Required Report - public distribution

**Date:** 7/13/2006

**GAIN Report Number:** FR6039

FR6039

**France**

**Biotechnology**

**Annual**

**2006**

**Approved by:**

![](media/image1.wmf)Elizabeth Berry

U.S. Embassy

**Prepared by:**

Marie-Cécile Hénard

**Report Highlights:**

Despite continued consumer resistance and the absence of a national law
on the coexistence of biotech and non biotech crops, French corn farmers
are increasingly embracing biotech. The area planted to biotech corn is
expected to reach 5,000 ha this year, as compared to 500-1,000 ha last
year. Most of the product will likely continue to be sold in Spain.

Includes PSD Changes: No

Includes Trade Matrix: No

Annual Report

Paris \[FR1\]

\[FR\]

Table of Contents

[**Executive Summary 3**](#executive-summary)

[Biotechnology Trade and Production
3](#biotechnology-trade-and-production)

[Production 3](#production)

[Open Field Test Plots of Biotech Crops
3](#open-field-test-plots-of-biotech-crops)

[Trade 4](#trade)

[Soybeans and Products 4](#soybeans-and-products)

[Corn Products 5](#corn-products)

[Planting Seeds 5](#planting-seeds)

[Biotechnology Policy 5](#biotechnology-policy)

[Regulatory Framework 5](#regulatory-framework)

[Evaluation Process: 5](#evaluation-process)

[Product Authorization 6](#product-authorization)

[Coexistence 8](#coexistence)

[Research 8](#research)

[Traceability and Labeling 9](#traceability-and-labeling)

[GMOs in Planting Seeds 9](#gmos-in-planting-seeds)

[Cartagena Biosafety Protocol 9](#cartagena-biosafety-protocol)

[Trade Barriers: Biotech Rapeseed Banned
10](#trade-barriers-biotech-rapeseed-banned)

[Biotech Case at the WTO 10](#biotech-case-at-the-wto)

[Marketing Issues 10](#marketing-issues)

[Weaknesses and Threats 10](#weaknesses-and-threats)

[Strengths and Opportunities 11](#strengths-and-opportunities)

[Capacity Building and Outreach 11](#capacity-building-and-outreach)

[Reference Material 11](#reference-material)

# Executive Summary

While a French biotech bill has been under consideration for more than a
year to transpose EU Directives 1998/81 and 2001/18 into French law and
to establish a framework for biotech and non-biotech crop coexistence in
France, the bill was only voted on by the French Senate. The bill is
very unlikely to be voted on by the National Assembly before the
presidential and parliamentary elections of May 2007, as the French
government considers the biotech issue too controversial to discuss at
the legislative level during a political campaign. Instead, France will
likely pay heavy daily fines to Brussels. Despite this lack of legal
framework and continued consumer resistance, French corn growers are
increasingly embracing biotech. The area planted to biotech corn is
expected to reach 5,000 ha this year, as compared to 500-1,000 ha last
year. Most of the product will likely continue to be sold in Spain.

# Biotechnology Trade and Production

## Production

After a number of years with virtually no commercial production, France
is entering into its second year of significant production in 2006.
While 500 to 1,000 ha were planted to MON-810 corn in 2005 (see FR5060),
revealed last September by the French press, French corn growers claim
that their total 2006 Bt corn acreage covers 5,000 ha, exclusively in
MON 810 (see FR6037). Resistance by French processors, distributors and
consumers continues to discourage increased production, but there is a
market for French biotech corn for animal feed in Spain, where virtually
the whole French harvest is exported.

![](media/image2.wmf)

## Open Field Test Plots of Biotech Crops

In 2005, the French biotech evaluation committee "Commission du Génie
Biomoléculaire" (CGB) authorized 21 GM dossiers for testing on 80 open
field test plots (covering 23 hectares) on grass, corn, poplar, and
vines produced by Biogemma, Monsanto, Meristem Therapeutics, Pioneer,
the French Research Institute in Agriculture (INRA), and the French
planting seed institute (GEVES). These included both new 2005
authorizations and multi-annual open-field testing.

