MOVING THE VATICAN ON BIOTECHNOLOGY: EMBASSY

UNCLAS VATICAN 003810

SIPDIS


C O R R E C T E D C O P Y. ADDED MISSING PARA MARKING
TO PARA 16 & FIXED E.O. LINE (ADDED QUOTATION MARKS)

SENSITIVE

DEPT. FOR EB; EB/TPP/ABT/BTT; EUR/WE
HHS FOR FDA DIRECTOR CRAWFORD
DEPT. PLS PASS MERCOSUR COLLECTIVE
DEPT. PLS PASS AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PHUM TBIO EAGR EAID SOCI VT
SUBJECT: MOVING THE VATICAN ON BIOTECHNOLOGY: EMBASSY
CONFERENCE EMPHASIZES MORAL IMPERATIVE

Ref. 03 Rome 5205

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (U) To build support within the Holy See and overcome
opposition within the Catholic Church, Embassy brought
together scientists, ethicists, and developing nation
farmers to address a one-day conference on the moral
imperative of using biotechnology to feed the world's
hungry. Scientists from the United States and Italy
presented the facts about GMOs, their applications and
their benefits, debunking myths perpetrated by anti-biotech
activists. The FDA's Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford
addressed biotech food safety concerns, while a prominent
bioethicist and moral theologian explained the Catholic
doctrinal position on the use of technology for the common
good of mankind. Farmers from the Philippines and South
Africa extolled the economic, social and health benefits
they personally had experienced using GM seeds. Church-
based anti-GMO activists who attended the conference left
unconverted, but with many of their arguments undercut by
the weight of scientific evidence and the compelling
testimony of the developing country farmers. Media
coverage of the event was extensive in Italy and
internationally. Post appreciates the support and
assistance provided for the conference from EB, HHS, the
Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan and FODAG Rome.
End summary.

--------------
Moral Imperative to Feed the Hungry
--------------

2.(U) Ambassador Nicholson opened the September 24
Conference, Feeding the Hungry, The Moral Imperative of
Biotechnology," by observing that the suffering of so many
in today's world of plenty was an affront to human dignity
that presented a clear moral challenge. To meet this
challenge the world needed to take advantage of
biotechnology's tremendous potential. Criticizing Catholic
activists who asserted during Zambia's food crisis in 2002
that it would be better to let people starve than allow
them to eat biotech food, the Ambassador urged the Holy See
to use its moral voice on food safety and the potential of
biotechnology by issuing a stronger statement on the issue.
The Ambassador concluded that the worst form of cultural
imperialism was to deny others opportunities to take
advantage of new technologies to enhance the human
condition. The Ambassador also cited Pope John Paul II,
who has stated that the correct application of technology
could be a "precious instrument" in resolving the problems
of hunger and disease.

--------------
Dimensions of Hunger: How Biotech Can Help
--------------


3. (U) Tuskegee University Professor C.S. Prakash, whose
research has quadrupled the nutritional content of the
sweet potato, set the stage for the discussion by sketching
the dimensions of the challenge facing the world in feeding
our growing population. While acknowledging progress as a
result of the Green Revolution, particularly in India and
China, Prakash noted that 800 million people go to be
hungry every night and that half of sub Saharan Africans
are undernourished -- a figure that will increase to 70
percent by 2010. Only by increasing agricultural
productivity, he emphasized, could food needs be met. And,
one of the best tools to achieve this, was biotechnology,
which could reduce loses from pests, develop greater
resistance to drought and disease, reduce pesticide use,
and enhance nutritional qualities of foods.

--------------
Confronting Opponents with Sound Science
--------------


4.(SBU) To make the scientific case for biotechnology,
Embassy highlighted two of the best scientific minds on
biotechnology, Dr. Peter Raven, a member of the Pontifical
Science Academy and Director of the Missouri Botanical
Gardens, and Dr. C.S. Prakash. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez
Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences,
and the co-host of the conference highlighted scientific
evidence on the safety of GMOs and reiterated the Holy
See's call for agricultural technology to be shared with
the developing world. At the same time, he asserted that
intellectual property rights had to be applied in a way
that permitted wider access to the benefits of scientific
knowledge in the developing world. Sanchez refuted
accusations from within the Catholic Church that the
Pontifical Academy had been bought by American biotech
interests, pointing out that his academy was specifically
tasked by the Pope with the study and debate of scientific
issues in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom. The study
and debate of GMOs, he insisted, was totally consistent
with the Academy's mission. (Comment: Sanchez, a key
Embassy ally in promoting a positive science-based
assessment of GMOs from within the Holy See, received more
than 100 e-mails from Catholics around the world
complaining about the Academy's involvement in the
conference. End Comment).


5. (U) Dr. Peter Raven launched the scientific assault with
a series of broadsides at the specious arguments emanating
from Church circles opposed to GMOs and biotechnology. He
labeled as "escapist" and "absurd" the argument that food
insecurity was essentially a distribution issue because
there was enough food for all in the world. According to
Raven, there is not enough food being produced, and modern
technologies to boost yield are essential for peoples'
survival. Raven also dismissed safety arguments against
GMOS, noting that there is not one recorded case of harm or
illness resulting from consumption of GMOs. He pointed
out, for the benefit of the European purists intent on
keeping the continent GMO free, that virtually all of the
beer and cheese consumed around the world used
biogenetically engineered materials.


6. (U) Turning his fire toward biodiversity, Raven argued
that nothing is more destructive of biodiversity than
widespread, low-yield, traditional methods of agriculture,
and that it is highly misleading to romanticize them.
Raven said the development of GM crops, with precisely
determined characteristics that allow them to survive in
the diverse places they are grown promises not only major
increases in productivity but a greatly enhanced ability to
preserve biodiversity. Raven successfully linked GMOs to
decreased pesticide use and the consequent positive effects
on human beings and the environment, noting that millions
of birds and animals would live and the health of hundreds
of thousands of people would be enhanced by a reduction in
pesticide use made possible by biotechnology. If half the
maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and cotton raised in
Europe were genetically modified to resist pests, there
would be a reduction of more than 14 million kilograms of
pesticide, 20 million liters of diesel, and the prevention
of 73,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide going into the
atmosphere, he said.

7.(U) Dr. C.S. Prakash reinforced Raven's arguments with
concrete examples of current research and GMO use. GM
success stories included higher yields, reduced use of
pesticides, nutritional increases and greater product
freshness. Prakash extolled the benefits of GM products
that were resilient to environmental problems - drought,
flooding, salt water, and pests -- which had great impact
t
on food productivity worldwide. The future total
elimination of natural toxins, particularly in potatoes, as
a result of GM was another powerful example of how GMOs
could contribute to food safety. To advocates of the
health advantages of non-GM products, Prakash pointed out
that GM foods are being developed with less bad fats,


allergens and sugars. Prakash urged that GM seeds and
other agricultural technology be made affordable and
accessible to farmers in developing nations. He said he
advocates GMO use because it will bring sustainability,
purchasing power and wealth. Prakash lamented that the
promise of GMOs has not yet been fully realized because of
a lack of funding, constraints imposed by national
governments, poor public perception of GMO benefits,
activist opposition and negative media portrayals. Prakash
said negative media on GMOs had a direct impact on funding
and research, limiting what should be a powerful instrument
for the developing world.

-------------- --------------
Real-Life Experience of Developing Country Farmers
-------------- --------------

8.(U) Farmers from South Africa and the Philippines
provided first-hand testimony on the benefits of GMOs for
the developing world. Clearly and simply they recounted
their stories of transition from traditional crops to GMOs,
and how their lives and those of their families and
communities had been enhanced. Edwin Paraluman from the
Philippines explained that population increases in his
country demanded the use of biotechnology. His corn for
animal feed was affected by the Asian corn warm, and
spraying with toxic pesticides had previously been the only
method to control the pest. The first planting of BT corn
resulted in immediate yield increases, with his profits up
30 percent. As a result, he was able to buy a refrigerator
and a motorcycle for his family. Paraluman said
misinformation campaigns by anti-biotechnology activists in
the Philippines impacted in GMO use. The campaigns were
based on ignorance and prejudices among the general
population, he said, including the rumor that a person
would become homosexual through contact with GM products.
Despite this, the use of GM seed by farmers was spreading
as they saw first hand the economic and health benefits of
using the product.

9.(U) South African farmer Sabina Khoza said using BT
maize had resulted not only in increased income but more
free time due to decreased weeding and spraying. She had
also been able to use her profits to diversify her crops.
GMOs had also reduced local unemployment in her village as
new workers were hired to bring in an increased harvest and
manage a diversified production. Khoza lauded the
cooperation in South Africa between officials from the
Ministry of Agriculture, educational institutes and farmers
through which theory and practice met to ensure sound and
safe procedures for the introduction of GM seed use. Khoza
said some 75 percent of the maize now used in her area was
GM, with 25 percent of the crop coming from traditional
maize so that farmers in South Africa could still choose
what they wanted to grow. For Khoza and her farming
colleagues, most of them women, GM maize meant greater
safety because of less handling of hazardous chemicals.
She said health was a major issue in South Africa,
especially for women farmers who were responsible for the
care of their families. From her own experience, Khoza
said GM seed produced a high quality product, and its use
was wiping out pests and disease. She acknowledged concern
about the cost of GM seed, but added that the investment
thus far had proven worthwhile. She also expressed concern
about the potential impact that the use of GM seeds could
have on international trade with countries that still
banned GMOs, but said she was more concerned with food
security issues for her local community. Khoza closed by
saying public awareness would be the key factor in whether
or not GMOs are more widely accepted.

10.(U) Dr. Carl Pray, from Rutgers University's
Department of Agricultural Food and Resource Economics, who
has done extensive research on the impact of biotechnology
on farmers in developing countries, insisted that anti-GMO
rhetoric was way ahead of the evidence. Pray presented his
study of BT cotton use in China, where it makes up 60
percent of the national harvest. China's farmers chose BT


cotton because it makes economic sense, he explained. They
use fewer pesticides - from 60 kilos per hectare to eleven
-- and reduce spraying from twenty times per year to five.
Although yield increased a modest 8 percent, costs were
down due to reduced labor and pesticide costs, thus
increasing profit. Pray said Chinese farmers who had
suffered nausea and vomiting after frequent pesticide
spraying also appreciated benefits to their health of using
cotton. On the question of "who benefits" from GMO use,
Pray said China's farmers garnered 80 to 85 percent of the
benefit while consumers received none due to government
price controls. Seed companies received a small benefit
from GM seed sales. Pesticide producers were the big
losers.

--------------
The Theological Case for Biotechnology
--------------

11.(U) Respected bioethicist Father Gonzalo Miranda of
the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum told conference
delegates that it was not the church's role to be a
scientific arbitrator -- that was for scientists. What the
Church could offer, according to Miranda, was an ethical
reflection on how man's capacity to discover should be used
to intervene in creation. Noting that God gave man "power"
over nature, he said that this power is supposed to be used
for the good for humankind - in particular to combat
hunger and illness. While any intervention in nature had
d
consequences, science had to determine and assess risks.
The potential risks and benefits of biotechnology,
therefore, should be ethically assessed on a case-by-case
basis with no blanket condemnation or approval. In the
framework of justice and solidarity, Miranda made clear
that if GMOs represent a true opportunity in favor of
development in poor countries, it "would be a moral duty of
solidarity to support their diffusion." He pointedly
added, "to block GMOs a priori because of purely
ideological positions or hidden economic interests would be
a grave injustice." To critics of the role of
multinational companies, Miranda affirmed the Church's
doctrine that profit and multinationals are not wrong or
evil per se, but that both should be at the service of
humankind. Miranda concluded that justice demands that the
public be fully informed about new technologies and that
the developing world share in development and research to
be able to find their own solutions to hunger and disease.

--------------
Biotech Regulation: Ensuring Safety
--------------

12.(U) Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford provided a
detailed presentation of U.S. regulatory mechanisms for GM
foods and other products, describing the extensive testing
process biotech foods undergo to ensure food safety. To
date bioengineered foods have proven to be no different
from their conventional counterparts, he explained.
Crawford said the FDA and other relevant government
agencies have drawn on their regulatory experience to help
build regulatory frameworks in other countries. He said
workshops have been conducted in the Russian Federation,
Mexico and for several South East Asian nations. Crawford
expressed his appreciation to the Pontifical Academy for
the Sciences and to the Vatican for their openness to GMOs
and recognition of their potential to enhance the ability
to feed a hungry world.

--------------
Debunking Biotech Myths
--------------


13.(U) Keying off an open discussion with all panelists,
Italian biology professor from the University of Milan,
Piero Morandini, carefully debunked some of the classic


myths and objections surrounding the use of GMOs.
Responding to the charge that agricultural biotechnology
was "against nature," Morandini said that science does not
support the notion that natural things are inherently
superior to man made ones. Such a position, according to
Morandini, was essentially pagan where nature was
considered a kind of goddess and environmentalism a form of
religion in which man is the worst enemy of nature. Dr.
Morandini said arguments suggesting wealthy nations have no
need of GMOs to increase or improve production are
nullified by the facts. Even Italy, where a majority of
the population is opposed to GMOs, imports GM maize and
soybeans for animal feed, as well as meat fed with GMO
crops. Taking on the charge that GMO's would diminish
biodiversity, Morandini pointed out that preserving
biodiversity is important, but doesn't address the fact
that countries using indigenous varieties suffer
malnutrition and hunger. Since conventional crops and
technologies have failed to provide food security,
developing countries needed to be able to explore new crops
that can end the cycle of bare subsistence. Morandini
concluded that much of the confusion about biotechnology
within Church circles is born of ignorance and fueled by
ideology.

--------------
Media Coverage
--------------

14.(U) The Conference, the third in an Embassy series of
public outreach events that have previously addressed
terrorism and human trafficking, garnered extensive,
generally positive media coverage in U.S.-and Italian
Catholic and non-Catholic media. Avvenire, a national
Italian Catholic daily, headlined its in-depth article:
"GMO: No Condemnation; Evaluate Case by Case." The
article led with a quote from Fr. Miranda, underlining the
often misrepresented and misunderstood position of the
Vatican on GMOs, emphasizing that "the Church does not
consider genetically modified organisms as 'intrinsically
immoral.'" Coverage also included a pre-conference live
interview with the Ambassador and Dr. Prakash on Vatican
Radio, which boasts an international audience of tens of
thousands of listeners in 40 languages, particularly on the
African continent. Vatican-watcher John Allen acknowledged
Post's persistent efforts to engage the Vatican on the
issue of biotechnology. Pre-conference Q and A session
with the Ambassador in the internationally distributed
Zenit News Service, Catholic News Service and the Voice of
America, highlighted that "despite existing prejudice and
concerns about biotechnology in many countries, Vatican
officials believe genetic engineering is a modern science
tool that should be explored to address hunger and
malnutrition in the world."

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

15.(SBU) This conference, the fourth outreach event on
biotechnology hosted by Post over the past two years, was
targeted at keeping pressure on the Holy See to adopt a
stronger public position toward biotechnology and to ensure
its diffusion among bishops in the developing world whose
voice often plays a critical role in shaping public
perceptions of whether a biotech food is safe to eat and
moral to grow. It also sought to respond to the Holy See's
own call at the conclusion of its November 2003 conference
on biotechnology (reftel) for further study and debate on
the merits. The fact that the Pontifical Science Academy
was willing to co-sponsor a pro-biotech event with the
United States was a major step forward, and reflects the
growing recognition within the Holy See of biotechnology's
potential. This openness was reinforced last week by Prime
Minister equivalent Cardinal Angelo Sodano's positive
reference to the benefits of technology at the recent UN
Food Summit in New York. Biotech opponents, who had
inundated the Pontifical Science Academy with angry e-mails


prior to the conference, offered only muted criticism at
the Conference in the face of the powerful scientific and
personal evidence presented at the conference.


16. (U) Embassy greatly appreciates the support for this
conference provided by EB, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Acton Institute.

Nicholson


NOTE: NOT PASSED TO ABOVE ADDRESSEE(S)
NNNN

2004VATICA03810 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED