US embassy cable - 05PARIS645

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000645 
 
SIPDIS 
 
ROME FOR US FODAG AND US VATICAN 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR 
STATE FOR OES/ETC/LEE 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/ABT/SINGH; EUR/ERA; 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY, NOVELLI; 
USDA/OS/JOHANNS AND PENN; 
USDA/FAS FOR OA/TERPSTRA/ROBERTS; 
USDA/FAS FOR BIG/SIMMONS/RICHEY/PASSINO 
ITP/SHEIKH/MACKE/TOM POMEROY/DAVID YOUNG; 
FAA/SEBRANEK/BLEGGI; ICD/INT'L ORGANIZATION/LYNNE REICH; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE EST AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV, EAGR, ETRD, EAID, TBIO, FR 
SUBJECT: FRENCH GOVERNMENT POSITION ON HERVE GAYMARD 
STAYSBIOSAFETY PROTOCOL 
 
REF: (A) STATE 259661, (B) STATE 69525 
 
1.  Summary:  The focal point for France regarding the 
Biosafety Protocol is the Ministry of Ecology.  The 
Ministries of Agriculture and Economy are also involved in 
inter-ministerial discussions.  Article 18.2 of the Protocol 
is the main obstacle to implementation encountered by 
France, which has problems with the "may contain" biotech 
labeling language.  Also, there are currently inter- 
ministerial discussions and consultations with French 
industry regarding the type of documentation to accompany 
LMO shipments.  Exports of LMOs from France are covered by 
the European regulation 1946/2003 on biotech cross-border 
shipments.  Imports of LMOs into France fall under European 
regulations 1829/2003 and 1830/2003 (respectively Novel 
Food/Novel Feed, and Traceability & Labeling regulations), 
and under national measures on non-biotech labeling.  In 
addition, the GoF is working on national measures for 
biotech labeling in the Food Service sector.  End Summary. 
 
2.  Per Ref A, on January 20, 2005, ESTH and AGR officers 
met Berangere Basin (Ministry of Ecology), Christophe 
Lepretre and Veronique Laborde (Ministry of Agriculture, 
Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs), and Emmanuelle Miralles 
(Fraud Control Office, Ministry of Economy, Finance and 
Industry) to discuss the GoF position in Biosafety Protocol 
discussions. 
 
3.  The focal point for the French government in the 
Biosafety Protocol is the French Ministry of Ecology.  Basin 
attended the last workshop focusing on Article 18.2 hold in 
Bonn in November 2004, while Lepretre attended the Technical 
Expert Group meeting focusing on liability and redress, held 
in October 2004 in Montreal.  The three officials are 
expected to attend the second Meeting Of the Parties (MOP-2) 
in May/June 2005. 
 
4.  Basin indicated that the various Ministries involved in 
the discussions on the Biosafety Protocol are discussing 
approaches to Article 18.2.  As indicated in Ref B, this 
Article imposes labeling requirements on shipments that "may 
contain" LMOs for food and feed use.  Lepretre indicated 
that this is a major obstacle for France.  According to 
Basin, the various French ministries involved in the 
Biosafety Protocol are in the process of consultations with 
French industry on the type of documentation to accompany 
LMO shipments, and there is no clear French position yet. 
 
5.  On French exports, Basin explained that France has not 
undertaken separate national measures because cross-border 
movements of biotech products are covered by European 
regulation 1946/2003.  For imports of products into France, 
Basin said that the European regulation is stricter that 
that proposed by the MOP-1, with the EU regulations 
1829/2004 (Novel Food/Novel Feed or NF/NF) and 1830/2004 
(Traceability and Labeling, or T&L). 
 
6.  Miralles described the three categories of biotech 
labeling currently on the French market: (1) "containing 
GMOs" for products with more than 0.9 percent of GMOs (based 
on the European NF/NF and T&L regulations); (2) "no label" 
for products that come in under the threshold of 0.9 
percent, based on the T&L and NF/NF regulations; and (3) 
"non-GMO" for products without any GM content and products 
not derived from GMOs (this requires strict documentation.) 
This a French regulation, not an EU regulation. 
 
7.  Miralles continued that the Frauds Office of the 
Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry, as well as the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health are working 
on implementing measures for biotech labeling in the Food 
Service sector.  She said that the EU Commission's position 
with regard to biotech labeling for hotels, restaurants and 
institutions (HRI) is the following: if a meal is prepared 
by the institution, labeling is not required, but if a meal 
is not prepared in the institution, labeling is required. 
For example, bread served in a restaurant must be labeled if 
it is not prepared in the restaurant, but it doesn't have to 
be labeled if prepared offsite and served in the restaurant, 
in the hypothetical case of bread made from biotech wheat. 
Miralles said that French government authorities are working 
on improving the consistency of biotech labeling regulations 
in the Food Service sector. 
 
LEACH