![](media/image3.wmf)

In 2006, the French Ministry of Agriculture authorized 17 new research
programs in open fields on GM products after authorization by the CGB.
The traits tested include pharmaceutical applications, lower water
requirements, compatibility with more environmentally friendly
herbicides, and insect resistance. The MinAg announced these
authorizations on May 19, 2006, after public consultation from April 14
to May 5 on the website:
[http://www.ogm.gouv.fr](http://www.ogm.gouv.fr/)

## Trade

### Soybeans and Products

Most agricultural biotech product imported into France is soybean meal.
A majority of the soybean meal imported in France consists of standard
product labeled as containing biotech, while less than a fourth consists
of soft IP products (below the 0.9 percent threshold), and the remainder
(less than 5 percent) is hard IP product, which is traced back to the
field to guarantee non-biotech origin.

With a large trade deficit for soybean meal, used in animal feed
rations, France imports large quantities of soybeans and meal. In the
past decade, the biotech issue and price differentials have resulted in
a significant decline in the U.S. market share for soybeans and products
on the French market to the benefit of Brazil. In MY 2005/06, imports
from Brazil accounted for 76 percent of total French imports of soybean
meal.

However, the French industry is currently partially getting around its
soy trade deficit and reluctance to use biotech soybean products by
increasing rapeseed production. With the recent boom in biodiesel
production in France (see FR6005), domestic production of rapeseed meal
has increased significantly, and is partially offsetting soybean meal in
animal feed rations. This is especially true for dairy cattle feed (see
FR5046). However, most of the soybean meal is consumed by poultry, for
which the soy/rape substitution is more difficult than for dairy cows.

### Corn Products

France is no longer importing corn gluten feed for animal feed. The
French starch industry represented by USIPA
([http://www.usipa.fr](http://www.usipa.fr/)) processes starch from
locally produced corn, wheat and potato. Due to biotech concerns, wheat
is increasingly used, partially replacing corn to process starch. In
2003/04, 47 percent of the starch produced in France was derived from
wheat, 43 percent from corn, and 10 percent from potato.

### Planting Seeds

The United States is France's largest supplier of corn planting seeds.
In MY 2004/05, French imports of corn seeds for sowing from the United
States amounted to USD 49.4 million. U.S. products are facing increasing
competition with Hungarian products on the French market, as Hungarian
seeds are cheaper than U.S. seeds and GM-free.

## 

# Biotechnology Policy

As part of the European Union, France implements EU Directives and
Regulations on biotechnology (please see USEU annual agricultural
biotechnology report E36080).

## Regulatory Framework

On March 21, 22, and 23, the French Senate debated and approved a
biotech bill presented by the Minister of Research. This bill includes a
transposition of the EU Directives 1998/81 and 2001/18 into French
legislation, a national framework on coexistence, and a new organization
of the French approval process. In order to become Law, this bill needs
to be voted on by the National Assembly and reconciled between the two
Chambers of Parliament.

Although the National Assembly was expected to vote on the bill by the
before the summer Parliamentary recess, the lack of political
willingness to discuss a controversial topic a year before the
presidential and parliamentary elections of May 2007 discouraged the
government from scheduling a vote in the National Assembly. It is now
very unlikely that the French Parliament will vote on the biotech bill
before the elections of next year.

However, the French government will have to pay penalties to the
European Commission (EC) if the Directives 1998/81 and 2001/18 are not
transposed on time. The EC referred the 1998/81 case to the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) and may decide to fine the GOF 168,800 euros per
day starting in December 2006. The EC is expected to refer the 2001/18
case to the ECJ in fall 2006 and penalties required are expected to be
consistent with Directive 1998/81. An additional fine of several
millions of euros may also be imposed by the ECJ for the delay in
transposing the 2001/18 Directive into French law. In order to (at least
partially) avoid these heavy penalties and fines, the French government
is considering transposing some parts of the Directives directly into
decrees, through administrative procedures.

## Evaluation Process:

Until the biotech bill is adopted, living GMOs will continue to be
evaluated by the *Commission du Genie Genetique (CGG) (Genetic
Engineering Committee)*, the *Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (CGB)
(Biomolecular Engineering Committee)*, and the *Comite de Biovigilance*
(monitoring GMOs). These three committees are expected to be replaced by
one Biotech Council (*Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies*) under the voted
by the Senate. This Council would include both a scientific and a
socio-economic section.

