list of GM products compared to only labeling products 
that did not contain GM products. It was suggested that AfricaBio 
might approach NACI for financial support to undertake such a 
study. 
 
¶21. COMMENT: EB-funded programs such as this provide an invaluable 
contribution to the GMO debate.  These workshops and conferences are 
well attended by all sectors of the biotech industry and give the 
parties the opportunity to engage in lively and informative debates. 
 Other organizations that support the development of a progressive 
biotech sector in South Africa have significantly reduced funding of 
similar activities leading to a paucity of new and timely 
information on important subjects related to GMOs.  Even though 
South Africa is considered a leader in biotechnology on the African 
continent, recent issues with labeling and liability need to be 
resolved in order for them to maintain that status.  These EB funded 
activities provide the information and expertise needed to address 
these concerns. END COMMENT. 
GIPS