VATICAN STUDY SEMINAR ON GMO'S SEES MORE HOPE THAN

UNCLAS ROME 005205

SIPDIS


FROM U.S. MISSION IN ROME

USAID FOR AA/DCHA WINTER, EGAT/ESP LEWIS
STATE FOR EB CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT, OES/ETC; EUR/WE
USDA/FAS FOR DHEGWOOD, SIMMONS AND BBRICHEY
NSC FOR DWORKEN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID VT IT FAO
SUBJECT: VATICAN STUDY SEMINAR ON GMO'S SEES MORE HOPE THAN
THREAT

Refs: A) Vatican 4859, B) Vatican 4874,

C) Vatican 3917, D) Vatican 3584


1. Summary: The Holy See's Pontifical Council for Justice
and Peace's November 10-11 study seminar -- "GMO's: Threat
or Hope" --found more reasons for hope than fear from its
detailed examination of biotech foods. The seminar was
developed by the pro-biotech President of the Council,
Cardinal Martino, who sought to lay a foundation for a more
forward-leaning Vatican position on GMO's. The seminar,
which included both biotech advocates and opponents,
considered the science, ethical and political implications
of biotechnology (reftels). It generated candid exchange of
views between proponents and opponents, with informative and
sometimes ironic interventions. Cardinal Martino indicated
to participants that the Holy See is likely to respond to
the fruitful exchange of ideas generated at the seminar with
a more considered position on the subject of GMOs -- which
we expect will be more forward-leaning than previous,
generally favorable, positions. End summary.

-------------- -
Day One: The Science and Economics of Biotech
-------------- -


2. The first session, GMOs and Scientific Research,
included two sub-panels, "GMOs and the Contribution of the
Scientific World," and "The Contribution of the Pontifical
Academy for Life and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
on GMOs." Three scientists presented their views on the
benefits and risks of biotechnology in the context of its
historical development. Of the three, only Dr. Margaret
Mellon, Food and Environment Program Director, Union of
Concerned Scientists, expressed skepticism about the
necessity for biotech food, stating she is not convinced
that biotech is either necessary or useful. In contrast,
Professor Nam-Hai Chua, a plant molecular biologist from
Rockefeller University, New York, highlighted the virtues of
a new transgenic rice variety. Professor Francesco Sala,
University of Milan, based his presentation -- and his
belief in the need for biotechnology -- on forecasted
decreases in available arable land and increases in
population.


3. During the second sub-panel, Professor Peter Raven,
Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, past President
and Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, and Member of the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, made a strong case -- based on publications of the
Pontifical Academy and the scientific community as a whole -
- for using and further developing biotechnology. With
regard to the use of GMOs as food, "there is no theory that
contradicts the generally accepted conclusion that those
currently in use are safe as food for human beings and
domestic animals, and no single case of illness resulting
from consuming foods produced by GMOs, even though billions
of people throughout the worlds use them regularly."
Rhetorically, he asked, "Why, then, do we keep saying,
`Health and safety, health and safety?'" Professor Raven
stated that the benefits of GM technology should be
recognized, considering the widely available and accepted
documentation about GM technology. For instance, the major
decreases in pesticide application resulting from widespread
use of GM crops are significant in the face of an estimated
500,000 cases of pesticide poisoning and 5,000 deaths that
result from such applications annually.


4. Finally, Raven stated that the controversy over GMOs has
been used to limit trade, concluding "the drive to feed
hungry people and to redress the morally unacceptable
imbalances around the world should take precedence over
other considerations, and in this case there are no valid
scientific objections to utilizing these technologies with
due consideration to the implications of each new proposed
transgenic crop in the environment."


5. The Second Session, entitled "GMOs, Food and Trade,"
consisted of two sub-panels, "GMOs and Food in Developed and
Developing Countries" and "GMOs and Trade," and an
intervention by the Italian Agriculture Minister, Gianni
Alemanno. The chair of the first sub-panel, Dr. Mahmoud
Sohl, Director of Plant Production and Protection Division,
Agriculture Department, FAO, characterized the discussion as
bearing on the "molecular divide" between developed and
developing countries. One panelist focused on the widening
separation between rich and poor countries and the 800


million people who are chronically undernourished. Another,
Dr. Paola Testori Coggi, Director for Food Security,
European Commission, focused on the need to develop a
regulatory framework for GMOs, offering the EC's guidelines
for labeling GM vs. non-GM food as being the "most
demanding" in the world. When asked why wine and cheese are
not identified as containing GMOs, Dr. Coggi offered that
enzymes are considered "trace elements," and not
"ingredients."