The CGG evaluates the release of biotech products in confined
environments. The French competent authority implementing the EU
Directive 2001/18 (replacing the 90/220 Directive) is the CGB. This EU
Directive establishes the conditions for authorization of GMOs to be
released in the environment, but not for food or feed use. The CGB
examines the dossiers presented by the petitioners (private biotech
companies or public organizations), and approves or disapproves the
market release of these GM products. If approved, the dossiers go to the
European level, where they are shared with the European Commission
(General Directorate for the Environment) and examined by all the Member
States, which may approve the event for marketing within the EU. If
Member States raise objections, the European Food Safety Agency is
charged to conduct a study (E36080 on Regulatory framework).

The French Loi d'Orientation Agricole (French Orientation Law) of 1999
created the French "*Comité de Biovigilance*", which is a commission in
charge of monitoring GMOs once they are released in the environment for
experimental or commercial production. This committee was created
primarily to examine the environmental risks of GMO test plots. It
monitors biotech crops planted in open field test plots and those
planted for commercial production.

The French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)
([http://www.afssa.fr](http://www.afssa.fr/)) is the French authority
that assesses risks of GMOs to human health under the Novel Foods
Directive. Biotech crops and their derived products for use in food are
regulated under EU regulations 258/97, 49/2000 and 50/2000, 1829/2003
and 1830/2003 (see Traceability and Labeling paragraph below). AFSSA's
role in GM assessment has declined since the European Food Safety Agency
(EFSA) was created (see E36080).

## Product Authorization

Under the EU **Directive 2001/18**, there are 2 categories of biotech
crops reviewed: 'Part B' products to be tested for experimental
dissemination into the environment and 'Part C' products to be tested
for commercial release into the environment.

The number of **Part B** products to be reviewed by the French biotech
evaluation committee "Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire" (CGB) has
declined significantly from 100 in 1998 to only 14 in 2005 (up from 11
in 2004). The CGB also reviewed 6 dossiers on genetic therapy, and a
vaccine. The 14 corn dossiers reviewed in 2005 were the following:

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Company                 Event/trait             CGB Notification

  Biogemma                nitrogen assimilation   No objection

  Pioneer                 1507 herbicide and      No objection
                          insect resistant        

  Pioneer                 NK603 insect and        No objection
                          herbicide tolerant      

  Pioneer                 1507xNK603 insect and   No objection
                          herbicide tolerant      

  Pioneer                 NK 603 x MON 810 insect No objection
                          and herbicide tolerant  

  Meristem Therapeutics   Gastric lipase          No objection for 1 year
                          expression, medical     
                          application             

  Biogemma                Lack of water stress    No objection

  Biogemma                Lack of water stress    No objection

  Pioneer                 59122 x 1507 x NK 603   No objection for 2
                          insect and herbicide    years
                          tolerant                

  Pioneer                 59122 x NK 603 insect   No objection for 2
                          and herbicide tolerant  years

  Pioneer                 herbicide tolerant      No objection for 2
                                                  years

  Meristem Therapeutics   Expression of           No objection
                          monoclonal antibodies,  
                          medical applications    

  Monsanto                MON 88017 insect and    No objection for 2
                          herbicide tolerant      years

  Monsanto                MON 88017 x MON 810     No objection for 2
                          insect and herbicide    years
                          tolerant                
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Note: Biogemma is a biotech subsidiary of a large French planting seed
cooperative called "Limagrain," and Meristem Therapeutics is a
pharmaceutical subsidiary of Limagrain.

In 2005, the CGB reviewed the following **Part C** dossiers:

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Event                 | Use                   | CGB Notification      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| NK 603 x MON 810 corn | Import, processing    | March 2005: no        |
|                       | and feed              | objection             |
| insect and herbicide  |                       |                       |
| tolerant              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1507 corn             | Cultivation, imports, | May 2005: no          |
|                       | processing and feed   | objection for feed,   |
| herbicide and insect  |                       | recommendations for   |
| resistant             |                       | production            |
|                       |                       | (monitoring and       |
|                       |                       | environmental impact) |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 x    | Import, processing,   | December 2005: ask    |
| Rf3 herbicide         | feed                  | for complementary     |
| tolerant rapeseed     |                       | information           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| EH 92-527-1 potato    | cultivation, import,  | January 2005:         |
|                       | processing, feed      | recommendation on     |
| Modified starch       |                       | accidental human food |
| content               |                       | consumption           |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 2                     | Import, processing    | March 2005: no        |
| 81-24-236/3006-210-23 |                       | objection             |
| herbicide and insect  |                       |                       |
| tolerant cotton       |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Modified color        | Import of cut flower  | Mai 2005: no          |
| carnation             |                       | objection             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

With the adoption of the 1829/2003 Regulation, most dossiers for market
authorization (for feed and food) are now reviewed under an
EU-centralized system, coordinated by the European Food Safety Agency
(EFSA). This process is perceived by the French authorities to be faster
that that of the Directive 2001/18, which involves the Member State
competent authorities in a first step, and an EU-centralized
authorization process as a second step.

Only GM products with no feed or food uses (such as ornamental plants)
are now authorized under the Directive 2001/18. However, some food/feed
GM products had started their review under the Directive 2001/18 before
the 1829/2003 Regulation was put in place, and these dossiers have not
always been transferred to the 1829/2003 process, depending on the
progress of their assessment. This explains why the CGB reviewed 6 Part
C dossiers in 2005 including some for food/feed uses.

Under the **Regulation 1829/30**, the CGB is charged by the French
Ministry of Agriculture to review the environmental risks of each
dossier for which the European Food Safety Agency makes the assessment
and requires consultation with Members States (GMOs that may be
disseminated).

In 2005, the CGB reviewed the following dossiers under Regulation
1829/2003:

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Event                 | Use                   | CGB Notification      |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 1507 x NK 603 corn    | Import, processing,   | Mai 2005: no          |
|                       | feed and food         | objection             |
| insect and herbicide  |                       |                       |
| tolerant              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| MON 863 x NK 603 corn | Import, processing,   | April 2005: no        |
|                       | feed and food         | objection             |
| insect and herbicide  |                       |                       |
| tolerant              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| MON 863 x MON 810 x   | Import, processing,   | April 2005: no        |
| NK 603 corn           | feed and food         | objection             |
|                       |                       |                       |
| insect and herbicide  |                       |                       |
| tolerant              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| MIR 604 corn          | Import, processing,   | November 2005: no     |
|                       | feed and food         | objection             |
| Insect resistant      |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| 59122 corn            | Import, processing,   | November 2005: no     |
|                       | feed and food         | objection             |
| insect and herbicide  |                       |                       |
| tolerant              |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| LLCotton25 cotton     | Import, processing,   | November 2005: no     |
|                       | feed and food         | objection             |
| Herbicide tolerant    |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

For further information on dossiers in the pipeline in France, please
see the French intergovernmental website (information is in French) on
agricultural biotechnology: <http://www.ogm.gouv.fr/>

## Coexistence

Policy

The voted on by the French Senate in March 2006 included a framework on
coexistence, including a no-fault-liability regime and a
government-managed compensation pool funded by farmers' and seed
industry contributions, to be replaced by a private insurance regime
after 5 years. In the , farmers' contributions to the fund are capped at
100 euros per hectare and only the demonstrable economic consequences of
the adventitious presence of GM presence in a non-GM crop would be
eligible for compensation (see FR6008). A complementary bill has yet to
be voted on by the National Assembly.

### Research 

(see FR5084):

France is highly involved in the European research project on
coexistence COEXTRA (<http://www.coextra.org/>) as its scientific
coordinator is the French researcher in the National Institute of
Research in Agronomy (INRA) Yves Bertheau. Apart from INRA, other French
organizations involved in the COEXTRA program include mainly
ARVALIS-Institut du Vegetal (technical research institute on grains,
potato, forage, corn, and pulses -
[http://www.arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr](http://www.arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr/)),
CETIOM (technical research institute on Oilseeds --
<http://www.cetiom.fr/CTMsite/index.html>), and GIP-GEVES (French
official organization in charge of plant variety and seed testing for
the registration of new varieties --
[http://www.geves.fr](http://www.geves.fr/)).

In addition, France is significantly involved in the research program on
the Sustainable Introduction of GM crops into European Agriculture,
SIGMEA (<http://sigmea.dyndns.org/>). The scientific coordinator is
French (Antoine Messean, INRA researcher), and several French
organizations are involved including INRA, CETIOM, ARVALIS-Institut du
Vegetal, and the University of Paris 11.

Under the French research program named Operational Program for GM Crop
Evaluation (POECB) (<http://www.agpm.com//iso_album/poecb_1.pdf>)
research was conducted from 2002 to 2004 in France. On 7 sites across
France, POECB studied coexistence of Bt corn with conventional corn and
traceability from the field to the silo. French corn growers, INRA,
ARVALIS-Institut du Vegetal, planting seed organizations (GNIS, FNPSMS
and SEPROMA), the Research Institute on Grain Food Technologies (IRTAC),
and the biotech organization DEBA jointly worked on this program.

## Traceability and Labeling

France implemented the EU Novel Food/Novel Feed and Traceability and
Labeling Regulations on April 18, 2004. The Fraud Control Office of the
French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry (DGCCRF) is the
enforcing authority. DGCCRF published several informational fact sheets
to help industry adapt to the new regulations, and has also published
specific-to-France rules for negative labeling for products that claim
not to have biotech content (see FR4062).

DGCCRF website on biotech food and feed labeling (EU Regulation
1829/2003) is:
<http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/DGCCRF/04_dossiers/consommation/alimentaire/ogm/ogm04b.htm>

DGCCRF website on traceability of GMOs and food products (EU Regulation
1830/2003) is:

<http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/DGCCRF/04_dossiers/consommation/alimentaire/ogm/ogm04a.htm?ru=04>

The EU decree 2004-1058 implementing the new T&L regulation was written
into French law and published in the French Official Journal in October
2004 and is available at
<http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=ECOC0400078D>

## GMOs in Planting Seeds

There is a lack of EU regulation is this sector in terms of biotech
traceability, labeling and thresholds. The French seed industry
recommends using the same threshold for biotech as the one set for food
and feed, i.e., 0.9 percent. (see FR5045 and E36080, Status of Seed
Labeling Legislation)

DGCCRF conducts tests on planting seeds for biotech content. In 2004/05,
DGCCRF tested 106 samples of rapeseed, corn and soybean planting seeds,
taken from seed companies, importers, and distributors across France.
The 106 samples included 82 samples of French origin and 24 samples
imported into France (e.g. from the United States). DGCCRF detected GM
content in 1 sample out of the 106 tested with content levels of 0.1
percent. It was an event not authorized in the EU.

## Cartagena Biosafety Protocol

The EU is a signatory to the Biosafety Protocol. As an EU-Member State,
France's position is in line with the EU adopted position. The Protocol
is followed by the French Ministry of Ecology. The ministries of
Agriculture and Economy are also involved in inter-ministerial
discussions. Article 18.2 (imposing labeling requirements on shipments
that "may contain" LMOs for food and feed use) of the Protocol is the
main obstacle to implementation encountered by France.

## Trade Barriers: Biotech Rapeseed Banned

Two decrees restricting the market release of biotech rapeseed until
October 2006 were published in the French Official Journal on August 21,
2004. One postpones the authorization of the herbicide tolerant spring
rapeseed created by Agrevo UK Crop Protection Ltd, and the other
postpones the authorization of herbicide tolerant rapeseed presented by
Plant Genetic Systems. These decrees are available at:

<http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=AGRG0401576A>

<http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=AGRG0401577A>

## Biotech Case at the WTO 

While there was no official reaction by the GOF to the WTO interim
decision announced last February (see FR6012) on the biotech case, the
national press covered the issue widely. The ruling of the WTO is
considered in France to present additional pressure for French policy
makers to pass the .

# Marketing Issues

# 

## Weaknesses and Threats

In France, market acceptance of agricultural biotechnology is a
significant problem. Overall, most French consumers are not favorable to
GMOs. Food products labeled as containing or derived from biotech are
generally not available on the French market (labeling of animal
products derived from animals fed on biotech is not required).

