USDA Attache: 5 EU Member States Retain Bans On -3-

Since their inception, the Austrian Government successfully defended national bans on EU approved biotech crops because the European Commission proposals to require their removal were blocked by the EU Council. However, since there was no Council agreement, the European Commission, in May 2008, adopted a decision ordering Austria to lift the safeguard clause on the import and processing ban of MON 810 and T 25 corn events. This decision did not affect Austria's safeguard action on cultivation. While Austria lifted the import and processing bans on MON 810 and T25, it proposed new import bans on MON 863 corn and three oilseed rape lines, Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3. These new Austrian bans could be implemented by mid July, 2008.

In March 2008, Greenpeace Austria staged a demonstration near the U.S. Embassy in Vienna against potential U.S. retaliatory actions against Austria in response to the WTO Case. In May 2008, FAS Vienna and an American Soybean Producers' (ASA) delegation organized a roundtable discussion to discuss biotech crops with Austrian stakeholders in the food, feed and crop industries. The Austrians were very receptive to the ASA message.

The Benelux: In 2007, the Benelux region imported approximately US$ 2.4 billion of agricultural and food products from the U.S. A large share of this trade was feed products, which required labeling for biotech content under the European Union's traceability and labeling legislation. The slow approval process of new GM events by the European Union has significantly affected U.S. exports to the Benelux region in particular corn gluten feed (CGF) and Distillers Dried Grains (DDGs). Also exports of U.S. food products such as rice and processed products have declined. Slow EU approval of the new Roundup soybean variety could also limit U.S. soybean exports to the region if placed into commercial market channels before authorization is obtained in the EU.

The Netherlands and the Belgian regions, Flanders and Wallonia, just recently implemented coexistence regulations. Sector sources believe that the combination of restrictions will practically ban the cultivation of biotech events, particularly in the Walloon Region.

The Dutch Farmers Organization (LTO) and Belgian Farmers Organization (Boerenbond) are both pragmatic and in favor of using biotech crops. But both organizations point to the resistance of retailers and consumers towards food products containing biotech components, in particular in export markets.

Field trials of biotech crops are almost impossible in the Benelux. In the Netherlands, crop trials are effectively prevented by cumbersome regulations imposed by the government and by the threat of protests from environmental groups. While the Dutch Government issued over thirty licenses for field trials of biotech crops, only seven were used in 2007. In Belgium and Luxembourg, there have been no licenses issued for field trials since 2004.

Bulgaria: In 2004, Bulgaria passed a major biotech law which de facto prohibited cultivation of biotech events. The law is not fully harmonized with EU regulations. As a result, no research or commercial plots exist in the country. Research conducted prior to 2004 has been terminated.

In April, the law was amended to make some changes to allow research field trials for cotton only. A proposal for such trials was submitted to the Biosafety Commission but there has been no final decision because the dossier was deemed incomplete. Another amendment to allow research trials was proposed in June. The discussions and the vote are scheduled for July. If successful, then some corn field trails could be carried out in 2009.

Czech Republic: The Czech Republic is a pro-biotech country with a pragmatic approach. Czech farmers have grown Bt corn since 2005. From 270 hectares in 2005, the acreage has expanded to almost 10,000 hectares in 2008.

The Ministry of Environment is the competent authority for handling biotech product notifications, and the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for notifications of biotech food and feed. The Czech Republic's coexistence rules require isolation distances and notifications to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment. When voting on biotech approvals at various levels in the EU, the Czech Republic takes a case-by-case approach and bases its decision on scientific evidence. The coexistence rules set requirements on information, isolation distances, record keeping and control. The isolation distances were decreased in 2006 from 100 meters for conventional agriculture to 70 meters (or 35 rows of non GM crop as a barrier or a combination of a distance and a buffer zone, in which case 1 row equals 2 meters) and for organic agriculture from 600 meters to 200 meters (or 100 m and 50 rows of non GM crop as a buffer zone).

In terms of food use, some dairy processors refuse to buy milk from farmers who feed their cattle with biotech soybeans or corn. Even though retail chains generally avoid biotech food products, many supermarkets (including Tesco) in the Czech Republic carry items containing biotech components, such as cooking oils, and these products are labeled.

Finland: In Finland, there is no commercial production of biotech crops. Several seed companies have, however, developed their own GE varieties, including herbicide tolerant rapeseed, herbicide tolerant sugar beet and starch potatoes. In August 2007, the Finnish meat industry publicly abandoned its voluntary ban on biotech animal feed due to rising feed costs. The announcement was met with unexpectedly strong media reaction. As a result, the Finnish Minister of Agriculture, Sirkka-Liisa Anttila, called for voluntary labeling of meat from animals not fed with biotech feed.

France: Prior to 2008, France was the second largest producer of biotech corn in the EU. There was a fourfold increase between 2006 and 2007 to 22,000 ha, due to the favorable results of the 2006 crop. In addition, the implementation of new a EU regulation on mycotoxin levels for grains spurred French farmer interest. However, this dramatically changed in 2008 when the current French government, under the lead of the Ministry of Environment, implemented a number of policy initiatives threatening the future of agricultural biotechnology in France. First, France banned MON810 production in January 2008 (pending its no-year reevaluation by EU authorities). Second, the GOF passed a new biotech bill in May 2008 mandating public disclosure of commercial biotech fields at the plot level. The law also reorganized the national authority evaluating genetically-engineered products, to include not only scientists but also a socio-economic committee.

France is actively trying to move its socio-economic evaluation of agricultural biotechnology to the European level through initiatives during its Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2008. In France, lack of consumer acceptance of agricultural biotechnology continues, particularly for food products. Food products labeled as containing or derived from biotech are generally not available on the French market.

Anti-biotech activists are well organized and work consistently to discourage biotech acceptance. During the summer of 2006 and 2007, activists destroyed two thirds of the open-field test plots. Less visible to the public, but still very effective, is the pressure imposed by these groups on the food and feed industry and retailers. For example, the Greenpeace website has a "blacklist" identifying biotech food products marketed in France. The negative publicity generated by selling a biotech product in a French supermarket has been so detrimental that they are no longer available, and processors have tended to reformulate to avoid labeling.

Germany: In the past two years, Germany has become one of the most vocal opponents of biotechnology in the EU. In 2007, the current German grand coalition government amended the national genetech law, complicating the cultivation of biotech plants. It increased distance requirements between biotech corn and conventional or organic corn to 150 and 300 meters respectively. As part of the public field registry, farmers must report the exact location of their biotech crop fields. The new law also redefined the term "genetech free" and provided a basis to label livestock products as such if the animals are not fed biotech feed during a certain period prior to slaughter or milking. It is unclear how extensive this labeling option will be used, given the rapidly increasing price non-biotech animal feed.

Despite a high level of public and media opposition against biotech crops, German farmers increased the area planted to Bt corn to 3371 hectares in 2008, up almost 700 hectares from 2007. An additional 36 hectares have been planted as test fields mainly for variety testing of corn. The second most important crop for researchers and breeders is potatoes, which are planted on about ten hectares of test fields. Tests with rapeseed have been discontinued in Germany because of the risk of out-crossing. In the summer of 2007, the western corn root worm diabrotica virgifera was detected for the first time in several locations in Southern Germany. German authorities try to eradicate the pest through conventional methods such as chemical seed treatment and cultivation bans but were unsuccessful.

The German Minister of Agriculture's position on biotech is that cultivation of biotech crops is not needed since current traits provide no benefits to the consumer. The German livestock feed industry and swine producers' organizations are currently calling loudly for an acceleration of the EU biotech approval process.