6. More irony ensued. At the second session Ms. Thandiwe
Myeni, a small-scale farmer and Chairwoman of the Mbuso
Farmers Association, South Africa, talked about her positive
experience with GM (Bt) cotton, which resulted in much
higher yields and significant reductions in pesticide use.
Immediately following Ms. Myeni's presentation, Minister
Alemanno arrived and immediately opined that, with regard to
developing countries, GM technology is not available to
subsistence farmers who have no use for it. He did
acknowledge d that biotechnology might be beneficial, but
stated that Italy follows the Precautionary Principle.

--------------
Day Two: Health, Environment and Ethics
--------------


7. The Third Session of the seminar on the second day
covered the topic of GMOs and Environmental and Health
Security. The chair for this section was Mr. Djoghlaf,
Director of the Division of Global Environment Facility
Coordination of the United Nations Environment Program.
Professor Andrea Crisanti of the Department of Biology,
Imperial College, London, presented research being done in
molecular parasitology on genetically modifying the species
of mosquito that spreads malaria so that it would be
incapable of doing so. While this work remains very much in
the lab at this time, he expressed hope, indeed expectation,
that the technology can eventually lead to the eradication
of malaria. Comment: It was revealing that even when
presented with a potential benefit for the developing world
of such unmatched proportions, the anti-GMO speakers that
followed proceeded doggedly in their insistence that the
risks of the technology outweighed the possible benefits.
End Comment. Speakers from the Italian National Academy of
Sciences and University of Tuscia spoke on the environmental
benefits of the technology.


8. The Italian Minister of the Environment, Altiero
Matteoli, delivered a strong statement in favor of GM
technology, citing the environmental benefits it offers.
Italy's Minister of Health, Girolamo Sirchia also delivered
a positive statement, hedging somewhat towards cautiousness
exemplified by labeling and precaution.


9. Speakers on the health implications included Dr. Harry

A. Kuiper of the Institute of Food Safety (RIKILT)
Wageningen University and Research Center, the Netherlands.
Concentrating on the risk assessment approach used by the
EU, he included the notion of precaution in his statement,
but stressed that GM products are the most studied and
understood of any food products that have been introduced to
consumers. He repeated to the audience that the risks of
most conventional and traditional foods on the market are
poorly studied and understood. Professor Claudia Sorlini,
Director of the Department of Food Science and
Microbiological Technologies, University of Milan brought
out case studies highlighting uncertainty and possible human
health risks based upon laboratory studies showing protein
transfer through the gut. Other interlocutors pointed out
that these studies are, in fact, quite old and the results
have proven to be unrepeatable in real-world experiments.


10. The intervention by Greenpeace International Scientific
Advisor for GMOs, Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, centered on well-
known and increasingly worn arguments including (a) the
world is more complex that scientists recognize and it is
hubris to mess with it through GM technology; (b) GMOs are
not the answer to feeding the world and to world development
because the problems lie elsewhere -- in economic/political
systems; and (c) the technology only enriches multinational
companies. Comment: It was apparent, from body language if
nothing else, that the anti-GMO contingent was feeling a
preponderance of opinion in the room moving against them.
End comment.


11. The final session of the meeting, Chaired by Bishop


Elio Sgreccia, Secretary of the Pontifical Academy for Life,
was on GMOs and the Ethical Perspective. The two key
speakers were priests presenting opposing ethical views.
Professor P. Gonzalo Miranda, Chairman of the Department of
Bioethics, Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum spoke in
favor of GMOs. He began by pointing out that some people
believe genetic manipulation is, per se, an unethical act;
that nature should not be changed in any way. This attitude
assumes that nature is good, per se, and that all forms of
manipulation are evil.


12. However, Sgreccia continued, this religious view of
nature is not the "anthropomorphic vision" of man and nature
of the Catholic Church. By returning to scripture we can
see that man is the apex of the continuum of creation; that
God created man and made him the custodian of creation, to
use it for his own good and the glory of God. "The
victories of humanity are a glory to God." Therefore, the
works of man are not necessarily bad, or evil. We are
"expected" by God to use our abilities to manipulate
creation for our own ends and the glory of God. The Second
Vatican Council, he cited, said, "Man is right to feel
superior to other living beings". Quoting Pope John Paul
II, "Science and technology are wonderful products of human
creativity, which is a gift from God." Therefore, there is
nothing intrinsically wrong about biotechnology. One must
take a case-by-case view of the technology's use, weighing
the circumstances, intentions and consequences of each
event, in the light of its impact on humanity. It is
incumbent upon scientists to work for the good of humanity
and their work should enhance the "solidarity of man."