The French public authorities have been relatively weak in terms of
communication about farm biotechnology in the past decade, although
there is an inter-ministerial website on GMOs, which is regularly
updated: [http://www.ogm.gouv.fr](http://www.ogm.gouv.fr/). Due to
former public health scandals (including mad cow disease, tainted blood,
asbestos), the government lacks credibility.

Consequently, most of the French population is informed about
agricultural biotechnology either by anti-biotech activists, or by
biotech companies, and therefore receives little objective information.
This is magnified by the fact that the biotech issue has become very
politically polarized in the past few years, with the majority party
UMP, usually considered conservative, being pro-biotech, and the
Socialist party, which has a number of political agreements with the
Green party, being openly anti-biotech. The political atmosphere is
expected to become increasingly controversial on biotech as on many
other issues, in the months leading up to the next Parliamentary and
presidential elections scheduled in May 2007.

Actions carried out by anti-biotech groups (mainly Greenpeace, ATTAC,
Friends of the Earth, and Confederation Paysanne farmers union) are the
most visible threat to biotech acceptance and development in France. The
most visible actions by anti-biotech protest groups are the numerous
test plot destructions, which are discouraging for biotech researchers.
In summer 2005, activists destroyed half of the open field test plots.
Less visible to the public, but even more effective at discouraging
biotech diffusion, is the pressure imposed by powerful anti-biotech
groups on the food and industry and retailers. The most damaging is the
Greenpeace website "blacklist" of any biotech food product marketed in
France. The publicity generated by any biotech product found in
supermarkets is usually so detrimental that the retailer or distributor
decides to take the product off its shelves. (see Paris report FR5037).

The French in favor of biotech development consider the potential
election of a Socialist candidate to the French Presidency and a change
in majority in the Parliament to the benefit of the Socialist Party next
year as a threat to biotech research, development and production.

## Strengths and Opportunities

Despite these weaknesses and threats, French corn growers are extremely
supportive of the technology and publicize this position as much as they
can. Also, activists and the media have been quieter in the past few
months than before. It seems that this issue has stopped being a top
priority for the press and among French citizens concerns.

In addition, the French regulatory framework is strong and clear, works
well, and is integrated into the EU system, and France often votes in
favor of approving new biotech products at the European level.

Finally, the economic advantages offered by biotech products relative to
conventional products are probably the most compelling argument for
French producers and processors. The higher yields of Bt corn, as a
result of its resistance to the European corn borer, are increasing its
attractiveness among French farmers. When the EU sets mycotoxin
standards, Bt corn should become yet more viable as it contains a
significantly lower level of mycotoxins than conventional corn. The corn
root worm pressure is not currently strong enough in France to make
biotech corn varieties resistant to it indispensable, but this could
change in the next few years.

# Capacity Building and Outreach

Major programs/activities conducted by Post on agricultural
biotechnology are:

-   Organizing regular meetings between U.S. corn and soybean growers
    and their French counterparts and other French stakeholders during
    visits of American delegations. This was the case when the American
    Soybean Association, and the National Corn Growers Association
    (NCGA)/American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) delegations visited
    France in 2005 and 2006, respectively

-   Proposing key French biotech stakeholders for the International
    Visitor Program: every year, 1 to 3 people in the French government,
    industry organizations, or from the press visit the United States on
    the agricultural biotech issue

-   Closely monitoring and reporting on any significant development in
    the issue, especially in terms of policy.

# 

# Reference Material

  ---------- ------------------------------------------------- -----------
  FR5054     GOF condemns Test Plot Destructions but Gives up  07/29/05
             on Coexistence Rules                              

  FR5060     500 to 1,000 ha of GM corn in France in 2005      09/13/05

  FR5061     French corn growers show strong support for       09/15/05
             biotech                                           

  FR5066     José Bové Running for President?                  10/04/05

  FR5084     Exploring Coexistence                             11/25/05

  FR5088     Despites Obstacles French Corn Growers Will Plant 12/14/05
             Biotech Corn                                      

  FR5088     French Progresses                                 01/24/06

  FR6012     French Reactions to WTO Preliminary Conclusions   02/15/06
             on Ag Biotechnology                               

  FR6037     Significant Increase in GM Corn Planting in 2006  07/07/06
  ---------- ------------------------------------------------- -----------