US embassy cable - 03ANKARA4805

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 004805 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR WHITE 
DEPT FOR E, EB/TPP, AND EUR/SE 
USDA FOR FAS FOR ITP/SIMMONS, MEYER, RICHEY, FECITT 
USDA FOR APHIS TERRI DUNAHAY 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD, EAGR, TU 
SUBJECT: Turkey and Biotechnology 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified.  Not for Internet Distribution. 
 
 
1.   (SBU)  Summary: The development of biotechnology 
legislation has been identified as a priority by the new 
Turkish government. Regulations that parallel EU directives 
have been drafted, however no action has been taken to put 
them into place.  With the possible exception of the 
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, which the Turkish Parliament 
recently ratified, there are no biotech regulations that 
impact U.S. trade.  There is concern that a small number of 
influential officials are spreading misinformation about the 
safety of food and agricultural products developed using 
biotechnology that will ultimately have a negative effect on 
consumer perception and future legislation.  Local food and 
agricultural companies are concerned yet remain quiet. 
Annually, the United States exports approximately $250 
million of corn and soybean products for feed, up to $100 
million of corn and soybean oil and $200 million of cotton 
to Turkey.  End Summary. 
 
 
------------------------------- 
Current and Potential Legislation 
------------------------------- 
2.   (SBU) Biotechnology regulations in Turkey are limited 
to a 1998 directive on field trials, which have since been 
suspended (see Para 3).  While many industry observers 
expect the void of regulation to continue, bureaucrats 
insist that legislation will be published soon.  There are a 
few signs that regulations are inevitable.  First, Turkey 
ratified the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol on June 17, 2003. 
If Turkey chooses to implement the biosafety protocol, some 
type of regulatory framework will be needed. Sources also 
indicate that Turkey has until 2005 to harmonize its 
regulations with relevant EU directives in preparation for 
accession talks.  Finally, the Genetics Laboratory at the 
Ankara Provincial Control Laboratory of Molecular Biology 
has been newly staffed and equipped and is awaiting 
legislation to begin their work to test imports and domestic 
products for GMO content. 
 
 
--------------------------------- 
The brief regulatory history 
---------------------------------------- 
3.   (SBU) In Turkey, regulations pertaining to the use and 
importation of genetically modified organisms began when the 
"Directive on the Principles of Field Trials of Genetically 
Modified Organisms" issued by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Affairs (MARA), entered into force in May 1998. 
Note: This directive did not apply to, or otherwise affect 
feed and food trade.  End Note.  After this date, several 
field experiments with GMO crops were carried out in 
different agronomic research institutes in the country. 
Specific crops tested were corn, cotton and potatoes.  In 
June 1999, the Ministry of Environment, through a circular, 
warned all prefectures regarding the unauthorised planting 
and use of genetically modified plants. 
 
 
4.   (SBU) Subsequently, an interagency commission on 
"biotechnology and biosafety" which was established in the 
framework of the Eighth Five-year Development Plan of the 
State Planning Organisation issued a report stating that the 
importation and experimental planting of genetically 
modified seeds, authorised by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Affairs, was hazardous, considering that Turkey 
lacks regulation in the field, and qualified personnel to 
ensure the controls. The commission requested that the 
experiments be discontinued immediately, and that no other 
authorisation be issued until the completion of legislation 
and mechanisms of control. 
 
 
5.   (SBU) As a result, there has been no additional field 
testing of biotech crops in Turkey.  While results of the 
initial tests have been analysed by the Directorate of 
Research and Development of MARA, the results - to the 
frustration of industry participants and the scientific 
community - have not been made public.  Again, the 
suspension of this directive had no impact on trade. 
Despite the potential benefits of producing BT corn and 
cotton in Turkey, it is unlikely to occur in the near 
future.  Monsanto, a large biotech seed developer, has 
abandoned plans to introduce biotech seeds in Turkey, and is 
instead producing and exporting conventional corn seeds 
which it markets to the EU. 
 
 
------------------------------------- 
A near ban and lessons learned 
------------------------------------- 
6.   (SBU) In July of 2000 MARA began developing regulations 
which would prohibit imports of all food and feed products 
not accompanied by `GMO-free' certificates.  While 
originally intending the ban to be immediate while 
legislation was developed, it was later announced to go into 
effect on January 1, 2001.  In the end, pressure from 
industry groups - primarily the poultry industry and feed 
millers association - convinced the GOT to suspend 
implementation altogether.  The significance of these events 
is that the GOT began to recognise that this issue has 
greater economic implications for its domestic industries 
than anticipated.  Since this event, the GOT has been much 
more engaged with industry participants.  Further, the GOT 
enlisted the Turkish Council of Scientific and Technical 
Research (TBYTAK) to help develop legislation and a 
national biosafety system taking into consideration 
international standards. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Recent draft legislation and references 
--------------------------------------------- - 
7.   (SBU) In 2001, two draft directives were prepared, one 
relating to the registration of genetically modified plants, 
the other to the deliberate release of the GMOs into the 
environment and their placement on the market.  While these 
directives never went into effect, they drew heavily if not 
exclusively from relevant EU directives.  It is fair to 
expect that future legislation will also be designed to 
conform to EU directives as well as the Biosafety Protocol. 
The Accession Partnership document approved by the EU 
Council on March 8, 2001 sets harmonisation with 
environmental acquis communautaire as a medium term 
objective. The National Programme for the Adoption of the 
Acquis, presented by Turkey on March 19 2001, establishes 
that the final objective concerning the deliberate release 
into environment and the placing on the market of 
genetically modified organisms in Turkey is to adopt and 
apply pertinent EU legislation. 
 
 
8.   (SBU) The Biotechnology and Biosafety Advisory 
Committee, which includes representatives from MARA, 
Environment, Health, Forestry, State Planning Office, and 
the Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade has also prepared a 
draft law for the establishment of a National Biosafety 
Council, which in turn is intended to establish the national 
biosafety system and legislation.  It is not clear to what 
extent the Biosafety Advisory Committee and the National 
Biosafety Council remain intact since the election of a new 
government in 2002 and the appointment of a new Prime 
Minister in 2003.  An official at the Undersecretariat of 
Foreign Trade indicated that the Biosafety Advisory 
Committee would be `formed' in February of 2004. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
Biotech atmosphere in the Turkish bureaucracy 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
9.   (SBU) Many MARA officials have been publicly supportive 
of biotechnology and the potential benefits the technology 
may hold for Turkish producers.  Many others - in key 
positions - are quite skeptical and misinformed and as a 
result are actually spreading misinformation about the 
safety of biotechnology to their colleagues and superiors. 
For example, after hearing a sound science-based 
presentation on the safety of bio-engineered foods from 
another scientist, a Turkish biologist responded that she 
would still never eat `those foods'.  A general lack of 
information prevails. 
 
 
10.  (SBU) The Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Affairs (MARA) has been relatively proactive to opening the 
debate on biotechnology within the GOT.  Recently, MARA 
officials approached FAS to host a seminar on biotechnology 
in September. Much of this interest can be attributed to 
ongoing outreach efforts and training activities that 
engaged the GOT in the biotech debate. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
Atmosphere in the food and agricultural sectors 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
11.  (SBU) Many food companies are more concerned about 
public perception than impending Turkish regulations.  Coca- 
Cola and Pepsi, for example, require that all starch-based 
sweeteners that they purchase be produced from non-GMO corn. 
There is no law that requires this.  Many companies want to 
ensure that their ability to export to the EU is preserved. 
Some major food companies have received calls from consumers 
asking if there are bio-engineered foods in their products. 
In a recent meeting, these food companies said there was a 
need for all major food companies to respond to these 
concerns with one voice and one message.  Many other food 
companies prefer the status quo: no regulations and no 
consumer awareness.  While many of these food companies 
recognize that they would benefit from educating consumers 
and the GOT on issues related to biotechnology and food 
safety, it is uncharted territory in Turkey. 
 
 
12.  (SBU) In the next year, more outreach will be needed to 
assist food and agricultural companies communicate 
effectively with their customers and the GOT.  Even if the 
best regulations are adopted, consumer acceptance of 
biotechnology will be a major challenge in Turkey. 
 
 
13.  (SBU) Conclusion: As Turkey recently ratified the 
biosafety protocol, one can expect that regulations 
governing the importation and marketing of biotech products 
will soon follow.  Turkey is challenged by the dual need to 
implement the biosafety protocol and develop comprehensive 
regulations that adhere to EU directives. Experience 
suggests that Turkey will protect the local feed industry, 
yet may cave to perceived consumer concerns and implement 
restrictive policies for biotech content in consumer foods. 
In other words, future regulations will likely have a 
greater impact on food products than feed products, and it 
is not likely that Turkey will revisit field trials and 
planting approvals until the EU progresses in this area. 
While the U.S. market for $250 million in feed ingredients 
and $200 million in cotton do not appear to be in jeopardy, 
approximately $100 million in vegetable oil and corn and soy 
food products may face restrictive regulations in the near 
future. 
 
 
DEUTSCH