13. Father Miranda went on to provide recommendations.
First, risk assessment and management are necessary, but
every human activity entails risk. We need to be alert to
the benefits, he said. We cannot forecast all contingencies
so we must be careful and prudent. Benefits and risks have
to be calculated on a case-by-case basis. Second, justice
and equality have to be considered. The Church recognizes
the function of profit -- it is not the work of the devil,
but is necessary for progress. Vatican II recognized this.
However, the fundamental objective of development is not
just profit but the service it can offer mankind.
Therefore, the needs and rights of farmers and others
affected need to be considered. Monopolies, for example,
need to be avoided, and all citizens need to be aware and
have knowledge. Thus labeling can be useful. Finally,
Miranda cautioned participants not to fall into the trap of
believing that GMOs can solve all problems. Other measures
are needed to solve the problems of poor countries and
people. We cannot block the diffusion of technology because
this would exhibit a lack of human solidarity.


14. The anti-GMO case within the Church was made by Father
Roland Lesseps, Senior Scientist, Kasisi Agricultural
Training Centre, Lusaka, Zambia. (Lessups and Father Peter
Henriot were the American Jesuits who contributed to
creating an anti-biotech climate in Zambia that resulted in
the government's rejection of U.S. food aid last fall. End
Comment.) Lesseps' presentation began with a very different
anthropological vision of man and nature: one in which all
God's creatures have intrinsic value, in and of themselves,
and that nature is not just useful to us humans but valued
and loved in itself, for itself, by God. Making reference
to numerous religious sources, Lesseps built his case for
the "sacredness of nature" and the need to "respect nature."
The most salient quotation was from Pope John Paul II's
World Peace Day message in 1990, which states, in part: "We
can only look with deep concern at the enormous
possibilities of biological research. We are not yet in a
position to assess the biological disturbance that could
result from indiscriminate genetic manipulation and from the
unscrupulous development of new forms of plant and animal
life,." From this ethical underpinning, Lesseps proceeded to
construct an argument against GMOs that mirrored exactly the
standard positions of the secular community similarly
opposed.


15. At the end of these presentations there was not much
time remaining for an exchange of opinions. The only
exchange between the two priest presenters was initiated by
Father Miranda who pointed out the crucial adjectives
"indiscriminate" and "unscrupulous" in the Pope's statement
as important qualifiers that all parties would agree with
and that supported the need to look at events on a case-by-
case basis.



16. The study seminar was closed by Cardinal Renato
Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace. He said that the Church had been in the unfamiliar
role as student for the last two days listening carefully to
the information provided. However, it cannot be expected
that she will remain in this role for long, but rather, will
in the near future issue a more detailed position on GMOs.
The Church will not teach biology to biologists, but will
instruct from its anthropological perspective as to whether
actions are correct or otherwise.

--------------
Comment
--------------


17. Although no time frame was indicated, Cardinal Martino
left the clear impression that the Holy See intended to
issue a formal position on GMOs --sooner rather than later.
From the tenor of the discussion, the final presentations,
and comments made during the proceedings, FODAG and Embassy
Vatican believe the church will likely stake out a generally
positive position towards biotechnology that will emphasize
the great potential benefits for mankind. Given the Holy
See's desire to issue an ethical assessment, we expect the
position could be an elaboration of the paper presented by
Father Miranda that will stress the view that man is
expected to manipulate creation for the benefit of mankind.


18. Media coverage of the Vatican event has been generally
positive, highlighting the potential benefits of biotech
foods to developing countries and quoting Vatican officials
as cautioning against demonizing biotechnology and its
applications. Although some biotech opponents have publicly
criticized what they claimed was a stacking of the deck with
biotech proponents, given the preponderance of favorable
biotech views in the scientific community, the Vatican
certainly went out of its way to maintain openness and
balance to opponents. This effort to maintain balance
strengthened the credibility of the study session, and now
paves the way for a more forward-leaning Vatican statement.
The Vatican's willingness to wade into this controversial
subject in the face of considerable opposition within the
Church, reflects the success of Embassy Vatican's efforts to
frame this issue from a moral and ethical perspective over
the past year and a half.

Hall


NNNN
2003ROME05205 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED