Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 64621 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 10PRETORIA75, PRETORIA'S PROPOSAL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY FUNDS

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10PRETORIA75.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
10PRETORIA75 2010-01-13 13:26 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Pretoria
VZCZCXRO6828
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0075/01 0131326
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 131326Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0875
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 2034
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 7499
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 9855
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 1565
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 000075 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/MTAA/ABT - MSZYMANSKI, JBOBO 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB - ARUDE, EPORTER, MCHESLEY 
USDA FAS FOR OCBD - KSKUPNIK, DEVANS 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA - TMACLAUGHLIN, JROTHSCHILD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD KPAO PREL SENV SF TBIO
SUBJECT:  PRETORIA'S PROPOSAL FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY FUNDS 
 
REF: A) STATE 122732 
 
1. Summary: Embassy Pretoria's proposal for the FY 2010 
Biotechnology Outreach Strategy Fund requests funding to bring two 
experts in the subject matter to South Africa to meet with 
regulators, academia, consumers, and legislators on currently 
relevant topics such as regulation of stacked genes, low level 
presence and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on 
foods, and liability and redress.  This proposal was developed among 
EST/Econ, PAS, and USDA/FAS.  Additionally, we considered SAG and 
NGO representatives' input to establish this proposal. 
 
2. While the topics of these outreach events are the same as in 
previous years, continued exposure at a deeper level will build on 
knowledge gained in previous activities and will allow the audience 
to gain a deeper understanding of the issues and solutions. End 
Summary. 
 
3. Over the past 5 years, using funding from State/EB and USDA, 
FAS/Pretoria developed relationships with key partners in Southern 
Africa, the United States, and international organizations to 
address regulatory and public acceptance issues pertaining to 
biotechnology.   As these relationships developed, trust and respect 
also grew between the USG and the biotech industry, public and 
private.  To continue to build on these relationships, we are 
requesting funding again this year to bring U.S. experts to engage 
the local industry and stakeholders in discussions on labeling of 
GMOs, liability and redress, stacked genes, and regional 
harmonization. 
 
Activity 
--------- 
4. Two U.S. experts will travel to South Africa for two weeks to 
conduct meetings and workshops in different cities with legislators, 
academia, consumers, and regulators to discuss relevant topics of 
labeling of GMOs, liability and redress, management of stacked genes 
and regional harmonization. 
 
5.  The U.S. experts would travel to Cape Town, the seat of 
Parliament, for 5 days to meet with different Parliamentary 
Portfolio committees.  These committees are the key players in 
passing laws and regulations relating to biotechnology.  However, 
many committee members are not educated about biotechnology and 
often make decisions based on erroneous information. 
 
6. Post proposes to hold special meetings for media contacts 
specifically associated with the agricultural and biotechnology 
sectors to discuss biotechnology regulations and developments in the 
United States.  Additionally, PAS will arrange press opportunities 
for the visiting expert to engage journalists that cover 
agriculture, agribusiness and ag biotechnology issues.  These could 
include roundtables with print media, one-on-one interviews, radio 
call-in programs, etc. 
 
7. Additional opportunities for these experts will be arranged to 
address biotech stakeholders include business breakfasts and 
workshops in Pretoria, as well as meetings with the GMO Executive 
Council and Advisory committees and relevant government agencies. 
 
 
8. Length of Program:   Two weeks  (5 days in Pretoria and 5 days in 
Cape Town, plus one weekend in between the two segments) 
 
Cost for 2 experts: 
TOTAL:        $22,500.00 
 
Airfare (US - Johannesburg - Cape Town - US):$8,000.00 
Hotel and Per Diem (14 days):     $8,500.00 
Meeting Rooms:       $4,000.00 
Miscellaneous (materials, invitations, etc) $2,000.00 
QMiscellaneous (materials, invitations, etc) $2,000.00 
 
Background 
---------- 
9.  Misinformation and misperceptions about biotechnology threaten 
the acceptance of U.S. agricultural and food products derived from 
biotechnology in Southern Africa and threaten U.S. producers' access 
to international markets.  It is expected U.S. exports to these 
markets will continue to increase in 2009 and beyond as consumer 
demand increases and these countries begin to diversify their 
suppliers to include the United States.  USDA cooperators' interest 
in conducting activities in these markets is also on the rise, 
leading to increased interest in the United States as a supplier. 
 
 
 
PRETORIA 00000075  002 OF 002 
 
 
10.  Several key countries in Sub-Saharan Africa passed biosafety 
legislation in the past year, or are in the process of formulating 
their policies and have requested help from USDA.  These include 
South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Mauritius. All have 
drafted biosafety policies and are currently working on 
implementation procedures. They are very pro-biotech, but admittedly 
lack the necessary understanding of many aspects of biotech and 
genetic engineering.  There is a significant need for training on 
implementation procedures, characteristics of efficient regulatory 
frameworks, producer and consumer awareness strategies, et al. 
 
11.  The lack of basic understanding of agricultural biotechnology 
among consumers, members of the media and political decision-makers 
is a critical impediment to a rational, pragmatic acceptance of the 
technology.  The African public remains easily persuaded by 
misinformation regarding the basic risks, benefits and regulatory 
approaches to best evaluate the benefits of adopting agricultural 
biotechnology.  Biosafety committees in the region remain inactive 
or unsure where to focus their attention due to a lack of 
understanding of the benefits of biotechnology.  Due to this lack of 
activity, science-based information in the regulatory 
decision-making process is minimal and opponents of biotechnology 
are the most vocal input, which could be reflected in new 
regulations concerning GMOs. 
 
12.  One of the most significant new regulations is a South African 
consumer protection law that includes mandatory labeling of all food 
products containing GMOs. Introduced by the Department of Trade and 
Industry, without consultation with the GMO Act competent 
authorities (Departments of Health and Agriculture), this law 
requires mandatory labeling of GMOs for all domestic and imported 
food products. 
 
13.  The bill includes a significant change to product liability, 
where a consumer no longer has to demonstrate that a producer was 
negligent before receiving compensation for injury.  The new 
legislation puts the burden of proof on the producer or supplier, 
meaning that a consumer can sue almost any producer or supplier for 
harm or injury that is the result of a failed, defective, or unsafe 
product.  Almost every supplier must comply with the bill, even if 
the supplier does not reside in South Africa.  Foreign producers who 
sell products through a South African agent for use in South Africa 
would be included under the bill. 
 
14. These regulations will have a significant impact not only on 
regional trade, but also on U.S. exports to South Africa, since all 
products will have to be labeled and producers/suppliers could be 
held liable for any purported harm their product may have caused. 
 
15. Currently, South Africa does not allow the import of U.S. maize 
due to asynchronous approval of biotechnology events (i.e. the 
United States has approved events that are not approved in South 
Africa).  If events approved in the United States were also approved 
in South Africa, there would be a greater opportunity for trade. 
The precedence this sets is significant as new events begin to 
appear in different crops, such as wheat - the United State's top 
export to the region - increasing the likelihood of an embargo on 
Qexport to the region - increasing the likelihood of an embargo on 
U.S. wheat until the time the event has been approved in the 
region. 
 
16. Zero tolerance for adventitious presence is another issue under 
discussion in these countries (South Africa, Madagascar, Mauritius, 
and Mozambique) as is the management of stacked genes. 
 
17. South Africa is seen as a leader in the biotechnology front in 
Africa, and many neighboring countries look to South Africa, for 
guidance and direction.  South Africa is an ally of the United 
States in that they have a progressive biosafety policy in place, 
based on sound science and backed by an informed, forward-thinking 
GMO Council and Advisory Committee.  However, uneducated parties can 
introduce legislation that will affect the administration of the 
current GMO biosafety legislation, such as the consumer protection 
law. Other countries that look to South Africa for guidance might 
adopt similar legislations that would affect trade. 
GIPS